TheNewsGuru

Tag: Supreme Court

  • Supreme Court postpones Sierra Leone’s presidential run-off

    In a last-minute decision, Sierra Leone’s Supreme Court on Monday postponed a hotly contested presidential election run-off by four days.

    The run-off vote is now scheduled for March 31 instead of March 27, the court ruled after receiving a request for a postponement from the National Electoral Commission (NEC).

    The NEC requested the delay after a high court lifted an interim injunction placed on the vote on Monday afternoon, only leaving a few hours for the commission to prepare for the run-off.

    The high court had temporarily paused the vote due to fraud claims by a member of the ruling All People’s Congress (APC).

    The run-off will see opposition candidate Julius Bio face off against ruling party candidate Samura Kamara, after no candidate reached 55 per cent of the votes needed to win in the first round on March 7.

     

  • Ondo Gov, Akeredolu loses at Supreme Court, to pay N500,000 fine

    The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed an appeal by Ondo State Governor, Oluwarotimi Akeredolu for lacking in merit.

    Akeredolu had, by the appeal, challenged a July 2017 judgment of the Court of Appeal, Abuja, which upheld an order by Justice Nnamdi Dimgba of Federal High Court in Abuja, granting permission to Olusegun Abraham to serve Akeredolu through substituted means, court documents in relation to the suit he (Abraham) filed.

    Abraham’s suit is challenging the outcome of the primary of the All Progressives Congress (APC), which produced Akeredolu as the party’s candidate for the last governorship election in Ondo State.

    In a unanimous judgment on the appeal marked: SC/698/2017, a five-man panel of the Supreme Court held that Akeredolu’s appeal was without merit.

    Akeredolu has however described the court’s decision as a none-issue.

    Justice John Okoro, in the lead judgment, but read by Justice Paul Galinje, upheld the earlier decision of the Court of Appeal and awarded N500,000 cost against Akeredolu, in favour of Abraham.

    Justice Galinje said: “the appellant went to the Federal High Court to challenge serve of originating summons and other process on him. His challenge was dismissed. At the appeal to the Court of Appeal, his appeal was also dismissed.

    ”He further appealed to this place and filed six grounds of appeal and formulated four issues for determination of the appeal. My leaned brother considered all the issues submitted for the determination of this appeal and came to the conclusion that the appeal lacks merit and ought to be dismissed.

    ”The appeal is accordingly dismissed. Cost of N500,000 is awarded against the appellant and against the 1st respondent. “Justices Ibrahim Tanko, Olukayode Ariwoola, Kumai Akaahs and and Galinje, who were also members of the panel, agreed with the lead judgment.

    In a reaction to the judgment, Akeredolu, in a statement by his Chief Press Secretary, Segun Ajiboye, assured the people of the state that there is no cause for alarm over the supreme.

    “At best, the ruling only succeeded in correcting Abraham to serve Akeredolu through substituted means in relation to the suit he (Abraham) filed.

    Governor Akeredolu, therefore, wants to state equivocally that there is no cause for alarm over the ruling delivered by the Supreme Court,” Ajiboye said.

    The governor asks the peace-loving people to dismiss the ruling, adding that it is nothing to worry about and advised them to continue to support his administration in its determination to develop the state.

  • Jibrin’s suspension: S’Court orders lawyer to pay N2m for filing frivolous appeal

    The Supreme Court has fined a lawyer, Mr. Tolu Babaleye, N2m for filing a frivolous appeal to delay the hearing of a suit filed by a former Chairman of the House of Representatives’ Committee on Appropriation, Abdulmumin Jibrin,‎ to challenge his suspension for 180 legislative days since September 28, 2016.

    A five-man panel of the apex court headed by the Chief Justice of Nigeria, Justice Walter Onnoghen, during the proceedings that held on Wednesday, delivered a unanimous bench judgment shortly after parties to the appeal adopted their papers in the course of the proceedings.

    Describing the appeal as “vexatious and frivolous”, Justice Ejembi Eko, who delivered the lead judgment of the court, ordered Babaleye to pay each of the four respondents to the appeal, including Jibrin, the sum of N500,000.

    Apart from Jibrin, the other respondents ordered to be paid N500,000 each were the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Mr. Yakubu Dogara; the House of Representatives and the Clerk of the House of Representatives.

    The court ordered that the total fine amounting to N2m must be personally paid by the lawyer.

    Babaleye had filed the appeal on behalf of two members of the House of Representatives – Nicholas Ossai and Orker-Jev Yisa – asking to be allowed to be joined as defendants to Jibrin’s case which is still pending before the Federal High Court.

    Ossai was the Chairman of House Committee on Ethics, which recommended Jibrin’s suspension and Yisa was the House member who moved the motion for the suspension of the Kano lawmaker.

    Justice John Tsoho of the Federal High Court, Abuja, where Jibrin’s substantive suit is still pending, had on April 13, 2017, dismissed the lawmakers’ joinder application, describing them as “strangers” with no interest to protect in the proceedings.

    The lawmakers had, through their lawyer, Babaleye, appealed to the Court of Appeal in Abuja, which had also in its judgment delivered on December 17, 2017, dismissed their case.

    The two legislators had further appealed to the Supreme Court.

    At the hearing of the appeal before the Supreme Court on Wednesday, the appellants’ lawyer, Babaleye, faced a torrent of questions from the members of the CJN-led panel, expressing their concerns about the frivolity of the appeal.

    In response, Babaleye maintained that the appeal was necessary and filed to enable the appellants “to clear their names”.

  • Bakassi : S’Court set aside judgment compelling INEC to conduct election in 10 new wards

    The Supreme Court on Friday set aside the decision of the Court of Appeal, Calabar which compelled INEC to conduct elections in the 10 wards of Ikang, Bakassi Local Government Area of Cross River State.

    Delivering the judgment, Justice John Okoro held that it was the constitutional responsibility of the electoral body to create electoral wards and not the state.

    The Cross River State House of Assembly had adjusted the old three Ikang wards in Akpabuyo Local Government Area to 10 in line with Law No. 7 of Cross River State 2007.

    The judge, also held that the state had the right to make such law, adding that the “Law No.7’’ was not illegal.

    He said the law did not create any constituencies, but adjusted boundaries of Akpabuyo to accommodate Bakassi.

    Okoro therefore, said albeit the two lower courts were wrong to have ordered INEC to conduct elections in areas it did not delineate for that purpose.

    “The decision of the Court of Appeal, Calabar is set aside but the commission should do the needful by formally delineating the 10 wards in Ikang for election purposes.

    “The people of Bakassi have suffered enough and they should be made to have sense of belonging’’, he said.

    Dissatisfied with the decisions of the lower court, INEC had approached the apex court praying it to set aside the two judgments.

    The other appellant in the matter was the Resident Electoral Commissioner, Cross River State.

    The appellants by this appeal registered their grievances with the decision of the Court of Appeal, Calabar delivered on Dec.6, 2013 dismissing their appeal against the judgment of Justice A.F.A Ademola of the Federal High Court, Calabar.

    The respondents are Muri Asuquo, Chief Antigha Cobham, Chief Bassey Etim, and Chief Effiong Iman.

    The respondents had initiated the case on behalf of the people of Ikang Clan, Esighi Clan, Antigha Ene Eyo Clan and Eduhu Idim Ikot Eyi Clan of Bakassi Local Government Area.

    Based on the notice and grounds of appeal filed as aforementioned, the Appellants formulated four issues for formulation.

    They had urged the apex court to ascertain whether or not the law No.7, 2007 which the lower court upheld in its judgment, was enforceable, lifeless, in-abeyance and or inchoate.

    The appellant further sought the court’s explanation whether or not the lower court was right when it entertained in suit No. FHC/C/41/2012 for the second time the same issues it had conclusively resolved.

    They also asked the court to decide on whether or not the creation and delineation and adjustment of the boundaries of the tow local government area in No.7 for the 2012 governorship election was legal.

    The appellants further asked to know whether or not the judgment of the lower court which ordered the appellants to conduct the 2012 governorship election in the 10 wards was not illegal.

  • Alleged 400m fraud: Metuh has case to answer – Supreme Court

    Alleged 400m fraud: Metuh has case to answer – Supreme Court

    The Supreme Court ruled on Friday that a former National Publicity Secretary of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), Olisa Metuh, has a case to answer in the money laundering charges.

    Metuh was arraigned by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) for laundering N400m and $2m respectively.

    A five-man panel of the Supreme Court led by Justice Dattijo Mohammed while ruling on appeals filed by Metuh and his company, Destra Investments Limited, unanimously affirmed the May 25, 2016, judgment of the Court of Appeal in Abuja.

    The Court of Appeal had dismissed the appeals for being incompetent and upheld the March 9, 2016, ruling of the Federal High Court in Abuja which dismissed the defendants’ no-case submission.

    Justice Ejembi Eko, who read the lead judgment on behalf of Justice Mohammed, held that as much as the Court of Appeal lacks the jurisdiction to hear the appeals, the Supreme Court too could not entertain the appeal arising from the incompetent appeals before the lower court.

  • Supreme Court set to abolish manual communication for E-mail in July – CJN

    The Supreme Court on Friday said that it would phase out manual means of filing and serving court papers by July 2018.

    It also said communication between judges, court staff and lawyers, as well as between lawyers, would only be through electronic means.

    The Chief Justice of Nigeria and Chairman of the National Judicial Council, Justice Walter Onnoghen, while announcing the new policy in Abuja on Friday, said a legal e-mail platform had been put in place to replace the manual system.

    The CJN said this during the formal presentation of the newly “retrofitted court and the legal e-mail system.”

    The event held in the Retrofitted Court in the Supreme Court complex, Abuja.

    According to the CJN, all lawyers must acquire the “legal e-mail” to be able to prosecute cases before the apex court as from July 16, 2018.

    Justice Onnoghen said lawyers who had acquired the legal e-mail could immediately start using it for communicating electronically with the court and with one another.

    He said the legal e-mail would become the mandatory means of communication, filing and service of court processes at the Supreme Court at the end of the deadline.

    He, therefore, directed that processes filed before the Supreme Court must bear the lawyer’s legal e-mail address.

    He said, “I would like to implore all judges and lawyers to join us on this quest for excellence by subscribing to and acquiring the legal e-mail, as a manual form of communication with the Nigerian courts will soon be phased out.

    “Henceforth, lawyers who have acquired the legal e-mail can now communicate electronically with courts and with each other. However, by July 16, 2018, it becomes mandatory.

    “The Supreme Court will only serve processes by electronic means (legal mail) on all matters. Hence, all new filings as from July 16, 2018, must bear the counsel’s legal e-mail address.”

    According to Justice Onnoghen, the new legal e-mail is a major component of the policy being pursued through the Judicial Information Technology Policy Committee inaugurated in 2012 by a former CJN, Justice Dahiru Musdapher, who died recently.

    He said the policy was put in place to enhance justice delivery in the Nigerian court.

    He said legal e-mail would ensure “seamless exchange of information electronically within the judicial ecosystem” and would be replicated in all Nigerian courts.

    He also said that in the desire to automate the Nigerian judiciary, the Nigerian Case Management System had been developed and deployed.

    The Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Mr. Abubakar Malami (SAN), and the President of the Nigerian Bar Association, Mr. Abubakar Mahmud (SAN), hailed the new policy and urged lawyers to key into it to enhance the nation’s justice delivery system.

    Malami, who was represented by one of his aides, Mr. Abiodun Aikomo, said the legal e-mail project “will open the door to a silent, but long overdue revolution in the practice of law in Nigeria.”

  • N11bn fraud: Ex-Governor Shema, three others must face trial – Supreme Court

    The Supreme Court on Friday affirmed the judgment of Court of Appeal, Kaduna, which authorised the trial of ex-governor of Katsina State, Ibrahim Shema, on allegation of N11 billion fraud.

    Mr. Shema, who was governor of the state between 2007 and 2011 on the platform of the People’s Democratic Party (PDP), is been tried alongside three others, namely Sani Makana, Lawal Safana and Ibrahim Dankaba.

    Delivering ruling on the interlocutory application, a full panel of the court led by Justice Sidi Bage, held that the Constitution empowered the EFCC to prosecute suspects of graft allegations at federal and state levels.

    Mr. Bage also held that evidence placed before the Supreme Court had shown that the respondent (EFCC), front-loaded necessary documents along with the charge sheet to the applicants to prepare their defence.

    “The action of the ex-governor and the three other applicants cannot tempt the court to over-rule itself.

    “The apex court took time to explain the powers of the EFCC to work within both federal laws and penal codes of states in ex-governors’ Joshua Dariye and Jolly Nyame similar applications.

    “The full strength of the court met over this application and we have resolved not to over-rule ourselves on application that is clearly meritorious

    “In the circumstance, the application is dismissed on the grounds that the EFCC has the powers to prosecute anybody found to have committed fraud in any part of the country.

    “The panel therefore affirms the judgment of the Appeal Court, Kaduna, delivered on September 13, 2017, which mandated the applicants to submit themselves to trial at the High Court of Katsina’’, he said.

    EFCC had arraigned Shema and the three others before Justice Maikaita Bako of the state high court for allegedly defrauding the state during his eight years as governor.

    The applicants had approached the Supreme Court asking it to set aside the decisions of the lower courts.

    They had challenged the jurisdiction of the trial court and the acclaimed lack of powers of the EFCC to prosecute them for alleged offences committed in the state.

    The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN), recalls that the trial court had fixed February 13 for parties to report to it on the outcome of the Supreme Court decision.

     

    (NAN)

  • PDP faults Obasanjo’s claims on procurement of judgement from S’Court

    PDP faults Obasanjo’s claims on procurement of judgement from S’Court

    …says we are Nigeria’s only true egalitarian platform

    The Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) says it represents the true coalition of Nigerians from across the country.

    It stated this in a statement by its National Publicity Secretary, Mr Kola Ologbondiyan, on Wednesday in Abuja.

    It said that its experience in governance and successful rebound from challenges had provided it an edge over every other existing or intended political platforms in the country.

    It also faulted claims by former President Olusegun Obasanjo in his letter to President Muhammadu Buhari, that PDP procure judgment from the Supreme Court, describing it as “unsubstantiated claims.’’

    “Obasanjo’s claim on procurement of judgment amounts to an ill-intended attempt to impugn the integrity of the Supreme Court, particularly when such a claim is false and not predicated on any empirical proof.’’

    The party said that the ruling of the Supreme Court, which ended the protracted internal feud within its fold reinforced Nigerians confidence in it.

    “Rather than detract, the judgment reinforced the confidence of Nigerians in the PDP as the platform that truly embodies the resilience of a genuine democratic process in the face of daunting challenges.

    “Even the worst critics of PDP concede that the judgment of the Supreme Court, was unprejudiced, uninfluenced and determined completely on merit, for which it was applauded in Nigeria and across the world.’’

    It added that its December, 2017 elective National Convention was conducted in a transparent, free and fair manner, and where nobody was “kingmaker”.

    “This denotes the democratic credential of the repositioned PDP to deliver credible primaries that would yield a presidential candidate Nigerians desire.’’

    The party said that there was an extensive dissimilarity between it and the All Progressives Congress (APC).

    “Unlike the APC, where very few individuals from within a circle control the instrument of power and governance, the PDP remains that egalitarian platform.

    “PDP remains that egalitarian platform where all Nigerians are free to express themselves, politically engage and freely aspire for any office without regard to divisive considerations.’’

     

  • Alleged N338m fraud: S’Court orders re-trial of former Lagos Speaker, Ikuforiji

    Alleged N338m fraud: S’Court orders re-trial of former Lagos Speaker, Ikuforiji

    A five-man panel of the Supreme Court has ordered the re-trial of a former Speaker of the Lagos State House of Assembly, Adeyemi Ikuforiji, who was charged with an alleged N338 million fraud.

    The court gave the ruling on Friday. It was to rule on whether Mr. Ikuforiji should be tried anew as ordered by the Court of Appeal.

    The panel headed by Justice Mary Peter-Odili unanimously ruled that the case be re-assigned to another judge of the Federal High Court instead of Justice Ibrahim Buba, who had earlier absolved Mr. Ikuforiji of the charge.

    Justice Buba had, in a ruling in September 2014, held that the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC, failed to establish a case against Mr. Ikuforiji and his former aide, Oyebode Atoyebi.

    The judge had also dismissed the 56-count charge raised by the EFCC against Mr. Ikuforiji.

    Dissatisfied with Justice Buba’s ruling, the EFCC appealed to the Court of Appeal, which upturned the ruling.

    The Appeal Court also ordered both Mr. Ikuforiji and Mr. Atoyebi to be tried by another judge.

    However, in 2016, the accused persons approached the Supreme Court, where they filed separate appeals against the decision of the Court of Appeal.

  • How money recovered from allegedly corrupt Supreme Court judge reduced – Witness

    The sixth prosecution witness in the ongoing trial of Supreme Court judge, Sylvester Ngwuta, on Thursday attributed a N12,000 shortfall in money tendered as evidence in court to human error.

    When the matter was called, the witness informed the court that when the money was recovered in Abakaliki, it was counted manually and therefore the only way he could explain the shortfall was human error.

    “The money was counted manually and for human beings to manually count over N4.3 million, human error can be expected,” the witness said.

    It would be recalled that the trial judge, John Tsoho, had on Wednesday directed that the over N4 million tendered as exhibit by Ndakpoto be counted before it was admitted in evidence.

    Mr. Tsoho gave the directive after Mr. Ndakpoto tendered the money as evidence, and Kanu Agabi (SAN), counsel to Mr. Ngwuta noted the need for the money to be counted in order to confirm the figure stated by the witness.

    Mr. Tsoho further directed that the money be counted with the assistance of the accounts department of the court, in the presence of the prosecution, the defence and the registrar of the court.

    He agreed that it was necessary to count the money in order to confirm that the amount tendered corresponded with the amount stated by the witness.

    Mr. Ndakpoto, while giving evidence, told the court that the money was recovered in a house in Abakaliki following information received from one Linus Chukwuebuka.

    “Linus Chukwuebuka made revelations that necessitated our search of the house where we found documents relating to property and a bag containing the money.

    “Linus told me that Justice Ngwuta called him and asked him to go to his bedroom and remove the documents and the bag containing the money and hide them because if the `SSS’ should lay eyes on it, he will be in trouble.

    “He also told us that Ngwuta asked him to move some cars, a BMW, a Wrangler jeep and a Hummer jeep, and that he further asked him to disappear afterwards so that he will not be arrested,” the witness said.

    The judge adjourned the matter until Jan. 12 for cross examination of the witness by the defence team.

    It would be recalled that in May 2017, the State Security Service and the court disagreed over the amount of money tendered as exhibit by another prosecution witness, John Utazi.

    Mr. The money in question was said to have been recovered from the residence of Ngwuta by the SSS during a search on the residence on October 7, 2016.

    Justice Tsoho had said that he was informed that the Naira denomination in the court’s custody was different from the amount the witness called while giving evidence.

    “I am just receiving the information that there was a problem with the exhibit because the amount announced by the prosecution in respect to exhibit 11h should have been N35,358,000 million but when counted, it was N35,335,840 million.

    “So it doesn’t agree with what the witness said as there appears to be a shortfall.”

    The witness had however insisted that he counted the money meticulously and that he stood by the figure he had given.

     

    (NAN)