DOCSLIB.ORG

2019) Lpelr-47401(Sc

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
2019) Lpelr-47401(Sc NCC v. MOTOPHONE LTD & ANOR CITATION: (2019) LPELR-47401(SC) In the Supreme Court of Nigeria ON FRIDAY, 12TH APRIL, 2019 Suit No: SC.6/2010 Before Their Lordships: IBRAHIM TANKO MUHAMMAD Justice of the Supreme Court KUDIRAT MOTONMORI OLATOKUNBO Justice of the Supreme Court KEKERE-EKUN AMIRU SANUSI Justice of the Supreme Court PAUL ADAMU GALUMJE Justice of the Supreme Court UWANI MUSA ABBA AJI Justice of the Supreme Court Between NIGERIAN COMMUNICATION COMMISSION - Appellant(s) And 1. MOTOPHONE(2019) LTD LPELR-47401(SC) - Respondent(s) 2. MINISTER OF COMMUNICATIONS RATIO DECIDENDI 1. APPEAL - FORMULATION OF ISSUE(S) FOR DETERMINATION: Purpose of formulation of issues for determination and attitude of Court to splitting of issues into sub-issues "On the preliminary point raised by the learned Counsel to the 1st Respondent on the competence of issue 1 (ii) & (iii) formulated by the Appellant, that by Order 6 of the Supreme Court rules, there is no provision for "sub issues" and that issue 1 (ii) & (iii) be struck out by relying on HUSSEIN V. MOHAMMED (2015) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1445) AT 126, I must not overlook. Issue 1 apparently appears split or to carry sub issues with it instead of being one whole issue for the determination of the appeal. What the Appellant did has the effect to obscure and obviate the fundamental and core issue in this appeal especially on issue 1. This is most undesirable and condemnable! The main purpose of formulation of issues for determination is to enable the parties to narrow the issue or issues in controversy in the grounds of appeal filed in the interest of accuracy, clarity and brevity. Counsel must learn to assist the Court rather than muzzle and puzzle things up for the Court. I may however forgive this for the sake of justice since the said split or sub issue can give some meaning and understanding to a reasonable mind without misleading or occasioning miscarriage of justice to the 1st Respondent. Thus, 'A party who complains about the formulation of issue or issues by the Court must say what injustice has been done to him by such formulation. In the absence of such evidence, an appellate Court cannot reverse the decision of the lower Court. The formulation of the issue by the Court must result in miscarriage of justice for this Court to intervene in favour of the appellant." See Per TOBI, J.S.C in NWANA V. FCDA & ORS (2004) LPELR-2102(SC). I cannot therefore give place to the preliminary objection raised by the learned Counsel to the 1st Respondent."Per ABBA AJI, J.S.C. (Pp. 9-11, Paras. F-B) - read in context 2. APPEAL - INTERFERENCE WITH AWARD OF DAMAGES: Circumstances in which an appellate court will interfere with award of damages made by a trial Court "...an appellate Court will not entertain an appeal against award of general damages unless it is shown that such award was manifestly so excessive as to amount to an erroneous estimate having regard to the evidence. See NIGERIAN BOTTLING CO. LTD. V. NGONADI (1985) 1 NWLR 739 AT 741 RATIOS 9 & 10."Per ABBA AJI, J.S.C. (P. 30, Paras. E-F) - read in context 3. APPEAL - FORMULATION OF ISSUE(S) FOR DETERMINATION:Options available to a respondent as regards formulation of issues; effect of issues formulated by a respondent outside the grounds of appeal of the appellant "It is trite that a Respondent/Cross Respondent has these limitedly available options when framing issues for determination; to adopt the issues formulated by the Appellant; give the Appellant's issues a slant in favour of his side of the case; or formulate his own issue. However, the issue so formulated must be derived from the Grounds of Appeal raised by the Appellant. The cross Appellant is therefore, the owner of the Grounds of Appeal and the cross Respondent has no business conceding the said Grounds of Appeal to the cross Appellant. See Per AUGIE, J.S.C in PATRICK V. STATE (2018) LPELR-43862(SC). Furthermore, for the Respondent in an appeal to validly raise any issue not related to or arising from the grounds of appeal filed by the Appellant,(2019) such Respondent must LPELR-47401(SC) file a cross-appeal or file a Respondent's Notice. See MOMODU V. MOMOH (1991) 1 N.W.L.R. (PT. 169) 608 and OSSAI V. WAKWAH (2006) 4 N.W.L.R. (PT. 969) 208. This has unfortunately not been done by the cross Respondent in this cross appeal. The issue raised by the cross Respondent outside the Ground of the cross Appeal is incompetent and must be struck out."Per ABBA AJI, J.S.C. (Pp. 42-43, Paras. F-F) - read in context 4. APPEAL - INTERFERENCE WITH AWARD OF DAMAGES: What an appellant must show in order to succeed in an appeal or cross appeal against the award of damages "For a cross appeal against the award of damages to succeed, the cross Appellant must show that the trial judge proceeded upon some wrong principle of law or that the award was an entirely erroneous estimate. See Per UWAIS, J.S.C in WILLIAMS V. DAILY TIMES OF (NIG) LTD (1990) LPELR-3487(SC). I have not seen wrong principles or error on the basis for the award given by the trial Court." Per ABBA AJI, J.S.C. (P. 46, Paras. D-F) - read in context 5. COURT - JURISDICTION: Whether a legislation which provides for a condition precedent before a Court will have jurisdiction to hear a matter can have a retrospective effect on the jurisdiction of the Court "It is argued by the Appellant that the lower Court of Appeal lacked the jurisdiction to proceed with and determine the appeal, the action being fundamentally defective, incompetent and premature based on the allegation that the conditions precedent to activate action against the Appellant were not followed by the 1st Respondent. I must quickly state that once a legislation provides for a condition precedent before a Court has jurisdiction, that condition must be fulfilled subject to recognized exceptions. The suit would be incompetent if the Court does not ensure that there is compliance with the condition precedent. See Per RHODES-VIVOUR, J.S.C in UGWUANYI V. NICON INSURANCE PLC (2013) LPELR-20092(SC). By the Originating Motion at page 3-5 of the record, it is deducible that the cause of action arose in 2000 vide the letter MC/TD/2000/VOL 1 dated 3rd October 2000. The Act applicable to the contractual relationship between the Appellant and the 1st Respondent was the 1992 NCC Act. The Sections 85, 86 and 87 of the Nigerian Communications Act, 2003, providing for the preconditions and procedural steps to be taken by the 1st Respondent heavily clinched on now by the Appellant came in 3 years after the cause of action arose. It is therefore jurisprudentially wrong for a substantive legislation or law to have a retrospective effect. Per OPUTA, J.S.C in AFOLABI Per ABBA AJI, J.S.C. (Pp. 19-23, Paras. D-A) - read in context (2019) LPELR-47401(SC) 6. COURT - DUTY OF COURT: Duty of Court to consider issues placed before it; instance where failure to do so will not amount to denial of fair hearing "It is firmly settled that it is the duty of all Courts to consider and resolve all issues placed before it except in the clearest cases. The issue 4 complained of by the Appellant for non-consideration by the lower Court of Appeal was for "Whether or not the Appellant was guilty of any breach of wrong doing in regard to licenses issued to the 1st Respondent." See page 136 of the record. It is glaring that this issue was considered separately from page 185-188 by the lower Court. In fact, at pages 187-188 of the record, the lower Court held from the 3rd paragraph to the next page thus: Learned Counsel further submitted for the 1st Respondent that the basis of the issuance of the licence was the payment of the stipulated fees amongst other conditions and it is only logical that a refund of the fees amounts to either a refusal to issue the licence or a withdrawal/revocation This issue has been answered in answers made in Issues 2, 3 & 5 and that is positively and against the Appellant, as even the Appellant can answer the question that they were in breach... In the instant appeal, the issue 4 complained of by the Appellant will amount to superfluity and over flogging the matter since the lower Court has discharged its statutory duty. Additionally, Per ALOMA MARIAM MUKHTAR, J.S.C in OPUIYO & ORS V. OMONIWARI (Deceased) & ANOR (2007) LPELR-2751(SC) had cause to observe thus: The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that where the Court of Appeal fails to consider the issues or any issue raised on appeal before it, the Supreme Court can consider it. He placed reliance on the case of Ukwunnenyi & Anor v. The State (1989) 4 NWLR (pt.114) 131, (1989) 7 SCNJ 34. I agree that this Court has the power to consider the issues as per the above authority. It is in this light that I will tow same line with the trial Court and the lower Court that the question in that issue would have been "yes", to work against the Appellant. Obviously, the Appellant was in breach to have revoked and confiscated the license of the 1st Respondent instead of renewing same.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Chukwudi Ugwanyi V Federal Republic of Nigeria
    In the Supreme Court of Nigeria On Friday, the 23rd day of March 2012 Before their Lordships Walter Samuel Nkanu Onnoghen ...... Justice Supreme Court Ibrahim Tanko Muhammad ...... Justice Supreme Court Olufunlola Oyelola Adekeye ...... Justice Supreme Court Bode Rhodes-Vivour ...... Justice Supreme Court Mary Ukaego Perter-Odili ...... Justice Supreme Court SC.190/2010 Between Chukwudi Ugwanyi ...... Appellant And Federal Republic of Nigeria ...... Respondent Judgment of the Court Delivered by Bode RhodesVivour. JSC The appellant was charged and arraigned on a one count charge which reads: That you Chukwudi Ugwanyi (M) 50 years of age, of No 4 Arowojobe Street, Onigbongbo Maryland, Lagos on or about the 17th November 2000 at Bodinga along Sokoto-Yauri Road, Sokoto within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court, and without lawful authority had in your possession 26 kilograms of Indian Hemp otherwise known as cannabis sativa, a narcotic drug similar to Cocaine and Heroin and thereby committed an offence contrary to and punishable under section 10H of the National Drug Law Enforcement Agency (Amendment) Act No 15 of 1992. Hobon, J of the Federal High Court, Sokoto Division presided. The appellant entered a not guilty plea. Two witnesses testified for the prosecution. Both of them are officers from the National Drug Law Enforcement Agency (NDLEA). The prosecution tendered in court the following items, which were admitted as Exhibits: A. Certificate of testing analysis B. Packing of substance Forms C. Request for scientific aid D1 - D12 Twelve wrapped Sellotaped bundles recovered from the appellant. E. Drug analysis Report dated 4/1/2005 E2. Transparent evidence pouch with substances feature and descriptions of the accused and the case.
    [Show full text]
  • Bernard Ojeifo Longe V First Bank of Nigeria
    In The Supreme Court of Nigeria On Friday, the 5th day of March 2010 Before Their Lordships Dahiru Musdapher ...... Justice, Supreme Court George Adesola Oguntade ...... Justice, Supreme Court Francis Fedode Tabai ...... Justice, Supreme Court Ibrahim Tanko Muhammad ...... Justice, Supreme Court Olufunlola Oyelola Adekeye ...... Justice, Supreme Court S.C. 116/2007 Between Bernard Ojeifo Longe ....... Appellant And First Bank of Nigeria Plc ....... Respondent Judgement of the Court Delivered by George Adesola Oguntade. J.S.C. The appellant was the plaintiff before the Federal High Court Lagos where on 4-07-02, he issued a Writ of Summons against the respondent as the defendant claiming the following reliefs: (i) A declaration that the Defendant's Board of Directors cannot lawfully hold any meeting of the said Board without giving notice thereof to the Plaintiff and accordingly all decisions taken at any such meeting is unlawful, invalid, null and void and incapable of having any legal consequence; (ii) A declaration that in particular the decision of the Defendant's Board of Directors held on the 13th of June 2002 to revoke the Plaintiff s appointment as Managing Director/Chief Executive is wrongful, unlawful, invalid, null and void and incapable of having any legal consequence; (iii) A declaration that any purported implementation of the said decision made by the Board on the 13th of June 2002 (including any appointment to the office held by the Plaintiff in the Defendant Company) is ineffective, unlawful and null and void; (iv) An order of injunction restraining the said Defendants from giving effect or continuing to give effect to any of the decisions of the Board mentioned in claims (i) and (ii) hereof without first complying with the mandatory procedural requirements stipulated in Section 266(3) of C.A.M.A.
    [Show full text]
  • Law COMPANION Is Restricted by Territory, That Law Cannot Be Applied Outside That Territory
    JOSEPH MORAH APPELLANT AND FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA RESPONDENT SC.160/2015 SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA IBRAHIM TANKO MUHAMMAD JSC OLUKAYODE ARIWOOLA JSC KUMAI BAYANG AKA'AHS JSC (Delivered Lead Judgment) JOHN INYANG OKORO JSC PAUL ADAMULAW GALINJE COMPANION JSC AT ABUJA, ON FRIDAY, 23RD MARCH, 2018 COURT- Offence with multiple elements- Where the elements occur in two or more states- Court with jurisdiction to try. CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE- Offence of conspiracy- Acts or omission of a co- conspirator- When will be ascribed to other conspirators Rationale for. CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE- Offence of conspiracy- What constitutes- Gist of- What prosecution must prove to secure a conviction. CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE- Offence of obtaining by false pretence- What constitutes. 1 CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE- Offence with multiple elements- Where the elements occur in two or more states- Court with jurisdiction to try. CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE- Offence with multiple elements- Where the elements took place in two or more states- Entry into a state where one of the elements occur- What constitutes. CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE- Section 124(2) (b) of the Criminal Code- Purport of. EVIDENCE- Offence of conspiracy- Acts or omission of a co- conspirator- When will be ascribed to other conspirators Rationale for. EVIDENCE- Offence of conspiracy- What constitutes- Gist of- What prosecution must prove to secure a conviction. EVIDENCE- Offence of obtaining by false pretence- What constitutes. JURISDICTION- Offence with multiple elements- Where the elements occur in two or more states-LAW Court with jurisdiction COMPANION to try. STATUTES- Section 124(2) (b) of the Criminal Code- Purport of.
    [Show full text]
  • In the Panel of the National Judicial Council Holden at Abuja
    IN THE PANEL OF THE NATIONAL JUDICIAL COUNCIL HOLDEN AT ABUJA IN THE PETITIONS OF ALLEGED FINANCIAL IMPROPRIETY, INFIDELITY TO THE CONSTITUION AND OTHER ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL CRIMES RELATED LAWS BY THE ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL CRIMES COMMISSION AGAINST HON. JUSTICE WALTER SAMUEL NKANU ONNOGHEN, GCON WRITTEN ADDRESS SUBMITTED BY THE COUNSEL TO THE RESPONDENT Respondent’s Counsel R.A. Lawal-Rabana, SAN Okon Nkanu Efut, SAN J.U.K. Igwe, SAN George Ibrahim,Esq Victoria Agi, Esq Orji Ude Ekumankama, Esq Opeyemi Origunloye, Esq Temitayo Fiki, Esq For Service On Counsel For the Petitioner Economic and Financial Crimes Commission Rotimi Oyedepo, Esq [email protected] 1 IN THE PANEL OF THE NATIONAL JUDICIAL COUNCIL HOLDEN AT ABUJA IN THE PETITIONS OF ALLEGED FINANCIAL IMPROPRIETY, INFIDELITY TO THE CONSTITUION AND OTHER ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL CRIMES RELATED LAWS BY THE ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL CRIMES COMMISSION AGAINST HON. JUSTICE WALTER SAMUEL NKANU ONNOGHEN, GCON 1.0 Introduction 1.1 The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission sent two (2) petitions to the Chairman, National Judicial Council through the office of the Chief Justice of Nigeria against The Hon. Justice Walter Samuel Nkanu Onnoghen, GCON, Chief Justice of Nigeria. 1.2 The first petition is dated 4th February, 2019 vide reference EFCC/EC/GC/31/2253 while the second petition is dated 5th March 2019 vide reference EFCC/EC/CJN/05/59. 1.3 The petition was forwarded to the Hon. Chief Justice of Nigeria by the National Judicial Council vide a memo dated 11th February 2019 reference NJC/F1/SC.3/1/570 following the 17th Emergency meeting of the Council held the same 11th February 2019.
    [Show full text]
  • DR. OLUBUKOLA ABUBAKAR SARAKI V. FEDERAL REPUBLIC of NIGERIA SUPREME COURT of NIGERIA SC.852/2015 MAHMUD MOHAMMED. C.J.N. (Presi
    DR. OLUBUKOLA ABUBAKAR SARAKI V. FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA SC.852/2015 MAHMUD MOHAMMED. C.J.N. (Presided) WALTER SAMUEL NKAKU ONNOGHEN. J.S.C. (Read the Leading Judgment) IBRAHIM TANKO MUHAMMAD, J.S.C. NWAL1 SYLVESTER NGWUTA. J.S.C. KUDIRAT MOTONMORI OLATOKUNBO KEKERE-EKUN. J.S.C. CHIMA CENTUS NWEZE, J.S.C. AM1RU SANUSI, J.S.C. FRIDAY. 5TH FEBRUARY 2016 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - Code of conduct for public officers -Purpose of. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - Code of Conduct Tribunal - Jurisdiction of - Nature of. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - Code of Conduct Tribunal - Powers of -Whether can compel appearance of person before it by bench warrant. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - Code of Conduct Tribunal - Quorum of - Whether provided for in 1999 Constitution (as amended) or Code of Conduct Bureau and Tribunal Act - Sections 318(4), 1999 Constitution and 28 Interpretation Act considered. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - Code of Conduct Tribunal - Sanctions of - Whether purely administrative. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - Commission or Tribunal of Inquiry -Quorum of - What is - Section 28, Interpretation Act. APPEAL - Brief of argument - Reply brief - Purpose of. APPEAL - Concurrent findings of fact by lower courts - Attitude of Supreme Court thereto - When will interfere therewith - When will not. CODE OF CONDUCT - Code of conduct for public officers -Purpose of. CODE OF CONDUCT - Code of Conduct Tribunal - Existence of - Source of. CODE OF CONDUCT - Code of Conduct Tribunal - Jurisdiction of - Nature of. CODE OF CONDUCT - Code of Conduct Tribunal - Powers of-Whether can compel appearance of person before it by bench warrant. CODE OF CONDUCT- Code of Conduct Tribunal - Proceedings of - Rules governing - Application of Administration of Criminal Justice Act.
    [Show full text]
  • Nigerian Banking Law Reports
    NIGERIAN BANKING LAW REPORTS [2004 – 2006] VOLUME 13 PART III To be cited as: [2004 – 2006] 13 N.B.L.R. PART III Nigeria Deposit Insurance Corporation Nigeria Deposit Insurance Corporation Plot 447/448 Airport Road Central Business District P.M.B. 284, Garki Abuja, Federal Capital Territory [FCT] Nigeria Tel: +23495237715–6, +523696740–44 Members of the LexisNexis Group worldwide South Africa LexisNexis (Pty) Ltd DURBAN 215 Peter Mokaba Road (North Ridge Road), Morningside, Durban, 4001 JOHANNESBURG Building No. 9, Harrowdene Office Park, 124 Western Service Road, Woodmead, 2191 CAPE TOWN Office Floor 2, North Lobby, Boulevard Place, Heron Close, Century City, 7441 www.lexisnexis.co.za Australia LexisNexis, CHATSWOOD, New South Wales Austria LexisNexis Verlag ARD Orac, VIENNA Benelux LexisNexis Benelux, AMSTERDAM Canada LexisNexis Canada, MARKHAM, Ontario China LexisNexis, BEIJING France LexisNexis, PARIS Germany LexisNexis Germany, MÜNSTER Hong Kong LexisNexis, HONG KONG India LexisNexis, NEW DELHI Italy Giuffrè Editore, MILAN Japan LexisNexis, TOKYO Korea LexisNexis, SEOUL Malaysia LexisNexis, KUALA LUMPUR New Zealand LexisNexis, WELLINGTON Poland LexisNexis Poland, WARSAW Singapore LexisNexis, SINGAPORE United Kingdom LexisNexis, LONDON USA LexisNexis, DAYTON, Ohio © 2013 Nigeria Deposit Insurance Corporation, published by LexisNexis (Pty) Ltd under licence ISSN 1595–1030 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, including electronic, mechanical, photocopying and recording, without the written permission of the copyright holder, application for which should be addressed to the publisher. Such written permission must also be obtained before any part of this publication is stored in a retrieval system of any nature.
    [Show full text]
  • Edwin Ezigbo V the State
    In the Supreme Court of Nigeria On Friday, the 1st day of June 2012 Before their Lordships Walter Samuel Nkanu Onnoghen ...... Justice, Supreme Court Ibrahim Tanko Muhammad ...... Justice, Supreme Court Suleiman Galadima ...... Justice, Supreme Court Nwali Sylvester Ngwuta ...... Justice, Supreme Court Olukayode Ariwoola ...... Justice, Supreme Court SC.35/2010 Between Edwin Ezeigbo ...... Appellant And The State ...... Respondent Judgment of the Court Delivered by Walter Samuel Nkanu Onnoghen. JSC his is an appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal Holden at Abuja in appeal no. CA/A/51 C/2007 delivered on the 8th day of January, 2008 in which the court dismissed the appeal of the appellant against the decision of the High Court of Niger State of Nigeria, Holden at Suleja in Charge No NSHC/SD/1C/2004 delivered on the 16th day of December 2005 in which the court convicted the appellant of the offence of rape and sentenced him accordingly. The instant appeal is therefore a further appeal against the decision of the said High Court. The facts of the case include the following:- On the 8th day of April, 2004 at about 4 p.m, PW.1 saw her two daughters Ogechi and Chioma ages 8 and 6 years respectively in the company of the appellant. The daughters were holding ice cream. When PW.1 called the two girls appellant changed direction and continued to walk away with the girls who also ignored their mother, PW.1. PW.1 became apprehensive and ran after appellant and the girls. On seeing PW.1 running towards them, appellant abandoned the girls and took to his heels.
    [Show full text]
  • 2018) Lpelr-45708(Sc
    SOCIO-POLITICAL RESEARCH DEVELOPMENT v. MINISTRY OF FCT & ORS CITATION: (2018) LPELR-45708(SC) In the Supreme Court of Nigeria ON FRIDAY, 28TH SEPTEMBER, 2018 Suit No: SC.203/2008 Before Their Lordships: IBRAHIM TANKO MUHAMMAD Justice of the Supreme Court OLUKAYODE ARIWOOLA Justice of the Supreme Court KUMAI BAYANG AKA'AHS Justice of the Supreme Court AMINA ADAMU AUGIE Justice of the Supreme Court SIDI DAUDA BAGE Justice of the Supreme Court Between SOCIO-POLITICAL RESEARCH DEVELOPMENT - Appellant(s) (2018) LPELR-45708(SC)And 1. MINISTRY OF FEDERAL CAPITAL TERRITORY 2. HAJIYA MAIMUNA BELLO AJANAH - Respondent(s) 3. HAJIA HADIZA ABDULLAHI RATIO DECIDENDI 1. ACTION - LEGAL PERSONALITY: Position of the law as regards juristic or legal personality "Now, appellant's issue four which tallies with respondents' issue No.1, is a challenge on the legal personality of the appellant, that it is not a juristic personality. But, who is the appellant in this appeal? Paragraph 1 of the appellant/plaintiff's statement of claim at the Court of trial, stated that the plaintiff is a socio-political research and development company registered in Nigeria. The respondents' statement of defence, in denial, stated that the defendants were not aware of the plaintiff's status and that the plaintiff was not a juristic person in law. The trial Court treated the matter in a Ruling delivered on 9/12/99 holding that the plaintiff/appellant was an outfit registered in Nigeria: "All I now know about the plaintiff is that it is a Socio-Political Research and Development outfit registered in Nigeria as per paragraph 1 of the Statement of Claim.
    [Show full text]
  • Download At: AFRICAN HUMAN RIGHTS LAW JOURNAL
    Editors International editorial advisory board Frans Viljoen Jean Allain Editor-in-chief; Professor of Human Rights Law Professor of Public International Law, Monash and Director, Centre for Human Rights, University, Australia University of Pretoria, South Africa Fareda Banda Solomon Ebobrah Professor in the Laws of Africa, School of Extraordinary Lecturer, Centre for Human Oriental and African Studies, University of Rights, University of Pretoria; Professor of Law, London Niger Delta University, Nigeria Gina Bekker Magnus Killander Teaching Associate, Monash University, Professor, Centre for Human Rights, University of Australia Pretoria Victor Dankwa Tshepo Madlingozi Professor of Law, University of Ghana Senior Lecturer, Faculty of Law, University of Pretoria John Dugard Member, International Law Commission; Annelize Nienaber Extraordinary professor, Centre for Human Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Pretoria Rights, University of Pretoria Christof Heyns Publication manager Chair of the international editorial advisory Isabeau de Meyer board; Director: Institute for International and Comparative Law in Africa, University of Pretoria Assisted by Edward Kwakwa Foluso Adegalu Legal Counsel, World Intellectual Property Doctoral candidate, Centre for Human Rights, Organisation, Geneva, Switzerland University of Pretoria Sandy Liebenberg Rudo Chigudu HF Oppenheimer Chair in Human Rights Law, Doctoral candidate, Centre for Human Rights, University of Stellenbosch, South Africa University of Pretoria Tiyanjana Maluwa Rutendo Chinamona
    [Show full text]
  • List of Justices of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal
    LIST OF JUSTICES JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT THE HON. JUSTICE DAHIRU MUSDAPHER CHIEF JUSTICE OF NIGERIA THE HON. JUSTICE ALOMA MARIAM MUKHTAR JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT THE HON. JUSTICE MAHMUD MOHAMMED JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT THE HON. JUSTICE WALTER SAMUEL NKANU ONNOGHEN JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT THE HON JUSTICE FRANCIS FEDODE TABAI JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT THE HON. JUSTICE IBRAHIM TANKO MUHAMMAD JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT THE HON. JUSTICE CHRISTOPHER MITCHELL CHUKWUMA – ENEH JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT HON. JUSTICE M.S. MUNTAKA – COOMASSIE JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT THE HON. JUSTICE JOHN AFOLABI FABIYI JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT THE HON. JUSTICE OLUFUNLOLA OYELOLA ADEKEYE JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT THE HON. JUSTICE SULEIMAN GALADIMA JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT THE HON. JUSTICE BODE RHODES – VIVOUR JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT THE HON. JUSTICE NWALI SYLVESTER NGWUTA JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT THE HON. JUSTICE MARY UKAEGO PETER- ODILI JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT THE HON JUSTICE OLUKAYODE ARIWOOLA JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT LIST OF JUSTICES OF THE COURT OF APPEAL HON. JUSTICE DALHATU ADAMU ACTING PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF APPEAL LAGOS DIVISION HON. JUSTICE KUMAI BAYANG AKAAHS JUSTICE OF THE COURT OF APPEAL HON. JUSTICE HELEN MORONIKEJI OGUNWUMIJU JUSTICE OF COURT OF APPEAL HON. JUSTICE IBRAHIM MOHD MUSA SAULAWA JUSTICE OF THE COURT OF APPEAL HON. JUSTICE JOHN INYANG OKORO JUSTICE OF THE COURT OF APPEAL HON. JUSTICE SIDI DAUDA BAGE JUSTICE OF THE COURT OF APPEAL HON. JUSTICE NOSAKHARE PEMU JUSTICE OF THE COURT OF APPEAL HON. JUSTICE MOHAMMED AMBI-USI DANJUMA JUSTICE OF THE COURT OF APPEAL KADUNA DIVISION HON.
    [Show full text]
  • PDP V Peterside (2016) NWLR (Pt 1512)
    PEOPLES DEMOCRATIC PARTY (PDP) V. 1. HON (DR.) DAKUKU ADOL PETERSIDE 2. ALL PROGRESSIVE CONGRESS (APC) 3. INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION (INEC) 4. WIKE EZENWO NYESOM SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA SC. 1001/2015 MAHMUD MOHAMMED, C.J.N. (Presided) IBRAHIM TANKO MUHAMMAD, J.S.C. NWALI SYLVESTER NGWUTA, J.S.C. KUMAI BAYANG AKA'AHS, J.S.C. KUDIRAT MOTONMORI OLATOKUNBO KEKERE-EKUN. .J.S.C. (Read the Leading Judgment) JOHN INYANG OKORO, .J.S.C AMIRU SANUSI, FRIDAY, 12TH FEBRUARY 2016 ACTION - Parties to an action - Parties having same interest in suit - Where dissatisfied with decision of court and desirous of appealing against same - Need for to file joint appeal. APPEAL - Appellants - Appellants having same interest in suit - Need for to file joint appeal. APPEAL - Parties to an appeal - Parties having same interest in suit- Where dissatisfied with decision of court and desirous of appealing against same - Need for to file joint appeal. JUDICIAL PRECEDENT - Supreme Court - Previous decision of - When Supreme Court will follow and apply in subsequent case. PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Appeal - Appellants - Appellants having same interest in suit - Need for to file joint appeal. PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Parties to an action - Parties having same interest in suit - Where dissatisfied with decision of court and desirous of appealing against same - Need for to file joint appeal. STARE DECISIS - Previous decision of Supreme Court - When Supreme Court will follow and apply in subsequent case. Issue: Whether the appellant's appeal ought to be allowed having regard to the decision of the Supreme Court in Nyesom v. Peterside (2016) 7 NWLR (Pt.
    [Show full text]
  • Supreme Court of Nigeria Sc. 153/2013 Action
    [2014] 1 NWLR Oke v. Mimiko (No.1) 225 1. CHIEF ALEX OLUSOLA ORE 2. PEOPLES DEMOCRATIC PARTY (PDP) V. 1. DR. RAHMAN OLUSEGUN MIMIKO 2. LABOUR PARTY (LP) 3. INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION (INEC) 4. RESIDENT ELECTORAL COMMISSIONER, ONDO STATE 5. THE STATE RETURNING OFFICER FOR THE ONDO STATE GOVERNORSHIP ELECTION SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA SC. 153/2013 IBRAHIM TANKO MUHAMMAD. J.S.C. (Presided and Read the Leading - Judgment) JOHN AFOLABI FABIYI, J.S.C. SULEIMAN GALADIMA, J.S.C. NWALI SYLVESTER NGWUTA. J.S.C. MUSA DATTIJO MUHAMMAD, J.S.C. CLARA BATA OGUNBIYL J.S.C. STANLEY SHENKO ALAGOA, J.S.C. ACTION - Academic or hypothetical suit - What amounts to - Attitude of court thereto. APPEAL - Concurrent finding of fact by trial court and Court of Appeal - Attitude of Supreme Court thereto - When will interfere therewith - When will not. APPEAL- Exercise of discretion by two lower courts - Attitude of Supreme court thereto. 226 Nigerian Weekly Law Reports 13 January 2014 APPEAL- Extension of lime - Application therefor - Exercise of lower court’s discretion to grant or refuse - Attitude of appellate court thereto. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW- Delivery of judgment - Delivery of judgment by election tribunal-Time-limit therefor - Section 285(6), 1999 Constitution. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW- Election petition - Filing of Time limit therefor - Section 285(5), 1999 Constitution. COURT- Academic or hypothetical suit - What amounts to - Attitude of court thereto. ELECTION PETITION - Amendment of election petition – Whether can be made after expiration of period within which to present election petition - Paragraph 14(2)(a) and (c). First Schedule, Electoral Act. 2010.
    [Show full text]