Connect with us

Judiciary

Court rejects objection in N1bn Pinnacle vs ICPC suit, imposes N100,000 fine

Published

on


Justice Taiwo Taiwo of the Federal High Court, Abuja, on Friday dismissed a preliminary objection by Zenith Bank challenging a suit filed by Pinnacle Communications Ltd (PCL) against the Independent Corrupt Practices and other related offences Commission (ICPC), and the commercial bank.

Pinnacle Communications had in July 2018, dragged ICPC and Zenith bank to court for unlawfully withholding its money domicile in the bank without a valid court order, and consequently, is claiming N1billion damages against the agency.

Delivering ruling on the objection of Zenith Bank (2nd defendant), the court said the application lacked merit, was frivolous and incompetent.

Justice Taiwo held that Okey Ojukwu, counsel to the commercial bank ought not to have filed the preliminary objection in the first place because the December 14, 2018, judgement of Justice Nnamdi Dimgba, which voided and nullified the freezing of account of Pinnacle Communications domicile in the bank was explicit and unambiguous.

Ojukwu had in the preliminary objection of the bank claimed that the action it took by withholding the account of PCL was a “lawful act”.

Justice Taiwo said the objection by the bank was filed out of misconception and only amounted to a waste of the court’s precious time.

“The application of the second defendant is an invitation to this court to sit on appeal on the decision of my learned brother Dimgba J. of Dec.14, 2018.

“This court, with all due respect to the second defendant shall not fall into that error.
“The application is not only incompetent and an abuse of court process, it is one brought without carefully and painstakingly understanding the ruling my learned brother gave on the interlocutory injunction”, Justice Taiwo held.
Consequently, the Judge reasoned that “This type of application should be discouraged by the court and counsel, and to discourage counsel from filing such frivolous application, the court must come down hard on counsel who filed such applications either on their own or on the instruction of their client”.
“I therefore find no merit in this application and it is accordingly dismissed having held that the application is frivolous, time wasting, incompetent and an abuse of court process.

“I shall fail in my duty as a judge if I do not award cost. Therefore, I award N100,000 against the second defendant in favour of the plaintiff” Justice Taiwo stated.
By the suit marked FHC/ABJ/CS/779/18, Pinnacle Communications is seeking “A declaration that the act of the 1st defendant (ICPC) in ordering the 3rd defendant to place a “post-no-debit” restrictions on the plaintiff’s account with the 2nd defendant without any court order and or any valid court order is ultra vires, unlawful, injurious, unconstitutional and a breach of the plaintiff’s right to its movable property.
The plaintiff is also seeking, “A declaration that the act of the 2nd defendant in placing a “post-no-debit” restrictions on the plaintiffs account number 1012875804 with the 3rd defendant without any court order and or any valid order is unlawful, injurious, unconstitutional and a breach of the plaintiff’s right to its movable property.
More so, PCL wants, “A declaration that the failure of the 2nd defendant to right the wrongful act of the first defendant in ordering a “post no debit” restrictions on the plaintiff’s account with the 2nd defendant without a valid court order is unlawful, illegal, unconstitutional and a breach of the plaintiff’s right to its movable property.
Furthermore, the plaintiff is seeking “An order of perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from placing any restrictions on plaintiff’s account with the 2nd defendant without a valid and competent court order.
“An order of perpetual injunction restraining the 1st defendant from placing any form of restrictions on the plaintiff’s account with the 2nd defendant and or any other bank or financial institution in which the plaintiff maintains any account and or dealings, without a court order and or valid and competent court order.
“An order for the payment of the one billion naira as general, exemplary and punitive damages against the defendant for their unlawful and illegal act.

Continue Reading

Judiciary

NJC sets up panel to investigate allegations against Osun Chief Judge

Published

on

By

 

 

The National Judicial Council, under the Chairmanship of the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Kudirat Kekere-Ekun, has reportedly constituted a committee to investigate multiple allegations against Osun State Chief Judge, Hon. Justice Adepele Ojo.

In its 107th meeting on November 13 and 14, 2024, the NJC sanctioned five judicial officers for misconduct and recommended the formation of a committee to probe the various complaints against Justice Ojo.

At the heart of the allegations are claims that Justice Ojo has repeatedly failed to adhere to legal and ethical standards expected of her position.

A petition submitted to the NJC by the Concerned Citizens of Nigeria, Osun State Chapter, further outlined the gravity of the allegations.

The petition claims that Justice Ojo’s actions have violated both the spirit and the letter of the law. The group accuses her of gross abuse of office, breaches of professional ethics, and a blatant disregard for the rule of law, which they argue has led to a loss of public trust in the judiciary.

It would be recalled that Osun State Governor Ademola Adeleke had suspended Justice Ojo following a resolution by the State House of Assembly.

The resolution cited serious allegations of misconduct, abuse of power, corruption, and failure to uphold the rule of law.

Some of the allegations against Justice Ojo include, taking personal vengeance against judiciary staff, she dismissed several staff members who had shown courage in reporting her actions, creating a climate of fear and retaliation within the judiciary.


46
/ 100


Continue Reading

Judiciary

Oil Magnate, Akinduro Sues EFCC, Demands N5b For Unlawfully Declaring Him Wanted

Published

on

By

Dr. Henry Mobolaji Akinduro, Chairman/CEO of Global Signature Hotel and Total Grace Group Limited, has filed a N5 billion lawsuit against the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) for allegedly declaring him wanted unlawfully.
In the suit filed on Wednesday at the Federal High Court, Lagos, Akinduro submitted that the EFCC declared him wanted without any form of judicial intervention, recourse to constitutional safeguards or order of court.
The EFCC on Friday, 11 October, 2024 at about 7.20pm on its official twitter handle, also known as ‘X’ declared the oil magnate ‘Wanted’. The businessman is praying the court to order the EFCC to remove his name from the wanted list published on the commission’s official website or any other related platform including Twitter (X).
Akinduro is seeking N5 billion as “general damages”.
On Monday 14 October, 2024, the businessman, via his counsel, Olalekan Ojo SAN had petitioned the Executive Chairman of the EFCC over the unconstitutional violation of his fundamental human rights to personal liberty and human dignity by the publication of his name on the list of wanted persons on the EFCC’s website.
Ojo averred in the petition that at all times preceding the said publication there was no order of any Court of competent jurisdiction authorizing the said publication and no charge had been preferred against our Client before any Court of law.
According to Akinduro’s Lawyer, the Commission had allegedly made the said illegal or unlawful publication declaring him wanted upon the prompting or instigation of one Mr. Femi Olushakin who had earlier written a petition against the oil magnate in respect of a N240 million contractual dispute between them —Messrs Olushakin and Akinduro.
He affirmed that disputes had arisen from the investment agreement entered into between the two men leading to Olushakin petitioning EFCC.
“Our Client (Akinduro) was invited by the Commission on 4th June, 2024 and he immediately responded via letter dated 5th June, 2024 notifying the Commission of his unavailability due to medical reasons. In the said letter, it was stated therein that our Client was out of the Country receiving medical attention. He subsequently provided assurances that he would be present at the Commission as soon as he was medically cleared to travel. It is pertinent at this juncture to chronicle the genesis of the subject matter which led to the declaration of our Client Wanted by the Commission,” Ojo stated.
The Counsel disclosed that there was a business transaction between Akinduro and Olushakin which was backed by a viable collateral which included Akinduro’s Global Signature Hotel worth N500 million, three (3) 60-Seater Yutong buses valued at over N240 million and a Toyota 4Runner SUV.
Ojo claimed that Olushakin has sold the three 60-Seater Yutong buses and currently drives around the city in the Toyota 4Runner SUV which were used as collateral by Akinduro.
“It is clear from the above that this is a purely civil business transaction with no element of criminality embedded in it. Mr. Femi Olushakin maliciously petitioned the Commission after selling the 60-Seater Yutong buses and currently using the Toyota 4runner SUV for his personal use,” he stated.
The Senior Lawyer added that despite Akinduro’s medical condition overseas, he has maintained close communication with the Commission.
“Our Client regularly sends his Legal Officer to the Commission, affirming his willingness and desire to appear before the Commission upon due confirmation of his being fit to travel by his doctors. There was no further request by the Commission inviting our Client before the unlawful publication.
“It is to be further noted that on 11 October, 2024, our Client’s Legal Officer was physically present at the office of the Commission around noon to submit a correspondence to the Commission and he also reassured the Operatives of the Commission of our Client’s desire and willingness to cooperate with the investigation by the Commission upon his arrival in Nigeria.
“It is regrettable that despite the repeated reassurances of our Client to cooperate with the investigation upon his arrival in Nigeria, the Commission proceeded to declare our Client ‘Wanted’ later that same day at about 7.20pm without an order of Court and in the absence of a valid charge in a Court of law.
“The Commission published our Client’s name and photograph depicting our Client as a fugitive from the law and branded him “WANTED” without any evidence of evading investigation. This action of the Commission has not only defamed our Client but also violated our Client’s right to freedom of movement without the order of the Courts.
“The Commission has also by the unlawful publication subjected our Client to public humiliation and ridicule thus causing our Client loss of personal and business relationships as well as reputational damage. It is our instruction that since the publication, our Client has been inundated with calls, Whatsapp messages from his business associates all over the world who had read the post expressing their disgust and dismay at the defamatory publication, and the said publication has also caused our Client emotional trauma and distress.”
Akinduro, through his lawyer, said he considered it imperatively necessary to put the records straight with a view to showing that the fraud allegations are trumped-up allegations aimed at causing incalculable damage to his hard earned but richly deserved reputation.
“It is pertinent to state that the petition against Dr. Henry Akinduro was an ignoble attempt to criminalize purely contractual disputes that had arisen from the investment agreement between Dr. Henry Akinduro and the Petitioner, Mr. Femi Olushakin,” he said.
Ojo stated that the commercial or contractual disputes had earlier been referred to the competent Court by the parties before Olushakin resorted to lodging the fraud allegations against the oil magnate for reasons best known to him.
“Indeed, with knowledge of this, Mr. Femi Olushakin through his
lawyers, as part of the originating processes filed towards the resolution of the dispute between the parties
in court, the Petitioner (the Defendant in the Civil Suit No I/87512024 at the State High Court, Ibadan Judicial Division, Oyo State of Nigeria) has filed a Counterclaim. Some of the reliefs set out in the Counter Claims are as follows:
– AN ORDER directing the Defendants to the Counter Claim to pay the sum of N250 million Naira only to the Counter Claimant, sum of which was invested by the Counter Claimant into the business of the Defendants to the Counter Claim (Dr. Henry Akinduro and co)
– AN ORDER directing the Defendants to the Counter Claim to pay the sum of N205,325,000 to the Counter Claimant being the Return on Investment (ROI) to be paid to the Counter Claimants by the Defendant to the Counter Claimants.
– AN ORDER directing the Defendants to the Counter Claim to pay the sum of N52.5 million to the Counter Claimant (Mr. Femi Olushakin) being the Return on Investment (ROI) to be paid to the Counter Claimant by the Defendants to the Counter Claim on the investment of N100 million only).
– An Order directing the Defendants to the Counter Claim to pay the sum of N10 million only) to the Counter Claimant being the shortfall or deficit.
“One would have expected that Olushakin would allow the Court to decide the rights and liabilities of the parties since the matter is already sub-judice. Our client has taken further legal actions towards establishing with compelling finality that the fraud allegations made against him are unfounded, groundless, baseless and ill-motivated. It is pertinent to stress that our client is presumed innocent by constitutional fiat until the contrary is proved or established. Our Client wishes to restate his confidence in the judicial process which he believes will vindicate him,” Akinduro’s lawyer submitted.

 

Continue Reading

Judiciary

Court Restrains BEDC From Disconnecting Teaching Hospital Electricity

Published

on

By

 

 

An Ondo State High Court sitting in Akure has restrained Benin Electricity Distribution Company (BEDC) from disconnecting the electricity at the Ondo State-owned University of Medical Sciences Teaching Hospital (UNIMEDTH), Ondo, over alleged indebtedness.
In an order granted ex-parte, the court presided by Justice B J Akinwumi barred the distribution company from tampering with the cable that supplied electricity to the Teaching Hospital
The Teaching Hospital through its counsel, Iyiola Afolabi, had dragged the company to court over the fear of disconnection of its electricity owing to alleged indebtedness.
The institution had prayed for “An Order of interim injunction restraining the Defendant, its agents, servants, privies staff or officers or anybody claiming through or for the Defendant from disconnecting or threatening to disconnect electricity supply to the claimant pending the determination of the Motion on Notice.”
It also prayed for further order as the court may deem fit to make in the circumstances. The Motion was brought under order 20 Rule 1 (1) and (2), Rule 15 of the Ondo State High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2019 and under the inherent jurisdiction of the Honourable Court.
Justice Akinwumi in his order after reading the affidavit of Alo, Damilola Olatubosun granted the prayers of the applicant/ complaint.
The court restrained BEDC, its agents, servants, privies, staff officers, or anybody claiming through or for the Defendant from disconnecting the electricity supply of the Claimant/Applicant pending the determination of the Motion on Notice.
Due to the ongoing Courts vacation, no date has been fixed for the hearing of the motion on notice


45
/ 100


Continue Reading

Trending News