(2003) LPELR-10151(CA)

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "(2003) LPELR-10151(CA)"

Transcription

1 NASS v. PRESIDENT, FRN & ORS CITATION: In the Court of Appeal In the Abuja Judicial Division Holden at Abuja GEORGE ADESOLA OGUNTADE IBRAHIM TANKO MUHAMMAD ALBERT GBADEBO ODUYEMI THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY ON MONDAY, 12TH MAY, 2003 Suit No: CA/A/15/M/2003 Before Their Lordships: Between And Justice, Court of Appeal Justice, Court of Appeal Justice, Court of Appeal - Appellant(s) 1. THE PRESIDENT OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA 2. THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF THE FEDERATION - Respondent(s) 3. INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION RATIO DECIDENDI

2 1. APPEAL - GROUND(S) OF APPEAL: Whether ground(s) of appeal as well as issue(s) formulated therefrom must arise from the decision appealed against and effect of failure thereof "In its brief of argument, the 1st respondent raises a preliminary objection to the competence of the grounds of appeal in the appellant's notice of appeal. It is the objection of the 1st respondent that, rather than appellant attacking the decision of the lower Court with respect to Section 15 of the Electoral Act, 2002, which is to the effect that S. 15 of the Electoral Act, 2002, is UNCONSTITUTIONAL and it is therefore, set aside - as contained in the grounds of appeal, the attack of the appellant in the brief of argument is framed as if the decision of the Court has been that S.15 of the Electoral Act, 2002, is CONSTITUTIONAL. (Capitals by me for emphasis). Reliance is placed on Akibu v. Oduntan (2000) 13 NWLR (Pt.685) p It is also the objection of the 1st respondent that none of the grounds of appeal touches on the principles of covering the field on which the decision of the lower Court was based. It is therefore, the contention of 1st respondent/cross-appellant that the grounds of appeal having been based not upon the decision of the Court are incompetent. Reliance is also placed upon: (i) Igbinovia v. UBTH (2000) 8 NWLR (Pt.667) p. 53; (ii) Iloabachie v. Iloabachie (2000) 8 NWLR (Pt.656) p The ground of objection that none of the grounds of appeal relates to a decision of the lower Court is echoed in the brief of the 2nd respondent/crossappellant. Both respondents contend that this Court cannot hear the arguments of the appellant on the issue framed on all its 5 grounds of appeal, because the appellant relies on an alleged wrong record of proceedings of the lower Court, which it had not taken proper steps in law to challenge. Reliance is placed upon: (i) Egemasi v. Onyekwere (1983) All NLR 543 P , (1983) 4 NSCC 409, (1983) 9 SC 7 (ii) Mokwe v. Williams (1997) 11 NWLR (Pt.528) p Respondents/cross-appellants therefore, urge this Court to strike out the grounds of appeal, strike out the brief of arguments thereon and dismiss the appeal. For its part appellant has offered an explanation for the reason of the incongruity of its grounds of appeal with the decision of the lower Court on S.15 of the Electoral Act, 2002, upon which the appeal is based. In essence, it is the explanation of the appellant that the fault is to be found in the certified true copy of the record of proceedings of the lower Court, which it alleges does not truly reflect the oral pronouncement of the learned trial Judge in open Court. Appellant therefore, argues that even conceding that Grounds 1, 2 and 3 are incompetent, the issue as formulated in the appellant's brief of argument rightly fits into the circumstances of grounds 4 and 5 of the notice of appeal. The simple answer to this is that the grounds themselves must be based upon decision/decisions of the Court, which is the subject of appeal. (i) See Sections 241, 242, 243, 244, 245 and 246 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. (ii) See also Order 3 Rules (2) and (7) of The Court of Appeal Rules, Also (iii) Akibu v. Oduntan (2000) 13 NWLR (Pt. 685) 446; (iv) Igbinovia v. UBTH (2000) 8 NWLR (Pt. 667) 53; (v) Iloabachie v. Iloabachie (2000) 8 NWLR (Pt. 656) 178; (vi) Ike v. Enang (1999) 5 NWLR (Pt. 602) 261; (vii) Alataha v. Asin (1999) 5 NWLR (Pt. 601) 32. Obviously, if the grounds of appeal are themselves incompetent, any issues which are framed upon incompetent grounds of appeal must themselves be incompetent. It is also the suggestion of appellant that in the circumstances of the record of appeal in this case, this Court should, in the exercise of its powers under Order 1 Rule 19 amend the record of appeal. I am firmly of the view that no sufficient ground has been laid for such a step to be taken by this Court; to do so in the circumstance of this case without giving the lower Court the opportunity of giving its own version would be, a breach of Section 36 of the Constitution and result in grave injustice. I therefore, reject the suggestion. In the event, I must find all the grounds of appeal of the appellant incompetent. I strike out all the five grounds of appeal of appellant. I also strike out the only issue formulated by appellant thereon as well as the whole brief of appellant and appellant's reply to the briefs of argument of 1st, 2nd and 3rd respondents.?it follows that correspondingly, I must strike out ground 2 in the 1st respondent's cross-appeal and ground 3 in the 2nd respondent's cross-appeal as well as the issues formulated by 1st, 2nd and 3rd respondents on the main appeal as well as their respective arguments thereon. This is because, the grounds of appeal are based upon an alleged decision by the lower Court that S. 15 is constitutional, when in reality the decision of the lower Court was that S. 15 of the Electoral Act, 2002, is unconstitutional."per ODUYEMI, J.C.A. (Pp , Paras. A-B) - read in context 2. APPEAL - GROUND(S) OF APPEAL: Whether ground(s) of appeal as well as issue(s) formulated therefrom must arise from the decision appealed against and effect of failure thereof "I reproduced earlier in this judgment the decision made by the lower Court as to the constitutionality of Section 15 of the Electoral Act, The lower Court pronounced it unconstitutional and set it aside. Strangely however, all the grounds of appeal formulated by the appellant were to the effect that the lower Court after holding that the section was constitutional still went on to set it aside. The appellant has not taken any steps to impeach the record of proceedings upon which this appeal was heard. The judgment of the lower Court is to the effect that Section 15 of the Electoral Act, 2002, was unconstitutional. It was for that reason that the lower Court set it aside. The grounds of appeal by the appellant would appear to have been crafted on the notion that after the lower Court had found that Section 15 was constitutional, it still went on to set it aside. It needs be said here that this error was not peculiar to the appellant alone. In the 1st and 2nd grounds of his notice of cross-appeal, the 1st respondent/crossappellant also raised a complaint that the trial Judge had at first held that Section 15 of the Electoral Act was constitutional. The 2nd respondent/crossappellant in the 3rd ground of appeal also made the same error. Surely, something must have gone wrong before the lower Court as to lead all the parties before it to make the same mistake. I cannot say more on the point. The appeal by the appellant must be struck out since all the grounds were built on facts that did not arise from the judgment of the lower Court. For the same reason all the issues formulated on the said grounds of appeal must be struck out. Similarly, I strike out the 1st respondent/cross-appellant's 1st and 2nd grounds of appeal and the issues formulated upon them. I also, strike out the 2nd respondent/cross appellant's 3rd ground of appeal and the issue formulated thereon."per OGUNTADE, J.C.A. (Pp. 8-10, Paras. E-A) - read in context

3 3. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - PASSAGE OF BILLS: Proper procedure to re-enact a bill whose earlier passage by the National Assembly failed to receive the assent of the President "In the cross-appeal by the 1st and 2nd respondents, it was contended that the procedure adopted by the appellant in overriding the veto of the 1st respondent was unconstitutional in that (1) rather than re-pass the bill, the appellant just passed a resolution and (2) rather than have the bill re-passed by two thirds majority of the membership of the two houses, the appellant did so only by a majority of the two thirds of the members present in each of the two houses. The relevant provisions of the 1999 Constitution to be considered are Sections 54(1) and 58. They read:- "54(1) The quorum of the Senate or of the House of Representatives shall be one-third of all the members of the legislative house concerned. 58(1) The power of the National Assembly to make laws shall be exercised by bills passed by both the Senate and the House of Representatives and, except as otherwise provided by Subsection (5) of this section, assented to by the President. 2. A bill may originate in either the Senate or the House of Representatives and shall not become law, unless it has been passed and except as otherwise provided by this section and Section 59 of this Constitution assented to in accordance with the provisions of this section. 3. Where a bill has been passed by the House in which it originated, it shall be sent to the other House and it shall be presented to the President for assent when it has been passed by that other House and agreement has been reached between the two Houses on any amendment made on it. 4. Where a bill is presented to the President for assent, he shall within thirty days thereof signify that he assents or that he withholds assent. 5. Where the President withholds his assent and the bill, is again passed by each House by two thirds majority the bill shall become law and assent of the President shall not be required." (Italicising mine) It was undisputed that the 1st respondent/cross-appellant did not give his assent to the bill within thirty days as required by Section 58(4) above. The appellant therefore, found it necessary to override the veto of the 1st respondent/cross-appellant. What is the applicable procedure to be followed in such situation? This question calls for an interpretation of Section 58(5) of the Constitution. In construing Section 58(5) of the 1999 Constitution, I bear in mind that a statute should be given its ordinary natural grammatical meaning unless an absurdity will result thereby. See Aya v. Henshaw (1972) 5 SC 87; Lawal v. G.B. Ollivant (1972) 3 SC 124 and Ogbuanyiya v. Okudo (1979) 6/9 SC 32. I ought also to bear in mind that the same words in a statute must bear the same meaning. Section 58(1) of the 1999 Constitution reproduced above states the process by which a bill becomes a law. The bill has to be passed by both houses and assented to by the President before it becomes law. So how is a bill passed by either of the Houses constituting the National Assembly? A bill is passed by each house when it has gone through the first, second reading, the committee stage and the 3rd reading. In the course of these readings and committee stage the bill is examined in detail and amended if necessary. Law-making is therefore a serious business. The Court is enjoined to take judicial notice of the course of proceedings in the National Assembly. See Section 74(c) of the Evidence Act. Presumably, the Electoral Bill went through the requisite stages before it was sent to the President i.e. 1st respondent/cross-appellant for his assent. However, it was not assented to within 30 days. Under Section 58(5) of the Constitution, in order to override the veto of the 1st respondent, each of the Houses of National Assembly has to pass the bill again. The language used by Section 58(5) is "and the bill is again passed by each house." This means that the bill has to go through the same processes it had previously gone through, when it was first passed. That is the clear import of 'the bill is again passed'. It means a repetition of the earlier process. However, what the appellant did was merely to pass a "motion for veto override". Clearly, this was not in consonance with Section 58(5). It is apparent that the purpose of Section 58(5) was to impose on the appellant the duty to subject a bill to the scrutiny of another passage process so that it may be manifest that the grey areas of the bill have been looked into a second time. It was common ground that the 1st respondent communicated to the appellant the reasons for his inability to give assent to the bill. This imposes on the appellant the necessity to painstakingly go through the bill a second time before passing it into law as required by the provisions of Section 58(5). What needed to be done was a fresh consideration of the bill and not just to affirm what was earlier done by passing a motion. Further, Section 58(5) provides that a bill must be passed again by "each House by two-thirds majority". I observed earlier that Sections 48 and 49 of the Constitution set out the composition of the Senate. It is three Senators from each State of the Federation and one from the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja. Thus, the number of the Senators should be 109. Under Section 49 the House of Representatives is composed of 360 members. Giving Section 58(5) its ordinary natural meaning, two-thirds majority of each House can only mean two-third of the membership of each of the Senate and the House of Representatives. It cannot mean anything else. The section has no relationship with the ordinary quorum of each House. It does not employ a language referable to a proportion of the membership of each House. It is two-thirds of each of the whole of the Senate and the House of Representatives. In order to override the President's veto, there must be at least 73 members in the Senate and at least 240 members in the House of Representatives. But as I observed earlier, when the Senate made a motion of veto override on the bill on 25/9/2002, there were only 55 Senators present. In the House of Representatives on 26/9/2002, when a motion of veto override was made there was only 204 members. Clearly therefore, the appellant was not properly constituted when the Bill was "passed" into law on 25/9/2002 and 26/9/2002. The appellant was also not following the Section 58(5) of the Constitution when instead of passing the Bill again, it merely made a motion called "motion of veto override". The lower Court was therefore in error to have taken the position that what was needed to pass the bill was the ordinary working quorum of the appellant and that the "motion of veto override" was in order."per OGUNTADE, J.C.A. (Pp , Paras. B-F) - read in context 4. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF LEGISLATION: What a party challenging the constitutional validity of a statute must show "...I bear in mind that a party challenging the constitutionality of a statute has the duty to show that he has sustained an injury or is in danger of sustaining one in addition to showing that the statute is invalid. See Bendel State v. A.-G., Federation (1981) 3 NCLR 1, (1981) 10 SC 1 and Adegbenro v. Attorney- General (1962) 1 All NLR 431 at 437, (1962) 2 SCNLR 130."Per OGUNTADE, J.C.A. (Pp , Paras. F-A) - read in context 5. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF LEGISLATION: Whether Section 15 of the Electoral Act 2002 is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution as regards fixing of dates for election "The sum total of the arguments of appellant for praying this Court to reverse the decision of the lower Court on S. 15 of the Electoral Act, 2002, is that the discretion granted to the 3rd respondent pursuant to the provisions of Sections 76(1), 78, 132(1) and item 15 of the 3rd Schedule to the Constitution, must be construed as subject to the right of the National Assembly to legislate on peace, order and good government of the Federation or any part thereof on any matter whether in the Exclusive or Concurrent Legislative List on which it can legislate. For the respondents however, it is argued that the provisions of the Constitution on these matters itemised do cover the field and any legislation by the National Assembly, which interferes with the exclusive discretion vested in the 3rd respondent with respect to the provisions of the Constitution concerned must, if inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution be void under the provisions of Section 1(3) of the Constitution. I am of the view that the above provisions of the Constitution have given unfettered discretion in the 3rd defendant on the choice of a date or dates for the election/elections to the offices concerned. I hold the view that in so far as S. 15 of the Electoral Act, 2002, seeks to fetter that discretion and limit the 3rd defendant to only one day in the year for all elections to the offices concerned, that provision of the Act is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution above referred to and is to that extent a nullity - Section 1(3) of the Constitution. (i) Attorney-General of Abia State v. A.-G., Federation (2002) 6 NWLR (Pt. 763) 264 at 479; (ii) INEC v. Musa (2003) 3 NWLR (Pt. 806) 72 at 157. All in all, I agree with the reasoning in the judgment of the lower Court and with the conclusion in the judgment that S. 15 of the Electoral Act, 2002, is inconsistent with the specific provisions of the Constitution of The Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, in Sections 132(1), 76(1), 178(1), 116(1), 78, 118 and Item 15(a) of the 3rd Schedule; that it infringes upon the absolute discretion vested by the Constitution on the 3rd respondent with regard to the fixing of dates for election into the various offices concerned. In the event, for the above reasons and the fuller reasons given in the lead judgment of my learned brother, OGUNTADE, JCA. I still must dismiss the appeal of the appellant. The appeal fails. I affirm the decision of the lower Court that Section 15 of the Electoral Act, 2002, is UNCONSTITUTIONAL."Per ODUYEMI, J.C.A. (Pp , Paras. E-A) - read in context

4 6. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - PASSAGE OF BILLS: Proper procedure to re-enact a bill whose earlier passage by the National Assembly failed to receive the assent of the President "The issue at stake is, the procedure required of the National Assembly to re-enact a bill - (any bill for that matter) whose earlier passage by the normal majority of each house in which a quorum was present failed to receive the assent of the President within 30 days as required by Section 54 of the Constitution - that bill not being a money bill for which other specific provision is made in Section 59 of the Constitution. It is my respectful view that once a bill not being a money bill, fails to receive the assent of the President within 30 days of its being sent to the President, that bill ceases to be a bill to which Section 54 of the Constitution which stipulates that the quorum of the Senate or of the House of Representatives shall be onethird of all the members of the legislative house concerned and that the quorum of a joint sitting of both the Senate and the House of Representatives shall be one-third of all the members of both houses, relates. Furthermore, such a bill falls to be considered as one of the EXCEPTIONS to the provision of Section 56(1) of the Constitution which reads:- "56(1) Except as otherwise provided by this Constitution, any question proposed for decision in the Senate or the House of Representatives, shall be determined by the required majority of the members present and voting; and the person presiding shall cast a vote whenever necessary to avoid an equality of votes but shall not vote in any other case. (2) Except as otherwise provided by this Constitution, the required majority for the purpose of determining any question shall be a simple majority." On the other hand, the matter is, in my respectful view, taken entirely out of the purview of both Sections 54 and 56 of the Constitution on the principle of statutory construction that a statute must be read as a whole and that every provision in a statute must be given effect to. Furthermore, it is a fundamental principle of interpretation of statutes that in the interpretation of the provision of a statute - the mischief which that statute or the provision thereof set out to cure must not be lost sight of. Finally, it is also a cardinal principle of the interpretation of statutes that unless the context thereof requires it, words in a statute must be given their ordinary grammatical meaning:- (i) Effiong v. Ikpeme (1999) 6 NWLR (Pt. 606) 260; (ii) City Engineering Ltd. v. N.A.A (1999) 11 NWLR (Pt.625),76; (iii) A-G., Bendel State v. A-G., Federation (1980) 1 SCNLR 293. An application of the above principles of interpretation of statutes to Section 58 would show that the refusal of the President to give his assent to any bill - (not being a money bill) which has been passed by each or both of the legislative houses takes the particular bill out of the simple majority and quorum requirements of Sections 54 and 58(1), (2) and (3) of the Constitution to the express majority stipulations of S. 58(4) and (5) of the Constitution. These subsections read: "58... (4) Where a bill is presented to the President for assent, he shall within thirty days thereof signify that he assents or that he withholds assent. (5) Where the President withholds his assent and the bill is again passed by each House by two-thirds majority, the bill shall become law and the assent of the President shall not be required." It is a clear provision of Subsection (4) that the President shall "within 30 days of a Bill being presented to him, signify that he assents or that he withholds his assent. It is common ground between the parties in this case that the withholding of the President's assent was signified by his returning the Bill to the Senate with amendments - See p. 2 of 2nd respondent/cross-appellants' brief of argument, and also p. 5 of appellant/respondents' brief of argument. I shall say more on these proposed amendments later in this judgment. Now, the requirement of Subsection (5) of Section 58 of the Constitution indicates the specific provision of the Constitution with which such bill must comply to become law without the requirement of the assent of the President. That requirement is: "The Bill is again passed by each house by two-thirds majority." It is my humble view that the words "again", "passed" and "two-thirds majority" are essential requirements of S. 58(5) as otherwise there is no compliance and such a bill which fails to comply would not be exempt from the requirement of the assent of the President.?The word "again" is defined in the Concise Oxford Dictionary of Current English, 8th Edition at p. 22 as: "another time; once more; as in a previous position or condition". At p. 869, the same edition of the dictionary, gives as one of the meanings of the word "pass" which is relevant for our purpose as: "9(a) (of a bill) be examined and approved by (a parliamentary body or process) (b) cause or allow (a bill) to proceed to further legislative process;"?once again, the parties are agreed about the process described in the lower Court by learned Senior Counsel to the 2nd defendant- Now the appellant in this Court - Turaki, Esq. SAN that there are 8 stages which a bill must pass through to become an Act - He lists them thus: "On the 2nd issue, it was submitted that under the 1999 Constitution, there are eight stages or steps a bill must go through to become an Act. First, a bill has to be sponsored either by the executive, the judiciary or any member of the two legislative houses or private individuals, or organizations. It can be commenced in either of the two houses. Second stage is first reading of the bill. This is a formal introduction of the bill, without debate by the person presenting it or the person moving it, on behalf of the person presenting it. Where it is so read it is recorded in the journal of the house for record purposes. A date is now fixed for the 2nd reading of the bill. 3rd stage is the 2nd reading of the bill, where general debate on the bill is allowed. 4th stage is the committee stage. Either the Committee of the whole House or the standing committee. 5th stage is the report stage. The report of the Committee with observations and recommendations is presented to the whole house. 6th stage is the 3rd reading, the recommendation of the committee is debated and considered and when it is accepted, the bill is taken as having been passed. 7th stage is the passage of the bill by the other house. 8th stage is the presidential assent." There is no dispute that the Bill went through all stages 1-7 enumerated in the address of learned Counsel at its first passing. The bill was then sent to the President for his assent being the 8th stage described. Instead of the President giving his assent, he returned the bill to the Senate with proposed amendments. It is my view that the only appropriate interpretation to be given to Section 58(5) of the Constitution is that if the Bill must become law without complying with the 8th stage, which is the assent of the president, it must fulfil the following two essential conditions. The first condition is that it must once more pass through all seven stages, which it went through at first. That is the simple grammatical meaning of the words "again passed by each house" contained in Section 58(5). The next stage is that the repeat passage must be by two-thirds majority in each house - Again, it is the fulfillment of these two conditions that would satisfy Sections 56 and 58(5) of the Constitution. It is my humble view that a repeat of the process is meant to give the electorate of the members of the respective houses and particularly, all the interested bodies, who contributed to the emergence of the bill during the earlier passage of the bill as well as the public an opportunity to know the amendments proposed by the President and air their views thereon which may influence the National Assembly on the third reading of the bill, if it again, gets to that stage or to drop the bill in deference to the views of the President and public opinion. It is only if the National Assembly still considers, having had the benefit of the views of members of the public and of their respective constituencies and they are still convinced of the necessity to pass the bill in its original form, that the words - two-thirds majority in Section 58(5) comes up for interpretation. From what I have said above, it is clear that there is no room in the Constitution for the National Assembly to override the veto of the President by a mere Motion. The whole process of the initial legislation must again be undertaken. I now proceed to a consideration of the majority required of each house of the National Assembly in the process of overriding the veto of the President. It has earlier been seen in this judgment that Section 54 of the Constitution requires 1/3 of all members of the legislative house concerned for a quorum of each house and also requires a quorum of 1/3 all the members of both houses for a joint sitting of both houses. It has also been seen that each of Subsections (1) and (2) of S. 56 of the Constitution provides that "except as otherwise provided by the Constitution" any question proposed for decision or determination by either house shall be by a simple majority and that the person presiding shall have only a casting vote.?i have already also held in this judgment that it is obvious that a bill which is the subject of a veto by the president and which must go through the whole process of legislation again to become law in the absence of the assent of the President, cannot be considered when it comes to deliberation thereon as another subject of general legislation, since by S. 56 of the Constitution such an event is an exception to the general run of the provision of S. 58(1)-(3) by virtue of Subsections (4) and (5) of S. 58. The question is, when it comes for the second time to the third reading of a bill to which the President has previously refused his assent, does the provision of quorum in S. 54 override the special provisions of Sections 55 and 58(4) and (5) of the Constitution? The normal rule of interpretation of the Constitution or of any Statute for that matter is that, general provisions must give way to special provisions - See A.-G., Abia State v. A.-G., Federation (supra). By virtue of that argument, I am convinced that the special provision of 2/3 majority of each house or of a joint sitting of both houses, takes supremacy over the general provisions of the statute with regard to quorum and a simple majority contained in Sections 54 and 56 of the Constitution.? In the event, I am of the view that what is required in a proper application of S. 58(5) of the Constitution is for the bill to be supported by at least 73 members of the Senate and be supported by at least 240 members of the House of Representatives at a repeat third reading of the Bill. This in my respectful view is in spite of the provision of S. 54 of the Constitution particularly, since both Sections 56 and 58(5) come after the provisions in S. 54. This construction, in my view, suppresses the mischief, and advances the remedy."per ODUYEMI, J.C.A. (Pp , Paras. E-C) - read in context

5 7. COURT - DUTY OF COURT: Duty of an appeal Court to consider all issues for determination raised before it "It is the admonition of the Supreme Court, that in cases where a lower Court to the Supreme Court upholds objection of a party to the hearing of a suit in an appeal, the Court is still obliged to consider the case on its merit in the event that the Supreme Court finds fault with the reasoning and conclusion of the Court. I am obliged to do so in this case, but must point out that in this particular instance, that exercise would be making a case for the appellant which he did not make for itself."per ODUYEMI, J.C.A. (P. 35, Paras. C-E) - read in context 8. JUDGMENT AND ORDER - DECLARATORY JUDGMENT/ORDER: Principles guiding the Court in making a declaration "Now, in its claim before the lower Court, the 3rd respondent had in its claims Nos. 4 and 5 asked for: "(4) An order of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, their servants, agents and/or privies from giving any legal effect whatsoever and/or acting on the Electoral Act, (5) A declaration that the Electoral Act, 2002, is unconstitutional, null and void and of no legal effect whatsoever." Claim 4 is consequential upon the grant of claim 5. The grant of a declaration is discretionary and it should be exercised with great caution. In Agbaje v. Agboluaje (1970) 1 All NLR 21 at 26, the Supreme Court per Udoma, JSC said: "The general theme of judicial observations has been to the effect that declarations are not to be lightly granted. The power should be exercised 'sparingly' with 'great care and jealousy' with 'extreme caution', with 'the utmost caution'. These are indeed, counsels of moderation even though as Lord Dunedin once observed, such expressions afford little guidance for particular cases. Nevertheless, anxious warnings of this character appear to their Lordships to be not so much enunciations of legal principles as administrative cautions issued by eminent and prudent Judges to their, possibly more reckless, successors. After all, it is doubtful if there is more of principle involved than "the un-doubted truth that the power to grant a declaration should be exercised with a proper sense of responsibility and a full realisation that judicial pronouncements ought not to be issued unless there are circumstances that call for their making. Beyond that there is no legal restriction on the award of a declaration." And similarly the same Court per Irikefe, JSC (as he then was) in Ewarami v. A.C.B. Ltd. (1978) 4 SC 99 at pp said "In Hanson v. Radcliffe UDC (1922) 2 Chancery p. 490 at p. 507, Lord Sterndale - M.R. had this to say on declaratory judgments: 'the power of the Court to make a declaration, where it is a question of defining the rights of two parties, is almost unlimited; and I might say only limited by its own discretion. The discretion should of course be exercised judicially, but it seems to me that the discretion is very wide.'?some years before the above decision Bankes, L. J. when considering the scope of this rule was no less emphatic when he said - "There is, however, one limitation which must always be attached to it, that is to say, the relief claimed must be something it would not be unlawful or unconstitutional or inequitable for the Court to grant or contrary to accepted principles upon which the Court exercises its jurisdiction. Subject to this limitation, I see nothing to fetter the discretion of the Court in exercising a jurisdiction under the rule to grant relief, and having regard to general business convenience and the importance of adapting the machinery of the Courts to the needs of suitors, I think the rule should receive as liberal a construction as possible." See Guaranty Trust Company of New York v. Hannay and Company (1915) 2 KB p. 536 at p.572. See also Ekuno v. Ifejuka (1960) SCNLR 320, (1960) 5 FSC p. 156 and Ibeneweka v. Egbuna (1964) 1WLR p. 219." The 3rd respondent in its claim had challenged the attempt of the appellant to impose upon it the dates to conduct elections. This was as in Section 15 of the Electoral Law. The lower Court struck down Section 15 of the said Law and I have affirmed that decision in this Court. Although, the procedure adopted by the appellant in passing the Electoral Law, 2002, was not strictly in compliance with Section 58(5) of the 1999 Constitution, it was not the case of the 3rd respondent before the lower Court that it had any complaints or misgivings about other provisions of the Law other than its Section 15. The said Law is now being used for the 2003 National Elections. To declare it unconstitutional and strike down at this stage may lead to a widespread disruption of national life, while not conferring any advantage on the 3rd respondent. It seems to me satisfactory enough that the 3rd respondent has obtained a vindication for its rights and in the process enabled this Court to express its views as to the procedure to be followed, when overriding a presidential veto in the law-making process. It is not in my view necessary to strike down the law. The offending Section 15 has been struck out. In the exercise of the power of this Court's discretion in the grant of a declaration, I decline to grant reliefs 4 and 5 in the 3rd respondent's claim even If I agree that the appeal by 1st and 2nd respondents/crossappellants has merit."per OGUNTADE, J.C.A. (Pp , Paras. F-F) - read in context

6 GEORGE ADESOLA OGUNTADE, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): The 3rd respondent was the plaintiff, before the Federal High Court, Abuja, where it brought a suit, by originating summons against 1st respondent, appellant and 2nd respondent as 1st, 2nd and 3rd defendants respectively, seeking the determination of the following questions: "(1) Whether the 2nd defendant, the National Assembly is competent to enact Section 15 of the Electoral Act, 2002, in relation to fixing the time and dates of conduct of elections into the office of the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, each of the Houses of the National Assembly, the office of the Governor of each State of the Federation and Houses of Assembly of each State of the Federation, when the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, has made provisions, covering the field in these areas in Sections 132(1), 76(1), 178(1) and 116(1). (2) Whether the condition precedent was complied with by each of the Houses of the National Assembly, before passing the motion for veto over-ride, on Wednesday 25th, and Thursday, 26th September, 2002, when a quorum was not formed as provided by Section 54(1) 1

7 and 58(5) of the Constitution. (3) Whether the National Assembly can by way of motion enact a Bill into Law. (4) Whether the provision of Section 58(5) of the 1999 Constitution has been duly complied with. (5) Whether Section 15 of the Electoral Act, 2002, is unconstitutional having regard the provision of Section 76(1) of the 1999 Constitution." The reliefs which the plaintiff (INEC) sought are these: "( 1) A declaration that Section 15 of the Electoral Act, 2002, which was passed into Law on the 25th and 26th September, 2002, by the 2nd defendant, by virtue of a motion of veto over-ride is unconstitutional, null and void and of no legal effect whatsoever. (2) An order setting aside Section 15 of the Electoral Act, 2002, which was passed into law on the 25th and 26th of September, 2002, by the 2nd defendant by virtue of a motion of veto over-ride for non-compliance with the condition precedent for the passing of same having been vetoed by the President in accordance with Section 58(5) of the 1999 Constitution. (3) A declaration that the plaintiff is the only body vested with powers to conduct, fix the date, supervise, direct and 2

8 organise all elections, having regard to Section 132(1),76(1), 178(1), 116(1), 78, 118 and Item 15(a) of the 3rd Schedule of Constitution, 1999, the effect of which vests absolute discretion of all matters pertaining to elections on the plaintiff. (4) An order of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, their servants, agents and/or privies from giving any legal effect, whatsoever and/or acting on the Electoral Act, (5) A declaration that the Electoral Act, 2002, is unconstitutional, null and void and of no legal effect whatsoever." The plaintiff filed an affidavit in support of its originating summons. The appellant filed a counter-affidavit on 17/10/2002, and a further and better counter-affidavit on 31/10/2002. The plaintiff had on 23/10/2002, filed a furtheraffidavit in support of its originating summons. On 5/11/2002, Okeke, J. heard arguments on the originating summons; and on 29/11/2002 judgment was delivered. The learned Judge concluded as follows in his judgment. "In the final analysis, the Court therefore declares as follows: 1. That the Senate and the House of Representatives was each properly constituted 3

9 when it exercised its power under S.58(5) of the 1999 Constitution to override the President's veto on the Electoral Bill, That the Electoral Act, 2002, was validly passed by each house of the National Assembly. 3. That S.15 of Electoral Act, 2002, which encroached on the power vested on the Independent National Electoral Commission by the 1999 Constitution to fix dates for elections to the offices of the President, Governor of each State of the Federation, National Assembly and House of Assembly of each State of the Federation is unconstitutional and it is therefore set aside." The National Assembly i.e. 2nd defendant before the lower Court, was dissatisfied with the said judgment and has brought this appeal against it. In the appellant's brief filed, the issue for determination in the appeal was identified as: "Whether the learned trial Federal High Court Judge, was right in setting aside Section 15 of the Electoral Act, 2002, having regards to the provisions of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 and his finding that the Electoral Act, was validly passed by each house of the National Assembly." The 1st 4

10 respondent in the appeal (i.e. the President, Federal Republic of Nigeria) and the 2nd respondent (i.e. the Hon. Attorney General of the Federal Republic of Nigeria) were also dissatisfied with the judgment of the lower Court. Each of them has brought a cross-appeal. The issue for determination formulated by the 1st respondent/crossappellant reads: "Whether the Electoral Act, 2002, was validly passed by the National Assembly by its overriding the veto of the President by two thirds majority of the two chambers of the National Assembly present as against two third of all the members and by passing the Bill vide a process of motion." The 2nd respondent from its cross-appeal and the appellant's notice of appeal formulated the following issues for determination: "1. Was the Electoral Act, 2002, duly and properly passed in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution, in particular S.58(5) thereof? 2. Is Section 15 of the Electoral Act, 2002, not unconstitutional and void for inconsistency with Sections 76, 116, 132 and 178 of the Constitution?" The issues formulated for determination in the appeal and cross-appeal turn solely on the 5

11 interpretation of some sections of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. It is helpful however, to set out the undisputed facts which are relevant to the issues identified for determination. In Paragraphs 2 to 5 of the affidavit in support of the originating summons, it was deposed thus: "2. That the Electoral Act, 2002, was passed in the House of Representatives on the 25th February, 2002, and transmitted to the House of Representatives (Senate?) for concurrence. 3. That the Senate passed the Bill on 26th February, 2002, with amendments and transmitted same to the Senate (House of Representatives?). 4. The amendments to the said Bill, were agreed upon and adopted and the Bill was transmitted to the President on the 24th of June, 2002, for his assent. 5. That on the 25th and 26th of September, 2002 respectively, the National Assembly by motion of veto override purportedly passed the Bill into Law because 30 days had lapsed and the President had failed to assent to the said Bill. We intend to rely on the votes and proceedings of the National Assembly, dated 25th and 26th September, 2002, in the course of this trial" The 6

12 2nd defendant in Paragraphs 3(e) and (f) of its counter affidavit deposed to on 17/10/02 said: "(e) That in the discharge of its power to make laws for peace, order and good governance of the Federation or any part thereof with respect to the election, the 2nd defendant duly passed the Electoral Act, 2002 when the 1st defendant withheld its assent on Electoral Bill 2002, as transmitted to him by the 2nd defendant on the 24th day of June, 2002 for his assent. (f) That the Senate and the House of Representatives had in consequence of the above, by two thirds of the members of the legislative houses concurring passed the Electoral Act, 2002 by motion of veto override." The plaintiff annexed to the affidavit in support of the originating summons copies of the votes and proceedings of the House of Representatives and the Senate for the 25th and 26th September, 2002, as exhibits C and D respectively. Now, exhibit D, the votes and proceedings of the Senate shows that the Senate voted by 48 Ayes and 3 Noes to override the President's Veto of the Electoral Bill. There were four abstentions. The exhibit reveals that the Senate was acting pursuant to Section 7

13 58(5) of the 1999 Constitution. In all, 55 Senators participated in the voting on the motion to override the President's veto. Exhibit D, the votes and proceedings of the House of Representatives shows that the House voted by 191 Ayes and 13 Noes to override the President's vote of the Electoral Bill. The House of Representatives just as the Senate expressed, that it was acting as it did pursuant to Section 58(5) of the 1999 Constitution. In all, 204 members of the House of Representatives participated on the motion to override the President's veto. Ordinarily, the membership of each of the Senate and the House of Representatives is 109 and 360 respectively. See Sections 48 and 49 of the 1999 Constitution. I reproduced earlier in this judgment the decision made by the lower Court as to the constitutionality of Section 15 of the Electoral Act, The lower Court pronounced it unconstitutional and set it aside. Strangely however, all the grounds of appeal formulated by the appellant were to the effect that the lower Court after holding that the section was constitutional still went on to set it aside. The appellant has not taken any steps to 8

14 impeach the record of proceedings upon which this appeal was heard. The judgment of the lower Court is to the effect that Section 15 of the Electoral Act, 2002, was unconstitutional. It was for that reason that the lower Court set it aside. The grounds of appeal by the appellant would appear to have been crafted on the notion that after the lower Court had found that Section 15 was constitutional, it still went on to set it aside. It needs be said here that this error was not peculiar to the appellant alone. In the 1st and 2nd grounds of his notice of cross-appeal, the 1st respondent/cross-appellant also raised a complaint that the trial Judge had at first held that Section 15 of the Electoral Act was constitutional. The 2nd respondent/cross-appellant in the 3rd ground of appeal also made the same error. Surely, something must have gone wrong before the lower Court as to lead all the parties before it to make the same mistake. I cannot say more on the point. The appeal by the appellant must be struck out since all the grounds were built on facts that did not arise from the judgment of the lower Court. For the same reason all the issues formulated 9

15 on the said grounds of appeal must be struck out. Similarly, I strike out the 1st respondent/cross-appellant's 1st and 2nd grounds of appeal and the issues formulated upon them. I also, strike out the 2nd respondent/cross appellant's 3rd ground of appeal and the issue formulated thereon. In the cross-appeal by the 1st and 2nd respondents, it was contended that the procedure adopted by the appellant in overriding the veto of the 1st respondent was unconstitutional in that (1) rather than re-pass the bill, the appellant just passed a resolution and (2) rather than have the bill re-passed by two thirds majority of the membership of the two houses, the appellant did so only by a majority of the two thirds of the members present in each of the two houses. The relevant provisions of the 1999 Constitution to be considered are Sections 54(1) and 58. They read:- "54(1) The quorum of the Senate or of the House of Representatives shall be one-third of all the members of the legislative house concerned. 58(1) The power of the National Assembly to make laws shall be exercised by bills passed by both the Senate and the House of Representatives and, except as 10

16 otherwise provided by Subsection (5) of this section, assented to by the President. 2. A bill may originate in either the Senate or the House of Representatives and shall not become law, unless it has been passed and except as otherwise provided by this section and Section 59 of this Constitution assented to in accordance with the provisions of this section. 3. Where a bill has been passed by the House in which it originated, it shall be sent to the other House and it shall be presented to the President for assent when it has been passed by that other House and agreement has been reached between the two Houses on any amendment made on it. 4. Where a bill is presented to the President for assent, he shall within thirty days thereof signify that he assents or that he withholds assent. 5. Where the President withholds his assent and the bill, is again passed by each House by two thirds majority the bill shall become law and assent of the President shall not be required." (Italicising mine) It was undisputed that the 1st respondent/cross-appellant did not give his assent to the bill within thirty days as required by Section 58(4) above. The 11

17 appellant therefore, found it necessary to override the veto of the 1st respondent/cross-appellant. What is the applicable procedure to be followed in such situation? This question calls for an interpretation of Section 58(5) of the Constitution. In construing Section 58(5) of the 1999 Constitution, I bear in mind that a statute should be given its ordinary natural grammatical meaning unless an absurdity will result thereby. See Aya v. Henshaw (1972) 5 SC 87; Lawal v. G.B. Ollivant (1972) 3 SC 124 and Ogbuanyiya v. Okudo (1979) 6/9 SC 32. I ought also to bear in mind that the same words in a statute must bear the same meaning. Section 58(1) of the 1999 Constitution reproduced above states the process by which a bill becomes a law. The bill has to be passed by both houses and assented to by the President before it becomes law. So how is a bill passed by either of the Houses constituting the National Assembly? A bill is passed by each house when it has gone through the first, second reading, the committee stage and the 3rd reading. In the course of these readings and committee stage the bill is examined in detail and amended if necessary. Law-making is 12

18 therefore a serious business. The Court is enjoined to take judicial notice of the course of proceedings in the National Assembly. See Section 74(c) of the Evidence Act. Presumably, the Electoral Bill went through the requisite stages before it was sent to the President i.e. 1st respondent/cross-appellant for his assent. However, it was not assented to within 30 days. Under Section 58(5) of the Constitution, in order to override the veto of the 1st respondent, each of the Houses of National Assembly has to pass the bill again. The language used by Section 58(5) is "and the bill is again passed by each house." This means that the bill has to go through the same processes it had previously gone through, when it was first passed. That is the clear import of 'the bill is again passed'. It means a repetition of the earlier process. However, what the appellant did was merely to pass a "motion for veto override". Clearly, this was not in consonance with Section 58(5). It is apparent that the purpose of Section 58(5) was to impose on the appellant the duty to subject a bill to the scrutiny of another passage process so that it may be manifest that the grey 13

19 areas of the bill have been looked into a second time. It was common ground that the 1st respondent communicated to the appellant the reasons for his inability to give assent to the bill. This imposes on the appellant the necessity to painstakingly go through the bill a second time before passing it into law as required by the provisions of Section 58(5). What needed to be done was a fresh consideration of the bill and not just to affirm what was earlier done by passing a motion. Further, Section 58(5) provides that a bill must be passed again by "each House by two-thirds majority". I observed earlier that Sections 48 and 49 of the Constitution set out the composition of the Senate. It is three Senators from each State of the Federation and one from the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja. Thus, the number of the Senators should be 109. Under Section 49 the House of Representatives is composed of 360 members. Giving Section 58(5) its ordinary natural meaning, twothirds majority of each House can only mean two-third of the membership of each of the Senate and the House of Representatives. It cannot mean anything else. The section has no relationship 14

BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP: HONOURABLE JUSTICE FOLASADE OJO JUDGE: BETWEEN:

BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP: HONOURABLE JUSTICE FOLASADE OJO JUDGE: BETWEEN: IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE FEDERAL CAPITAL TERRITORY IN THE ABUJA JUDICIAL DIVISION HOLDEN AT ABUJA ON THE 3RD DAY OF OCTOBER 2013 SUIT NO. FCT/HC/CV/2563/12 BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP: HONOURABLE JUSTICE FOLASADE

More information

BETWEEN: 1. CHIEF EBENEZER OGBONNA 2 ELDER EPELLE AGIRIGA === 1 ST SET OF 3. CHIEF JOSAIAH NWOGU PLAINTIFFS 4. ELDER NWOBILOR NWELE

BETWEEN: 1. CHIEF EBENEZER OGBONNA 2 ELDER EPELLE AGIRIGA === 1 ST SET OF 3. CHIEF JOSAIAH NWOGU PLAINTIFFS 4. ELDER NWOBILOR NWELE IN THE FEDERAL HIGH COURT OF NIGERIA IN THE UMUAHIA JUDICIAL DIVISION HOLDEN AT UMUAHIA ON WEDNESDAY THE 29 TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2014 BEFORE THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE F. A. OLUBANJO JUDGE SUIT NO: FHC/UM/CS/64/2005

More information

(2018) LPELR-44129(CA)

(2018) LPELR-44129(CA) RAKUMI v. BAYAWA CITATION: HUSSEIN MUKHTAR In the Court of Appeal In the Sokoto Judicial Division Holden at Sokoto ON WEDNESDAY, 28TH MARCH, 2018 Suit No: CA/S/117S/2013 MUHAMMED LAWAL SHUAIBU FREDERICK

More information

(2018) LPELR-44208(CA)

(2018) LPELR-44208(CA) OKAFOR & ORS v. EZEATU CITATION: HUSSEIN MUKHTAR In the Court of Appeal In the Enugu Judicial Division Holden at Enugu ON TUESDAY, 13TH FEBRUARY, 2018 Suit No: CA/E/165/2015 MUHAMMED LAWAL SHUAIBU FREDERICK

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA HOLDEN AT ABUJA ON FRIDAY THE 19 TH DAY OF JULY, 2013 BEFORE THEIR LORDSHIPS

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA HOLDEN AT ABUJA ON FRIDAY THE 19 TH DAY OF JULY, 2013 BEFORE THEIR LORDSHIPS Hotel Licensing and other related matters Powers of Lagos State House of Assembly to legislate on Constitutionality of ALOMA MARIAM MUKHTAR IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA HOLDEN AT ABUJA ON FRIDAY THE

More information

(2018) LPELR-45112(CA)

(2018) LPELR-45112(CA) MONSOUR v. FRN CITATION: In the Court of Appeal In the Lagos Judicial Division Holden at Lagos ON MONDAY, 21ST MAY, 2018 Suit No: CA/L/234CM/2018(R) MOHAMMED LAWAL GARBA JOSEPH SHAGBAOR IKYEGH YARGATA

More information

WEST AFRICAN EXAMINATIONS COUNCIL & ORS V. MRS. NKOYO EDET IKANG & ORS CITATION: (2011) LPELR-5098(CA)

WEST AFRICAN EXAMINATIONS COUNCIL & ORS V. MRS. NKOYO EDET IKANG & ORS CITATION: (2011) LPELR-5098(CA) 1 WEST AFRICAN EXAMINATIONS COUNCIL & ORS V. MRS. NKOYO EDET IKANG & ORS CITATION: (2011) LPELR-5098(CA) In The Court of Appeal (Calabar Judicial Division) On Thursday, the 17th day of March, 2011 Suit

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE FEDERAL CAPITAL TERRITORY IN THE ABUJA JUDICIAL DIVISION HOLDEN AT APO

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE FEDERAL CAPITAL TERRITORY IN THE ABUJA JUDICIAL DIVISION HOLDEN AT APO IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE FEDERAL CAPITAL TERRITORY IN THE ABUJA JUDICIAL DIVISION HOLDEN AT APO BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP, HON. JUSTICE U.P KEKEMEKE MOTION NO. FCT/HC/M/389/11 DATE: 23/10/13 BETWEEN: MRS. OLGA

More information

RULING ON NOTICE OF PRELIMINARY OBJECTION. The applicant by a preliminary objection dated 5/4/13 moved the court to:

RULING ON NOTICE OF PRELIMINARY OBJECTION. The applicant by a preliminary objection dated 5/4/13 moved the court to: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE FEDERAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF NIGERIA IN THE ABUJA JUDICIAL DIVISION HOLDEN AT LUGBE ABUJA ON, 17 TH OCTOBER, 2013. BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP:- HON. JUSTICE A. O. OTALUKA. SUIT NO.:-

More information

(2018) LPELR-45103(CA)

(2018) LPELR-45103(CA) BASHIR v. FRN CITATION: In the Court of Appeal In the Kaduna Judicial Division Holden at Kaduna ON FRIDAY, 22ND JUNE, 2018 Suit No: CA/K/453/2017 Before Their Lordships: UZO IFEYINWA NDUKWE-ANYANWU MOHAMMED

More information

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AD-HOC COMMITTEE ON THE REVIEW OF THE 1999 CONSTITUTION CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS PROPOSED AMENDMENTS PROVISIONS AS AMENDED REMARKS Local government system. 7. (1) The system of

More information

(2018) LPELR-44252(CA)

(2018) LPELR-44252(CA) IKURAV (NIG) LTD & ANOR v. MADUGU & ORS CITATION: In the Court of Appeal In the Makurdi Judicial Division Holden at Makurdi JUMMAI HANNATU SANKEY ONYEKACHI AJA OTISI JOSEPH EYO EKANEM 1. IKURAV (NIG) LTD

More information

JUDGEMENT. (Delivered by KUMAI BAYANG AKAAI-IS, JSC) High Court, Ikeja Division on 8/8/2008. The charge was amended Oil /2008

JUDGEMENT. (Delivered by KUMAI BAYANG AKAAI-IS, JSC) High Court, Ikeja Division on 8/8/2008. The charge was amended Oil /2008 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA HOLDEN AT ABUJA ON FRIDAY, THE 13 TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2013 BEFORE THEIR LORDSHIPS:- MAHMUD MOHAMMED MOHAMMED S. MUNTAKA-COOMASSIE JOHN AFOLABI FABIYI NWALI SYLVESTER NGWUTA

More information

(2017) LPELR-43312(CA)

(2017) LPELR-43312(CA) SHETIMA v. GADAL & ORS CITATION: ADZIRA GANA MSHELIA UCHECHUKWU ONYEMENAM In the Court of Appeal In the Jos Judicial Division Holden at Jos ON FRIDAY, 2ND JUNE, 2017 Suit No: CA/J/73M/2017(R) Before Their

More information

(2018) LPELR-45834(CA)

(2018) LPELR-45834(CA) BRAINS & ANOR v. NWAFOR CITATION: In the Court of Appeal In the Abuja Judicial Division Holden at Abuja ABUBAKAR DATTI YAHAYA ON THURSDAY, 12TH JULY, 2018 Suit No: CA/A/102/2009 TINUADE AKOMOLAFE-WILSON

More information

(2017) LPELR-42383(CA)

(2017) LPELR-42383(CA) FIRST BANK OF NIGERIA PLC. v. ALDAR & CO.LTD. & ANOR CITATION: In the Court of Appeal In the Ibadan Judicial Division Holden at Ibadan ON FRIDAY, 17TH MARCH, 2017 Suit No: CA/I/76/2010 Before Their Lordships:

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE FEDERAL CAPITAL TERRITORY HOLDEN AT ABUJA BEFORE HON. JUSTICE SYLVANUS C. ORIJI RULING

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE FEDERAL CAPITAL TERRITORY HOLDEN AT ABUJA BEFORE HON. JUSTICE SYLVANUS C. ORIJI RULING IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE FEDERAL CAPITAL TERRITORY, ABUJA HOLDEN AT ABUJA ON TUESDAY, 21 ST DAY OF MAY, 2013 BEFORE HON. JUSTICE SYLVANUS C. ORIJI SUIT NO. FCT/HC/CV/866/2012 BETWEEN LIVING EYES INTERNATIONAL

More information

Constitution Amendment Bills for Harmonisation March

Constitution Amendment Bills for Harmonisation March Constitution Amendment Bills for Harmonisation March 2014 1 CONSTITUTION AMENDMENT BILLS FOR HARMONISATION: SENATE AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Constitution Amendment Bills for Harmonisation March 2014

More information

(2018) LPELR-45327(CA)

(2018) LPELR-45327(CA) MV CORAL GEM & ORS v. OISEOMAYE & ORS CITATION: TIJJANI ABUBAKAR In the Court of Appeal In the Lagos Judicial Division Holden at Lagos ON WEDNESDAY, 13TH JUNE, 2018 Suit No: CA/L/492/2014 BIOBELE ABRAHAM

More information

IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA

IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

More information

(2018) LPELR-46032(CA)

(2018) LPELR-46032(CA) BUBA v. ISA CITATION: In the Court of Appeal In the Yola Judicial Division Holden at Yola ON WEDNESDAY, 28TH NOVEMBER, 2018 Suit No: CA/YL/08/2018 OYEBISI FOLAYEMI OMOLEYE JAMES SHEHU ABIRIYI SAIDU TANKO

More information

(2018) LPELR-44008(CA)

(2018) LPELR-44008(CA) BLUEBAY GLOBAL CONCEPTS LTD & ANOR v. CITY VIEW ESTATES LTD CITATION: In the Court of Appeal In the Abuja Judicial Division Holden at Abuja ON TUESDAY, 6TH FEBRUARY, 2018 Suit No: CA/A/301/2016 EMMANUEL

More information

(2018) LPELR-45445(CA)

(2018) LPELR-45445(CA) KAWU v. CHIEF SHERIFF, KEBBI STATE & ANOR CITATION: HUSSEIN MUKHTAR In the Court of Appeal In the Sokoto Judicial Division Holden at Sokoto MUHAMMED LAWAL SHUAIBU FREDERICK OZIAKPONO OHO ON THURSDAY, 12TH

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE FEDERAL CAPITAL TERRITORY ABUJA. OJI PRESIDING JUDGE SUIT NO: FCT\HC\CV\6015\11 BETWEEN:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE FEDERAL CAPITAL TERRITORY ABUJA. OJI PRESIDING JUDGE SUIT NO: FCT\HC\CV\6015\11 BETWEEN: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE FEDERAL CAPITAL TERRITORY ABUJA. IN THE ABUJA JUDICIAL DIVISION HOLDEN AT WUSE ABUJA ON THE 13 TH DAY OF MAY, 2013 BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP HON JUSTICE CHIZOBA N. OJI PRESIDING

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE FEDERAL CAPITAL TERRITORY HOLDEN AT JABI - ABUJA THIS TUESDAY, THE 4 TH DAY OF JUNE, 2013

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE FEDERAL CAPITAL TERRITORY HOLDEN AT JABI - ABUJA THIS TUESDAY, THE 4 TH DAY OF JUNE, 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE FEDERAL CAPITAL TERRITORY HOLDEN AT JABI - ABUJA THIS TUESDAY, THE 4 TH DAY OF JUNE, 2013 BEFORE: HON. JUSTICE UGOCHUKWU A. OGAKWU - JUDGE MOTION NO. FCT/HC/M/1882/2012 BETWEEN:

More information

MISS OLUCHI ANYANWOKO V. CHIEF MRS CHRISTY OKOYE

MISS OLUCHI ANYANWOKO V. CHIEF MRS CHRISTY OKOYE MISS OLUCHI ANYANWOKO V. CHIEF MRS CHRISTY OKOYE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA HOLDEN AT ABUJA ON FRIDAY THE 22TH DAYOF JANUARY, 2010 CORAM GEORGE ADESOLA OGUNTADE FRANCIS FEDODE TABAI JAMES OGENYI OGEBE

More information

(2017) LPELR-43016(CA)

(2017) LPELR-43016(CA) USMAN & ORS v. FRN CITATION: In the Court of Appeal In the Yola Judicial Division Holden at Yola OYEBISI FOLAYEMI OMOLEYE JAMES SHEHU ABIRIYI SAIDU TANKO HUSAINI 1. ALHAJI INIWA USMAN 2. ALHAJI CHINDO

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE FEDERAL CAPITAL TERRITORY HOLDEN AT HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE WUSE ABUJA ON THE 20TH DAY OF MAY, 2013 BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP: - HON

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE FEDERAL CAPITAL TERRITORY HOLDEN AT HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE WUSE ABUJA ON THE 20TH DAY OF MAY, 2013 BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP: - HON IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE FEDERAL CAPITAL TERRITORY HOLDEN AT HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE WUSE ABUJA ON THE 20 TH DAY OF MAY, 2013 BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP: - HON. JUSTICE M.A NASIR COURT NO.:- HIGH COURT TWENTY TWO

More information

(2018) LPELR-44275(CA)

(2018) LPELR-44275(CA) ODIASE & ORS v. EDOGHOGHO CITATION: PHILOMENA MBUA EKPE In the Court of Appeal In the Benin Judicial Division Holden at Benin ON FRIDAY, 9TH MARCH, 2018 Suit No: CA/B/322/2016(R) SAMUEL CHUKWUDUMEBI OSEJI

More information

(2016) LPELR-41249(CA)

(2016) LPELR-41249(CA) UKATA & ORS v. AKPANOWO & ORS CITATION: In the Court of Appeal In the Calabar Judicial Division Holden at Calabar ON WEDNESDAY, 23RD MARCH, 2016 Suit No: CA/C/195/2013 CHIOMA EGONDU NWOSU-IHEME ONYEKACHI

More information

(2018) LPELR-45396(CA)

(2018) LPELR-45396(CA) FRSC & ORS v. MOHAMMED CITATION: In the Court of Appeal In the Jos Judicial Division Holden at Jos ON THURSDAY, 3RD MAY, 2018 Suit No: CA/J/269M/2012(R) UCHECHUKWU ONYEMENAM Before Their Lordships: HABEEB

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE FEDERAL CAPITAL TERRITORY IN THE ABUJA JUDICIAL DIVISION HOLDEN AT ABUJA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE FEDERAL CAPITAL TERRITORY IN THE ABUJA JUDICIAL DIVISION HOLDEN AT ABUJA IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE FEDERAL CAPITAL TERRITORY IN THE ABUJA JUDICIAL DIVISION HOLDEN AT ABUJA ON THE 7 TH DAY OF MAY 2013 SUIT NO. FCT/HC/CV/2055/11 M/2997/12 BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP: HONOURABLE JUSTICE

More information

THE RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ACT, 1987 ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS CHAPTER I PRELIMINARY

THE RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ACT, 1987 ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS CHAPTER I PRELIMINARY SECTIONS THE RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ACT, 1987 1. Short title, extent and commencement. 2. Definitions. ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS CHAPTER I PRELIMINARY CHAPTER II ESTABLISHMENT OF RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL

More information

(2018) LPELR-45308(CA)

(2018) LPELR-45308(CA) EPE RESORTS & SPA LTD v. UBA PLC CITATION: TIJJANI ABUBAKAR In the Court of Appeal In the Lagos Judicial Division Holden at Lagos ON THURSDAY, 5TH JULY, 2018 Suit No: CA/L/799/2014 BIOBELE ABRAHAM GEORGEWILL

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE. Between NIXON CALLENDER JILLIAN BEDEAU-CALLENDER AND THE PUBLIC SERVICE ASSOCIATION OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO AND

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE. Between NIXON CALLENDER JILLIAN BEDEAU-CALLENDER AND THE PUBLIC SERVICE ASSOCIATION OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO AND THE REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO Claim No. 2013-01906 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE Between NIXON CALLENDER JILLIAN BEDEAU-CALLENDER Claimants AND THE PUBLIC SERVICE ASSOCIATION OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO

More information

(2016) LPELR-40165(CA)

(2016) LPELR-40165(CA) MOUDKAS NIG ENT. LTD & ORS v. OBIOMA & ORS CITATION: UZO I. NDUKWE-ANYANWU JOSEPH SHAGBAOR IKYEGH SAMUEL CHUKWUDUMEBI OSEJI In the Court of Appeal In the Lagos Judicial Division Holden at Lagos ON FRIDAY,

More information

In the Supreme Court of Nigeria On Friday, the 23 rd day of March 2012

In the Supreme Court of Nigeria On Friday, the 23 rd day of March 2012 In the Supreme Court of Nigeria On Friday, the 23 rd day of March 2012 Before their Lordships Walter Samuel Nkanu Onnoghen... Justice Supreme Court Ibrahim Tanko Muhammad... Justice Supreme Court Olufunlola

More information

Ajiroghene Aruga Esq, for the Applicant A. N. Shuru Esq for the Party seeking to be Joined. RULING

Ajiroghene Aruga Esq, for the Applicant A. N. Shuru Esq for the Party seeking to be Joined. RULING IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE FEDERAL CAPITAL TERRITORY IN THE ABUJA JUDICIAL DIVISION HOLDEN AT ABUJA ON THE 11 TH OF JUNE, 2013 BEFORE THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE A. B. MOHAMMED SUIT NO. FCT/HC/CV/599/12 BETWEEN:

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE FEDERAL CAPITAL TERRITORY IN THE ABUJA JUDICIAL DIVISION HOLDEN AT WUSE ZONE 2 ABUJA FCT/HC/CV/1072/2011

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE FEDERAL CAPITAL TERRITORY IN THE ABUJA JUDICIAL DIVISION HOLDEN AT WUSE ZONE 2 ABUJA FCT/HC/CV/1072/2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE FEDERAL CAPITAL TERRITORY IN THE ABUJA JUDICIAL DIVISION HOLDEN AT WUSE ZONE 2 ABUJA BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP: HON.JUSTICE D.Z. SENCHI COURT CLERKS: TSENYEN P. SALLAH COURT NUMBER:

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE FEDERAL CAPITAL TERRITORY IN THE ABUJA JUDICIAL DIVISION HOLDEN AT MAITAMA ABUJA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE FEDERAL CAPITAL TERRITORY IN THE ABUJA JUDICIAL DIVISION HOLDEN AT MAITAMA ABUJA IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE FEDERAL CAPITAL TERRITORY IN THE ABUJA JUDICIAL DIVISION HOLDEN AT MAITAMA ABUJA BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP: HON. JUSTICE SALISU GARBA COURT CLERKS: BWALA NATHAN & OTHERS COURT NUMBER:

More information

TITLE I Nature of the Constitutional Court and scope of its jurisdiction

TITLE I Nature of the Constitutional Court and scope of its jurisdiction ANDORRA Qualified Law on the Constitutional Court enacted on 2 and 3 September 1993 TITLE I Nature of the Constitutional Court and scope of its jurisdiction Chapter I - Nature of the Constitutional Court

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE, A.D.2011

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE, A.D.2011 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE, A.D.2011 CLAIM NO: 647 of 2011 IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION PURSUANT TO PART 56 OF THE SUPREME COURT (CIVIL PROCEDURE) RULES AND IN THE MATTER OF SECTION 2(1)(b), 2(3),

More information

(2017) LPELR-42606(CA)

(2017) LPELR-42606(CA) STATE v. ASUNMO & ORS CITATION: In the Court of Appeal In the Ibadan Judicial Division Holden at Ibadan CHINWE EUGENIA IYIZOBA HARUNA SIMON TSAMMANI NONYEREM OKORONKWO ON FRIDAY, 30TH JUNE, 2017 Suit No:

More information

Jurisdiction of The Courts in Labour And Trade Union Matters

Jurisdiction of The Courts in Labour And Trade Union Matters Jurisdiction of The Courts in Labour And Trade Union Matters By YUSUF O. ALI, SAN Introduction In tackling this topic, recourse will be had to the following statutes, viz the Labour Act Cap 198 Laws of

More information

(2018) LPELR-45114(CA)

(2018) LPELR-45114(CA) ASHIMIYU v. BOLAJI & ORS CITATION: In the Court of Appeal In the Lagos Judicial Division Holden at Lagos MOHAMMED LAWAL GARBA JOSEPH SHAGBAOR IKYEGH YARGATA BYENCHIT NIMPAR ON FRIDAY, 8TH JUNE, 2018 Suit

More information

University of Central Florida Fiftieth Student Body Senate Constitutional Amendment 50-01

University of Central Florida Fiftieth Student Body Senate Constitutional Amendment 50-01 University of Central Florida Fiftieth Student Body Senate Constitutional Amendment 50-01 Introduced By: SRU Committee Sponsored By: LJR Committee Contact: Sga_ljr@ucf.edu First Reading: Adopted in Committee

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE FEDERAL CAPITAL TERRITORY HOLDEN AT GWAGWALADA BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP.HON. JUSTICE M.BALAMI COURT CLERK..

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE FEDERAL CAPITAL TERRITORY HOLDEN AT GWAGWALADA BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP.HON. JUSTICE M.BALAMI COURT CLERK.. IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE FEDERAL CAPITAL TERRITORY HOLDEN AT GWAGWALADA SUIT NO: FCT /HC/GWD/CV/585/11 BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP.HON. JUSTICE M.BALAMI COURT CLERK..PAUL OJILE BETWEEN ZIP SYSTEM LTD &2 ORS.PLAINTIFFS/RESPONDENTS

More information

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF JUDICATURE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GHANA ACCRA-AD 2016

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF JUDICATURE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GHANA ACCRA-AD 2016 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF JUDICATURE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GHANA ACCRA-AD 2016 BETWEEN Suit No: 1. ABU RAMADAN H/NO. 27 4 TH ABEKA KWAME STREET ABEKA-LAPAZ, ACCRA 2. EVANS NIMAKO H/NO. AP174 APLAKU-ISRAEL

More information

(2) A Regent shall, before entering upon the duties of his office, take and subscribe the oath of allegiance and the oath for the due execution of

(2) A Regent shall, before entering upon the duties of his office, take and subscribe the oath of allegiance and the oath for the due execution of (2) A Regent shall, before entering upon the duties of his office, take and subscribe the oath of allegiance and the oath for the due execution of his office which is set out in Schedule 1 to this Constitution.

More information

Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2000

Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2000 Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2000 Commencement: 1st May 2000 In exercise of the powers conferred on me by section 254 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 and all powers

More information

RULING. This is a motion on notice wherein the judgment debtor/applicant seeks the following reliefs:

RULING. This is a motion on notice wherein the judgment debtor/applicant seeks the following reliefs: IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE FEDERAL CAPITAL TERRITORY IN THE ABUJA JUDICIAL DIVISION HOLDEN AT ABUJA ON THE 15TH DAY OF JULY 2013 SUIT NO. FCT/HC/M/8912/13 BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP HONOURABLE JUSTICE FOLASADE

More information

STANDING ORDERS OF THE PARLIAMENT OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA

STANDING ORDERS OF THE PARLIAMENT OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA STANDING ORDERS OF THE PARLIAMENT OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA These new Standing Orders were approved and adopted by Parliament on 07 March 2018, and to be effective from 15 April

More information

BETWEEN: AND AND RULING

BETWEEN: AND AND RULING IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE FEDERAL CAPITAL TERRITORY IN THE ABUJA JUDICIAL DIVISION HOLDEN AT ABUJA ON THE 28 TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2013 SUIT NO. FCT/HC/M/8529/13 BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP: HONOURABLE JUSTICE FOLASADE

More information

(2017) LPELR-43954(CA)

(2017) LPELR-43954(CA) PETER & ORS v. UJAM CITATION: HUSSEIN MUKHTAR In the Court of Appeal In the Enugu Judicial Division Holden at Enugu ON THURSDAY, 7TH DECEMBER, 2017 Suit No: CA/E/208/2008 MUHAMMED LAWAL SHUAIBU FREDERICK

More information

Ghana: Ghana Commercial Bank Ltd v Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice (2003) A Justice (2003) AHRLR 163 (GhSC 2003)

Ghana: Ghana Commercial Bank Ltd v Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice (2003) A Justice (2003) AHRLR 163 (GhSC 2003) Ghana: Ghana Commercial Bank Ltd v Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice (2003) A Ghana Commercial Bank Ltd v Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice (2003) AHRLR 163 (GhSC

More information

THE CONSTITUTION OF THE STUDENT BODY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CENTRAL FLORIDA

THE CONSTITUTION OF THE STUDENT BODY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CENTRAL FLORIDA THE CONSTITUTION OF THE STUDENT BODY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CENTRAL FLORIDA We, the students of the University of Central Florida, in order that we may maintain the benefits of constitutional liberty and

More information

BERMUDA PARLIAMENT ACT : 19

BERMUDA PARLIAMENT ACT : 19 QUO FA T A F U E R N T BERMUDA PARLIAMENT ACT 1957 1957 : 19 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Arrangement of Act [omitted] Interpretation Savings PART I PART II IMMUNITIES

More information

THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA CIVIL APPEAL NO. 013 OF 2014 BETWEEN

THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA CIVIL APPEAL NO. 013 OF 2014 BETWEEN 5 THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA (Coram: Katureebe; C.J., Tumwesigye; Arach-Amoko; Mwangusya; Mwondha; JJ.S.C.) 10 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 013 OF 2014 BETWEEN 15 KAMPALA CAPITAL

More information

THE REGISTERED TRUSTEES OF IGBO COMMUNITY, OYO STATE v. CYRIL AKABUEZE AND TWO OTHERS HIGH COURT IBADAN OYO STATE

THE REGISTERED TRUSTEES OF IGBO COMMUNITY, OYO STATE v. CYRIL AKABUEZE AND TWO OTHERS HIGH COURT IBADAN OYO STATE THE REGISTERED TRUSTEES OF IGBO COMMUNITY, OYO STATE v. CYRIL AKABUEZE AND TWO OTHERS HIGH COURT IBADAN OYO STATE 1/568/96 J.O. IGE, J. Friday, 30 th June 2000. FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS Freedom of Association

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE FEDERAL CAPITAL TERRITORY IN THE ABUJA JUDICIAL DIVISION (APPELLATE DIVISION) HOLDEN AT APO, ABUJA DATED 21/03/13

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE FEDERAL CAPITAL TERRITORY IN THE ABUJA JUDICIAL DIVISION (APPELLATE DIVISION) HOLDEN AT APO, ABUJA DATED 21/03/13 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE FEDERAL CAPITAL TERRITORY IN THE ABUJA JUDICIAL DIVISION (APPELLATE DIVISION) HOLDEN AT APO, ABUJA DATED 21/03/13 BEFORE THEIR LORDSHIPS: HON. JUSTICE U.P. KEKEMEKE (PRESIDING

More information

(2016) LPELR-41455(CA)

(2016) LPELR-41455(CA) FRN v. ATUCHE & ORS CITATION: ADZIRA GANA MSHELIA In the Court of Appeal In the Lagos Judicial Division Holden at Lagos ON FRIDAY, 23RD SEPTEMBER, 2016 Suit No: CA/L/997C/15 Before Their Lordships: MASSOUD

More information

(2018) LPELR-44734(CA)

(2018) LPELR-44734(CA) ADEBO v. EXECUTIVE GOVERNOR OF OYO STATE & ORS CITATION: In the Court of Appeal In the Ibadan Judicial Division Holden at Ibadan CHINWE EUGENIA IYIZOBA HARUNA SIMON TSAMMANI NONYEREM OKORONKWO ON WEDNESDAY,

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN JULIANA WEBSTER CLAIMANT AND

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN JULIANA WEBSTER CLAIMANT AND REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO CV2011-03158 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN JULIANA WEBSTER CLAIMANT AND REPUBLIC BANK LIMITED PC KAREN RAMSEY #13191 PC KERN PHILLIPS #16295 THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

More information

(2016) LPELR-40572(CA)

(2016) LPELR-40572(CA) MAINSTREET BANK REGISTRARS LTD v. PROMISE CITATION: SIDI DAUDA BAGE In the Court of Appeal In the Lagos Judicial Division Holden at Lagos JOSEPH SHAGBAOR IKYEGH ON TUESDAY, 22ND MARCH, 2016 Suit No: CA/L/1157/2014

More information

(2018) LPELR-44058(CA)

(2018) LPELR-44058(CA) UBA PLC v. ACCESS BANK & ANOR CITATION: HUSSEIN MUKHTAR In the Court of Appeal In the Sokoto Judicial Division Holden at Sokoto ON FRIDAY, 2ND FEBRUARY, 2018 Suit No: CA/S/21/2017 MUHAMMED LAWAL SHUAIBU

More information

SUIT NO. FCT/HC/CV/1599/10 MOTION NO: FCT/HC/M/3716/10 FCT/H/G/15/M/75/10 BETWEEN:

SUIT NO. FCT/HC/CV/1599/10 MOTION NO: FCT/HC/M/3716/10 FCT/H/G/15/M/75/10 BETWEEN: IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE FEDERAL CAPITAL TERRITORY IN THE ABUJA JUDICIAL DIVISION HOLDEN AT ABUJA BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP, HON. JUSTICE A.A.I. BANJOKO JUDGE SUIT NO. FCT/HC/CV/1599/10 MOTION NO: FCT/HC/M/3716/10

More information

(2017) LPELR-42702(CA)

(2017) LPELR-42702(CA) SIJUADE v. ELUGBINDIN & 3 ORS. CITATION: In the Court of Appeal In the Akure Judicial Division Holden at Akure ON MONDAY, 15TH MAY, 2017 Suit No: CA/AK/48/2014 Before Their Lordships: UZO IFEYINWA NDUKWE-ANYANWU

More information

(2018) LPELR-45265(CA)

(2018) LPELR-45265(CA) GARBA & ANOR v. SAMINU & ANOR CITATION: HUSSEIN MUKHTAR In the Court of Appeal In the Sokoto Judicial Division Holden at Sokoto ON WEDNESDAY, 11TH JULY, 2018 Suit No: CA/S/31S/2017 MUHAMMED LAWAL SHUAIBU

More information

AND 1. NATIONAL AGENCY FOR FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION AND CONTROL (NAFDAC) 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL NAFDAC RULING A.

AND 1. NATIONAL AGENCY FOR FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION AND CONTROL (NAFDAC) 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL NAFDAC RULING A. FEDERAL HIGH COURT OF NIGERIA IN THE ABUJA JUDICIAL DIVISION HOLDEN AT ABUJA ON MONDAY THE 15 TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2014 BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP, HON. JUSTICE A. F. A. ADEMOLA JUDGE SUIT NO: FHC/ABJ/CS/760/13

More information

(2018) LPELR-44530(CA)

(2018) LPELR-44530(CA) HABIBU & ORS v. ALELU CITATION: HUSSEIN MUKHTAR In the Court of Appeal In the Sokoto Judicial Division Holden at Sokoto MUHAMMED LAWAL SHUAIBU FREDERICK OZIAKPONO OHO ON FRIDAY, 25TH MAY, 2018 Suit No:

More information

GYANG & ANOR V COP OF LAGOS STATE & ORS IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA HOLDEN AT ABUJA ON THE 20TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2013

GYANG & ANOR V COP OF LAGOS STATE & ORS IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA HOLDEN AT ABUJA ON THE 20TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2013 GYANG & ANOR V COP OF LAGOS STATE & ORS IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA HOLDEN AT ABUJA ON THE 20TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2013 ELECTRONIC CITATION: LER[ ]SC. 360/2007 OTHER CITATIONS: [ ] ANLR CORAM WALTER

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE FEDERAL CAPITAL TERRITORY IN THE ABUJA JUDICIAL DIVISION HOLDEN AT WUSE ZONE 2 ABUJA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE FEDERAL CAPITAL TERRITORY IN THE ABUJA JUDICIAL DIVISION HOLDEN AT WUSE ZONE 2 ABUJA IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE FEDERAL CAPITAL TERRITORY IN THE ABUJA JUDICIAL DIVISION HOLDEN AT WUSE ZONE 2 ABUJA BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP: HON.JUSTICE D.Z. SENCHI COURT CLERKS: T. P. SALLAH & ORS. COURT NUMBER:

More information

Preliminary Observation

Preliminary Observation APPOINTMENT AND REMOVAL OF ACTING VICE CHANCELLOR UNDER THE UNIVERSITIES (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) (AMENDMENT) ACT 2003 AN APPRAISAL BY PROFESSOR EHI OSHIO, DEAN, FACULTY OF LAW, UNIVERSITY OF BENIN Introduction

More information

Downloaded From

Downloaded From CHAPTER I Preliminary 1. Short title, extent, commencement and application. 2. Definitions. CHAPTER II Establishment of tribunal and appellate tribunal 3. Establishment of Tribunal. 4. Composition of Tribunal.

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL BETWEEN: ST. KITTS NEVIS ANGUILLA NATIONAL BANK LIMITED. and CARIBBEAN 6/49 LIMITED

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL BETWEEN: ST. KITTS NEVIS ANGUILLA NATIONAL BANK LIMITED. and CARIBBEAN 6/49 LIMITED SAINT CHRISTOPHER AND NEVIS CIVIL APPEAL NO.6 OF 2002 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL BETWEEN: ST. KITTS NEVIS ANGUILLA NATIONAL BANK LIMITED and CARIBBEAN 6/49 LIMITED Appellant Respondent Before: The Hon. Mr.

More information

EXPLANATORY NOTE (These Notes are not part of the Bill but are intended only to indicate its general mission).

EXPLANATORY NOTE (These Notes are not part of the Bill but are intended only to indicate its general mission). EXPLANATORY NOTE (These Notes are not part of the Bill but are intended only to indicate its general mission). 1. The clauses of the Bill for the Constitution of Grenada (Elections and Boundaries Commission)

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE FEDERAL CAPITAL TERRITORY HOLDEN AT ABUJA THIS THURSDAY, THE 25 TH DAY OF APRIL, 2013

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE FEDERAL CAPITAL TERRITORY HOLDEN AT ABUJA THIS THURSDAY, THE 25 TH DAY OF APRIL, 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE FEDERAL CAPITAL TERRITORY HOLDEN AT ABUJA THIS THURSDAY, THE 25 TH DAY OF APRIL, 2013 BEFORE: HON. JUSTICE UGOCHUKWU A. OGAKWU - JUDGE MOTION NO. M/4719/2013 BETWEEN: 1. COSMOS

More information

SOUTH ATLANTIC PETROLEUM LTD V THE MINISTER OF PETROLEUM RESOURCES

SOUTH ATLANTIC PETROLEUM LTD V THE MINISTER OF PETROLEUM RESOURCES SOUTH ATLANTIC PETROLEUM LTD V THE MINISTER OF PETROLEUM RESOURCES IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA HOLDEN AT ABUJA ON FRIDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2013 ELECTRONIC CITATION: LER[ ]SC. 143/2008 OTHER

More information

(2018) LPELR-43898(SC)

(2018) LPELR-43898(SC) NNALIMUO & ORS v. ELODUMUO & ORS CITATION: In the Supreme Court of Nigeria IBRAHIM TANKO MUHAMMAD OLUKAYODE ARIWOOLA KUMAI BAYANG AKA'AHS AMINA ADAMU AUGIE PAUL ADAMU GALINJE 1. CHUKWUDI NNALIMUO 2. NWEKE

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE FEDERAL CAPITAL TERRITORY IN THE ABUJA JUDICIAL DIVISION HOLDEN AT MAITAMA ABUJA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE FEDERAL CAPITAL TERRITORY IN THE ABUJA JUDICIAL DIVISION HOLDEN AT MAITAMA ABUJA IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE FEDERAL CAPITAL TERRITORY IN THE ABUJA JUDICIAL DIVISION HOLDEN AT MAITAMA ABUJA BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP: HON. JUSTICE SALISU GARBA COURT CLERKS: BWALA NATHAN & OTHERS COURT NUMBER:

More information

CHAPTER A19 ARCHITECTS (REGISTRATION, ETC,) ACT ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS. Architects Registration Council of Nigeria SCHEDULES SECTION FIRST SCHEDULE

CHAPTER A19 ARCHITECTS (REGISTRATION, ETC,) ACT ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS. Architects Registration Council of Nigeria SCHEDULES SECTION FIRST SCHEDULE SECTION CHAPTER A19 ARCHITECTS (REGISTRATION, ETC,) ACT ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS Architects Registration Council of Nigeria 1 Use of appellation of architect. 2 Establishment of the Architects Registration

More information

deletions are shown by strike-through font in red, insertions by underlining and blue font colour BILL

deletions are shown by strike-through font in red, insertions by underlining and blue font colour BILL DISTRIBUTED BY VERITAS TRUST Tel/fax: [263] [4] 794478. E-mail: veritas@mango.zw Veritas makes every effort to ensure the provision of reliable information, but cannot take legal responsibility for information

More information

(2017) LPELR-42284(CA)

(2017) LPELR-42284(CA) AGWALOGU & ORS v. TURA INT'L LTD NIGERIA & ORS CITATION: In the Court of Appeal In the Owerri Judicial Division Holden at Owerri ON THURSDAY, 23RD MARCH, 2017 Suit No: CA/OW/217/2010 Before Their Lordships:

More information

(2018) LPELR-45173(CA)

(2018) LPELR-45173(CA) HI-QUALITY BAKERY LTD & ANOR v. LONGE & ORS CITATION: In the Court of Appeal In the Calabar Judicial Division Holden at Calabar ON WEDNESDAY, 30TH MAY, 2018 Suit No: CA/C/122/2015 Before Their Lordships:

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL. and THE BEACON INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL. and THE BEACON INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED GRENADA IN THE COURT OF APPEAL HCVAP 2010/029 BETWEEN: THE BEACON INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Appellant and LIBERTY CLUB LIMITED Respondent HCVAP 2010/030 LIBERTY CLUB LIMITED Appellant THE BEACON INSURANCE

More information

MOTION NO: FCT/HC/M/9227/13 BETWEEN: CHUKWU CHRISTIAN NWEKE JUDGMENT CREDITOR/ RESPONDENT AND MOSES NWOBODO...JUDGMENT DEBTOR/ APPLICANT

MOTION NO: FCT/HC/M/9227/13 BETWEEN: CHUKWU CHRISTIAN NWEKE JUDGMENT CREDITOR/ RESPONDENT AND MOSES NWOBODO...JUDGMENT DEBTOR/ APPLICANT IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE FEDERAL CAPITAL TERRITORY IN THE ABUJA JUDICIAL DIVISION HOLDEN AT ABUJA BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP, HON. JUSTICE A.A.I BANJOKO JUDGE MOTION NO: FCT/HC/M/9227/13 BETWEEN: CHUKWU CHRISTIAN

More information

(2017) LPELR-43361(CA)

(2017) LPELR-43361(CA) MUHAMMED GONI COLLEGE OF LEGAL & ISLAMIC STUDIES & ANOR v. ALI & ORS CITATION: ADAMU JAURO In the Court of Appeal In the Jos Judicial Division Holden at Jos ON TUESDAY, 11TH JULY, 2017 Suit No: CA/J/121M/2016(R)

More information

ACT. This Act may be cited as the Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment (No. 17) Act, 2005.

ACT. This Act may be cited as the Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment (No. 17) Act, 2005. DISTRIBUTED BY VERITAS TRUST Tel/fax: [263] [4] 794478. E-mail: veritas@mango.zw Veritas makes every effort to ensure the provision of reliable information, but cannot take legal responsibility for information

More information

(2017) LPELR-43729(CA)

(2017) LPELR-43729(CA) OJONG v. NTUI & ORS CITATION: In the Court of Appeal In the Calabar Judicial Division Holden at Calabar ON WEDNESDAY, 25TH OCTOBER, 2017 Suit No: CA/C/17/2014 CHIOMA EGONDU NWOSU-IHEME STEPHEN JONAH ADAH

More information

(2018) LPELR-45450(CA)

(2018) LPELR-45450(CA) IBRAHIM & ANOR v. YARBAWA CITATION: HUSSEIN MUKHTAR In the Court of Appeal In the Sokoto Judicial Division Holden at Sokoto MUHAMMED LAWAL SHUAIBU FREDERICK OZIAKPONO OHO ON FRIDAY, 13TH JULY, 2018 Suit

More information

THE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS ACT, 1985 ACT NO. 13 OF 1985 [27th February, 1985.]

THE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS ACT, 1985 ACT NO. 13 OF 1985 [27th February, 1985.] THE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS ACT, 1985 ACT NO. 13 OF 1985 [27th February, 1985.] An Act to provide for the adjudication or trial by Administrative Tribunals of disputes and complaints with respect to recruitment

More information

(2016) LPELR-40330(CA)

(2016) LPELR-40330(CA) MIJINYAWA & ANOR v. ANAS CITATION: TIJJANI ABDULLAHI JUMMAI HANNATU SANKEY SAIDU TANKO HUSSAINI In the Court of Appeal In the Yola Judicial Division Holden at Yola ON TUESDAY, 26TH JANUARY, 2016 Suit No:

More information

1. Amendments to the Rules of Procedure of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal of 14 January 2009 (OJ L 24 of , p.

1. Amendments to the Rules of Procedure of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal of 14 January 2009 (OJ L 24 of , p. RULES OF PROCEDURE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL This edition consolidates: the Rules of Procedure of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal of 25 July 2007 (OJ L 225 of 29.8.2007, p.

More information

ACADEMIC & STUDENT AFFAIRS COMMITTEE Wednesday, December 10, 2008

ACADEMIC & STUDENT AFFAIRS COMMITTEE Wednesday, December 10, 2008 ACADEMIC & STUDENT AFFAIRS COMMITTEE Wednesday, December 10, 2008 Item: AS: A-1 SUBJECT: Student Government Constitutional Amendments Proposed Committee Action Approval of the amendments to the Student

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL. (1) THE COMPTROLLER OF CUSTOMS (2) THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE COMMON- WEALTH OF DOMINICA Respondents

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL. (1) THE COMPTROLLER OF CUSTOMS (2) THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE COMMON- WEALTH OF DOMINICA Respondents DOMINICA CIVIL APPEAL No. 8 of 1994 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL BETWEEN: J. ASTAPHAN & CO (1970) LTD and Appellant (1) THE COMPTROLLER OF CUSTOMS (2) THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE COMMON- WEALTH OF DOMINICA Respondents

More information

(2017) LPELR-43654(CA)

(2017) LPELR-43654(CA) ETUK v. UDO & ORS CITATION: In the Court of Appeal In the Calabar Judicial Division Holden at Calabar ON WEDNESDAY, 12TH JULY, 2017 Suit No: CA/C/241/2012 CHIOMA EGONDU NWOSU-IHEME STEPHEN JONAH ADAH Before

More information

THE PUNJAB RIGHT TO SERVICE ACT, 2011 ( PUNJAB ACT NO.24 OF 2011.) A ACT

THE PUNJAB RIGHT TO SERVICE ACT, 2011 ( PUNJAB ACT NO.24 OF 2011.) A ACT PART-1 DEPARTMENT OF LEGAL AND LEGISLATIVE AFFIARS, PUNJAB Notification The 20 th October, 2011 No.37-leg/2011- The following act of the Legislature of the State of Punjab received the assent of the Punjab

More information

JUDGMENT. Attorney General (Appellant) v Dumas (Respondent) (Trinidad and Tobago)

JUDGMENT. Attorney General (Appellant) v Dumas (Respondent) (Trinidad and Tobago) Hilary Term [2017] UKPC 12 Privy Council Appeal No 0069 of 2015 JUDGMENT Attorney General (Appellant) v Dumas (Respondent) (Trinidad and Tobago) From the Court of Appeal of the Republic of Trinidad and

More information

Nigerian Prisons Service Commission (Establishment, etc.) NIGERIAN PRISONS SERVICE COMMISSION (ESTABLISHMENT, ETC.) BILL, 2006

Nigerian Prisons Service Commission (Establishment, etc.) NIGERIAN PRISONS SERVICE COMMISSION (ESTABLISHMENT, ETC.) BILL, 2006 [SHB. ] NIGERIAN PRISONS SERVICE COMMISSION (ESTABLISHMENT, ETC.) BILL, 00 C Arrangement of Sections Section: Part I Establishment, Composition, etc. of the Nigerian Prisons Service Commission. Establishment

More information

BERMUDA LEGISLATURE (APPOINTMENT, ELECTION AND MEMBERSHIP CONTROVERSIES) ACT : 153

BERMUDA LEGISLATURE (APPOINTMENT, ELECTION AND MEMBERSHIP CONTROVERSIES) ACT : 153 QUO FA T A F U E R N T BERMUDA LEGISLATURE (APPOINTMENT, ELECTION AND MEMBERSHIP 1968 : 153 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Interpretation PART I PART II DISPUTED

More information