Featured Cases

Abolition of demurrers removes the procedural tool of demurrers but does not eliminate the right to challenge the court’s jurisdiction-Order V Rule 10(1)(a)(b)-Order V Rule 12(1)- when verifying affidavit is not written on the petition but filed separately- BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP: – HON. JUSTICE I. M. NJAKA- SUIT NO: HOW /75D/2023 -NWANEVU CHIDIEBERE GORDIAN V MRS. OGECHI PATIENCE NWANEVU

IN THE HIGH COURT OF IMO STATE OF NIGERIA IN...

Recent Posts

SUIT NO: HOW/1479/2022- BY HON JUSTICE INNOCENT M. NJAKA:Estoppel and Res Judicata Whether the Plaintiffs/Respondents are estopped in law from instituting the current suit based on the principles of estoppel and res judicata, considering the requirements of a prior judgment, the identity of parties, and the subject matter. Legal Reference: The doctrine of estoppel under Nigerian law requires (i) a final judgment by a court of competent jurisdiction, (ii) identical parties or their privies, and (iii) identical subject matter (Iwuagolu v. Azuka [2007] 5 NWLR (Pt. 1028) 621). Abuse of Court Process Whether the current suit constitutes an abuse of court process, as alleged by the 3rd Defendant/Applicant, examining if the Plaintiffs/Respondents are improperly using the legal process to harass or annoy the opposing party. Legal Reference: Abuse of court process occurs when legal processes are used maliciously or oppressively (Saraki v. Kotoye [1992] 9 NWLR (Pt. 264) 156). Resolution of Estoppel at Interlocutory Stage Whether the court can determine the issue of estoppel at the interlocutory stage without a full trial, considering whether affidavit evidence alone is sufficient to resolve such complex legal issues. Legal Reference: Nigerian courts require full hearings for complex issues like estoppel, which cannot be conclusively resolved through affidavit evidence alone (Tobin v. Mobil Production (Nig.) Unlimited [2015] All FWLR (Pt. 778) 808). Denial of Involvement in the Constitution Whether the Plaintiffs/Respondents’ denial of involvement in the constitution upon which the 3rd Defendant/Applicant claims traditional rulership raises sufficient grounds for the court to proceed to a full hearing. Legal Principle: Factual disputes, particularly involving denials of involvement or privity in key documents, require a full trial for a comprehensive examination of evidence. Bad Faith in Application to Dismiss Whether the 3rd Defendant/Applicant’s application to dismiss the suit is made in bad faith to prevent the Plaintiffs/Respondents from obtaining a fair hearing and to frustrate the judicial process. Legal Reference: Applications intended to deny a party’s right to a fair hearing can be deemed to be made in bad faith and constitute an abuse of the legal process (Honda Place Ltd. v. Globe Motors Ltd. [2005] 14 NWLR (Pt. 945) 273)

Whether the Plaintiffs’ suit constitutes an abuse of court process: Does the initiation of the current suit by the Plaintiffs amount to an abuse of court process, considering the allegations that it seeks to relitigate issues already determined in Suit No. HOW/238/18? Whether the defense of res judicata or issue estoppel applies to the present suit: Are the parties, subject matter, and issues in the present suit identical to those in Suit No. HOW/238/18, such that the doctrine of res judicata or issue estoppel would bar the Plaintiffs from proceeding with their claims? Whether the parties in the present suit are the same as those in Suit No. HOW/238/18: Can the Defendants successfully establish that the parties in both the current suit and the previous suit are the same or have a sufficient relationship (privity) to invoke res judicata? Whether the subject matter and issues in the present suit are the same as in Suit No. HOW/238/18: Are the subject matter and issues in the present suit sufficiently distinct from those in the previous suit, or do they overlap to the extent that the current action constitutes an attempt to relitigate issues already decided? Whether the exhibits relied upon by the Defendants (Exhibits A, B, and C) are relevant and applicable to the present suit: Do the exhibits tendered by the Defendants directly pertain to the issues in the present suit, or are they irrelevant because they concern different parties or different matters? Whether the current suit is an attempt to relitigate issues already determined in Suit No. HOW/238/18: Does the Plaintiffs’ action constitute a relitigation of issues already settled in the previous suit, or does it involve new claims, such as trespass by new parties, that entitle the Plaintiffs to pursue their current claims? BY HON. JUSTICE INNOCENT M.NJAKA

SUIT NO. HOW/313/2016 1.CHIDI UNEZE 2. INNOCENT AHUMIBE 3. GODSON NNADI 4. CHIEDU OSUJI 5 SABASTINE OPARAJI 6. LOUIS OKORO 7. FERDINAND UKAEGBU 8. EMMANUEL AGUMANU ( For Themselves And As Representatives of the Native Owners of The Land In Dispute in Umuohiadagu/umuekwema, Umumbazor, Nekede, Owerri West LGA And Purchasers From Them; Except The 4th – 8th Defendants And Their Supporters. AND 1. THE GOVERNOR, IMO STATE OF NIGERIA 2. HE HONOURABLE COMMISSIONER MINISTRY OF LANDS, SURVEYS & URBAN PLANNING 3. MR. U.D. NWAIWU, DIRECTOR OF LANDS MINISTRY OF LANDS, SURVEYS & URBAN PLANNING 4.CHRIS OKECHUKWU 5.ASIKA UNEZE 6.ONYEKACHI MADUAGWU 7.H.R.H. EZE STEPHEN K. AGUMANU IV Delivered on THIS WEDNESDAY THE 9TH OCTOBER,2024 by HIS LORDSHIP: – HON. JUSTICE I. M. NJAKAWithdrawal of Representation by Counsel, Conditions for Counsel’s Withdrawal from Representation, Defendants’ Absence Despite Court’s Multiple Adjournments Unlawful Land Acquisition: Plaintiffs argue that the Defendants failed to follow required legal processes for land acquisition, including the absence of a ‘Claims Survey’ and lack of ‘adequate compensation.’ Constitutional Right to Property: Emphasis on the constitutional right to own property and the government’s obligation to adhere to statutory procedures for compulsory land acquisition. Deficiencies in Defendants’ Evidence: Defendants’ failure to provide proof of legal acquisition, such as documentation of ‘gazetted acquisition’ or payment of compensation. Court’s Stance on Public Acquisition: Judicial rulings highlighted that mere designation of land for public use does not amount to lawful acquisition without adherence to legal requirements. Validity of Ownership: Argument distinguishing between possession and ownership, with reference to established legal principles proving ownership of land. Discrepancy in Payment Justification: Inconsistency in Defendants’ claim of paying N4 million for “Ego Ipipie Ohia,” questioning the legality of this payment in relation to proper government land acquisition. Procedural Irregularities: Issues raised regarding statutory non-compliance and procedural flaws in the Defendants’ acquisition process, including lack of proper notifications and due process. Presumption of Regularity Rebutted: Defendants’ claim of presumption of regularity under the Evidence Act rejected due to failure to meet statutory requirements.

Abolition of demurrers removes the procedural tool of demurrers but does not eliminate the right to challenge the court’s jurisdiction-Order V Rule 10(1)(a)(b)-Order V Rule 12(1)- when verifying affidavit is not written on the petition but filed separately- BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP: – HON. JUSTICE I. M. NJAKA- SUIT NO: HOW /75D/2023 -NWANEVU CHIDIEBERE GORDIAN V MRS. OGECHI PATIENCE NWANEVU

IN THE HIGH COURT OF IMO STATE OF NIGERIA IN THE HIGH COURT OF OWERRI JUDICIAL DIVISION HOLDEN AT HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE, OWERRI THIS WEDNESDAY THE 6TH NOVEMBER, 2024...

BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP: – HON. JUSTICE I. M. NJAKA – SUIT NO: HOW/666/2022 – MR. AMBROSE UZOMA V. ELDER ROMANUS NLEMCHUKWU NKEMJIKA-Order 44 Rule 4 of the Imo State High Court Civil Procedure Rules, 2017 -Section 36(1) of the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria- A defendant seeking to set aside a judgment must show that they have a meritorious defence

IN THE HIGH COURT OF IMO STATE OF NIGERIA IN THE HIGH COURT OF OWERRI JUDICIAL DIVISION HOLDEN AT HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE, OWERRI THIS THURSDAY THE   31ST DAY OF...

BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP: – HON. JUSTICE I. M. NJAKA – SUIT NO HOW/416/2023 – CHIBUZOR AHAMEFULE V HRH EZE JUDE NWOGU & ORS – Attempt to enforce customary sanctions through means that directly conflict with constitutional protections- fundamental rights stand above the ordinary laws of the land- A banishment order is a direct violation of Section 41 of the Constitution-Whether customary law sanctions can override constitutional fundamental rights

IN THE HIGH COURT OF IMO STATE OF NIGERIA IN THE HIGH COURT OF OWERRI JUDICIAL DIVISION HOLDEN AT HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE, OWERRI BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP: - HON. JUSTICE...

BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP: – HON. JUSTICE I. M. NJAKA -ON THE 7TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2024 – HOW/53/2024 -AMANNTECH V. NIGERIA LIMITED NIGER DELTA DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION- When parties enter into agreement and there is an arbitration clause- A permissive arbitration clause- where there is no genuine dispute

IN THE HIGH COURT OF IMO STATE IN THE OWERRI JUDICIAL DIVISION HOLDEN AT HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE, OWERRI   BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP: - HON. JUSTICE I. M. NJAKA  ...

BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP: – HON. JUSTICE I. M. NJAKA SUIT NO: HOW/565/2023. BETWEEN: CHIEF PST. POWELL OPARAUGO (for himself and on behalf of members of Oparaugo family, Owerri Nchi Ise Owerri Municipal Imo State). V. EMMANUEL UKACHU & ORS -Res Judicata- Abuse of Court Process- Registrar did not endorse the Writ- The issue of non-signing of the originating summons by the Registrar of the trial court or an officer of that court duly authorised to sign same

IN THE HIGH COURT OF IMO STATE OF NIGERIA IN THE HIGH COURT OF OWERRI JUDICIAL DIVISION HOLDEN AT HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE, OWERRI THIS WEDNESDAY THE 7TH DAY OF  ...

BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP: – HON. JUSTICE I. M. NJAKA- SUIT NO. HOW/977/2023 – EMMANUEL T. OKPARA ESQ. AND GREEN AFRICA AIRWAYS LIMITED & ANOR – Violation of Transparency Obligations and Data Subject Information- Section 37 of the Nigerian Constitution- Nigeria Data Protection Regulation (NDPR)- Nigeria Data Protection Act 2023 (NDPA)- Is the fundamental right enforcement relief, in this case, the main relief or ancillary relief?- The court may grant only the reliefs that can be accommodated or covered under the Fundamental Right Enforcement procedure- a breach of the provisions of the Nigeria Data Protection Act, 2023 (NDPA) and the Nigeria Data Protection Regulation, 2019 (NDPR) can constitute an interference with the right to privacy as guaranteed under Section 37 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999- What right to privacy entails- Section 97 of Sheriffs and Civil Process Act, does not apply to fundamental right enforcement proceedings.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF IMO STATE OF NIGERIA IN THE HIGH COURT OF OWERRI JUDICIAL DIVISION HOLDEN AT HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE, OWERRI THIS THURSDAY THE   31ST DAY OF...

BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP: – HON. JUSTICE I. M. NJAKA – SUIT NO: HOW/386/2023- NZE ANTHONY MGBEMERE & ORS V. PASTOR IKEDI EKWONYE & ORS -In the absence of Counter Affidavit of the Respondents, the onus is still on the Applicants to prove their case- The general position of the law in Nigeria is that parties are expected to file all their evidence and submissions before the final hearing of a matter- However, the courts have also recognized the need for some flexibility, especially in the interest of doing substantial justice

IN THE HIGH COURT OF IMO STATE OF NIGERIA IN THE HIGH COURT OF OWERRI JUDICIAL DIVISION HOLDEN AT HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE, OWERRI BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP: - HON. JUSTICE...

BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP: – HON. JUSTICE I. M. NJAKA -SUIT NO: HOW/308/2014 – BETWEEN SYLVESTER AMADI-OBI PLAINTIFF (Trading under the name and style of Amadi-Obi & Co) V US HOME DEPOT DEVELOPMENT INTERNATIONAL LTD.- Lawyer’s professional fees, letter of appointment – Whether the Plaintiff is Entitled to Claim Fees for Services Not Specifically Negotiated in the Appointment Letter-1. Whether the Plaintiff Fulfilled His Contractual Obligations Regarding the Preparation and Perfection of Deeds- A lawyer’s right to earn his fees following a disengagement is, generally, not circumscribed by the reasons for the disengagement

IN THE HIGH COURT OF IMO STATE OF NIGERIA IN THE HIGH COURT OF OWERRI JUDICIAL DIVISION HOLDEN AT HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE, OWERRI THIS THURSDAY THE 7TH DAY OF...