Civil Cases

HAM/56/2019- JOSEPH OKECHUKWU NJOKU (Administrator to Estate of Sir Philip U. Njoku) VS. 1. ENUGU ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION COMPANY (EEDC) 2. NIGERIAN ELECTRICITY LIABILITY COMPANY(NELMCO) 3.ENGR. BENNETH ONUORA (Operations and Maintenance Engr., Mbaise District) 4.MR. C.C. OLUMBA – (Marketer, Mbaise District) 5.MR. ROBERT DICKERMAN (Managing Director/C.E. O, EEOC)- BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP: – HON. JUSTICE I. M. NJAKA- ON FRIDAY THE 1ST DAY OF JUNE 2023- cause of action- the statutory required time for filing such a suit-the burden of proof for showing that an action is statute-barred lies with the defendant, and the plaintiff had denied the assertion that the action was statute-barred -there was no law under which the plaintiff’s action could be considered statute-barred-The legal principles surrounding agency relationships- joint tortfeasors -the liability of agents of disclosed principals-The differentiation between consumers of electricity and employees- consumers’ main concern is adequate service, and billing is typically the responsibility of the distribution company -the estimated billing system is based on accounts and buildings/properties rather than individual names – the terms “estate,” “Administrator of an estate,” and “Personal Representatives.”

Admin Editor

IN THE HIGH COURT OF IMO STATE OF NIGERIA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MBAISE JUDICIAL DIVISION

HOLDEN AT HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE, AHIAZU MBAISE

ON FRIDAY THE 1ST DAY OF JUNE 2023

BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP: – HON. JUSTICE I. M. NJAKA

HAM/56/2019

BETWEEN

JOSEPH OKECHUKWU NJOKU      PLAINTIFF /RESPONDENT

(Administrator to Estate of Sir Philip U. Njoku)

AND

1.ENUGU ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION COMPANY (EEDC)

2.NIGERIAN ELECTRICITY LIABILITY COMPANY(NELMCO)

3.ENGR. BENNETH ONUORA

(Operations and Maintenance Engr., Mbaise District)

4.MR. C.C. OLUMBA –

(Marketer, Mbaise District)           DEFENDANTS/APPLICANTS.

5.MR. ROBERT DICKERMAN

(Managing Director/C.E.O, EEOC)

RULING

This suit was originally instituted on the 15th day of November, 2012 under Suit No: HAM/43/2012 at the High Court Aboh Mbaise. Due to administrative convenience, it was transferred to High Court Ahiazu Mbaise under Suit No: HAM/56/2019. In the· process, this suit has gone through two (2) amendments and de nova trials.

In the further amended State of Claim, the Plaintiff prays as follows:

  1. A declaration that the electricity bills sent to the Plaintiff by the defendants did not arise from his actual consumption were arbitrary and unwarranted
  2. A declaration that the Defendants’ act of entering the plaintiff’s premises on 19-6-2012 to remove his personally owned coated service cables constituted an act of trespass.
  3. The sum of N2,500.00 (Two Thousand, Five Hundred Naira) daily as special damages for daily purchase of diesel to generate electricity from 25/6/2010 when the defendants unlawfully disconnected the plaintiff until the determination of this suit.
  4. The sum of N,000,000.00 (Eight Million Naira) Greneral damages
  5. An Order of this Honourable court directing the defendants to restore electricity to the house ofv the plaintiff forwith.

The 1st, 3rd – 5th Defendants have already filed a statement. However, by Motion On Notice dated 22nd January 2020 and filed on the same day and said to brought pursuant to Order 39 Rule I Of High Court Of Imo State (Civil Procedure) Rules 2017, Sections 18 & 19 Of Limitation Law Of Imo State 1994, Official Gazette Of Federal Government Of Nigeria dated the 26th day of August 2013 and Under the Inherent Jurisdiction of this Honourable Court the 1st 3rd – 5th Defendants/Applicants pray for the following Order(s):

  1. An Order of Court dismissing the suit for lack of jurisdiction plaintiff not having locus standi to bring same.
  2. An Order of court striking out the names of the 3rd, 4th and 5th defendants for not being proper/necessary parties to this suit.
  3. An Order of Court striking out the name of the 1 defendant in this suit for not being a proper/necessary party to this suit.
  4. An order of Court dismissing the suit for lack of jurisdiction same being statute barred
  5. And such further Order(s) that the honourable Court may deem fit to make in the circumstances.

The application is founded on the following grounds:

  1. The plaintiff is not a privy to the contract between P. U. Njoku and NEPA/PHCN and therefore cannot enforce it against 1 defendant who is not also a privy.
  2. The 1st 3rd 4th and 5th defendants are agents of a disclosed principal acting within the scope of their employment.
  3. The cause of action in this suit first arose in 2000 while this suit was filed in 2012 outside the statutorily required time.

The application is supported by AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT sworn to by one Ojiugo Onyenachiso Ukaonu, the litigation Secretary in Goodnews Law Chambers. She deposed that the she was informed by C. C. Onyekanne (Esq.), her employer in his office on 15/11/19 around 3pm and she firmly believed him that plaintiff has no contract with National Electric Power Authority (NEPA), Power Holding Company of Nigeria and the 1st defendant. By Official Gazette of Federal Government of Nigeria dated the 20th day of August 2010, Transfer Instrument executed by PHCN on 23/9/ 2011 and Deed of Assignment between the 1st and 2nd defendant; there is no cause of action against the 1st defendant. Copies of those documents arc attached and marked exhibits A, B and C respectively. The cause of action arose in 2000 as pleaded by the plaintiff in paragraph 12 of his further amended statement of claim. The electricity bill pleaded by the plaintiff does not have the name of the plaintiff and the applicants as parties. Copy of a bill dated 15/9/12 for Sep 2012 pleaded by the plaintiff is annexed and marked exhibit “D”. The 1st defendant is only a distribution company with effect from November 2013.

The affidavit is accompanied by the WRITTEN ADDRESS of counsel wherein he formulated issue for determination as:

  1. Whether the 3rd, 4th and 5th defendants being agents of a disclosed principal are proper/necessary parties to dispute?
  2. Whether by virtue of Official Gazette of Federal Government of Nigeria dated the 20 day of August 2010, this action can be maintained against the Applicants.
  3. Whether there is an enforceable contract between the plaintiff and the 1 defendant?
  4. Whether this action is not caught up by Limitation (Edict) Law of Imo State 1994?

Issue 1 & 2: The Supreme Court has stated that it is the Writ of summons and claim of the plaintiff that determines whether there is a cause of action/jurisdiction. In view of the pleadings in paragraphs 6 and 7 of the further amended statement of claim, it is submitted that the 3rd, 4th and 5th defendants being agents of a known principal to the plaintiff should not be parties to this suit. The counsel argues that the Supreme Court defined what an agency is relationship in the case of Samuel Osigwe v. PSPLS Management Consortium Ltd & Ors (2009) 3 NWLR Pt 1128 p.378 SC, wherein the Supreme Court said that a defendant acting on behalf of a known and disclosed principal incurs no liability.

The Supreme Court case in reference has many similarities with the case at hand, with Bureau for Public Enterprise (BPE) as a disclosed Principal. Exhibit A, which enjoys the status of a statute, did not place any liability on the applicants. Counsel relied on Auto Import Export (2003) All FWLR (Pt. 140) 1686 SC to argue that the 2nd defendant and BPE are the proper and necessary parties, while the 1st, 3rd, 4th and 5th defendants/applicants are unnecessary parties and have their names struck out. The court is urged to hold that the 2nd defendant and BPE are the proper and necessary parties; the 1st, 3rd, 4th and 5th defendants/applicants are not proper before this court, therefore unnecessary parties and have their names struck out.

Issue 3: The plaintiff’s action against the defendants/applicants is predicated on contract, breach, repudiation and the ancillary reliefs thereto. The plaintiff is alleging a contract of provision of electricity between himself and the 1st defendant, but the Supreme Court has said that a person who is a stranger to a contract cannot sue or be sued to enforce it. The Supreme Court has also stated that a person who is a stranger to a contract cannot sue or be sued to enforce it, as seen in exhibit “D”. Adewumi v. Adebest Telecoms (Nig. Ltd. (2013) ALL FWLR (Pt.703) CA 1954.

The plaintiff in a fruitless attempt to plead trespass only stated that his father’s house was disconnected from supply of electricity by PHCN. It is submitted that electricity supply is a contract for service and that if the Power Holding Company Nigeria Ple is liable in trespass against the plaintiff and the 1 defendant/applicant inherited the liabilities of defunct Power Holding Company Nigeria Plc, then parties would have been in pari delicto as the Supreme Court defined in the case of Nwaolisah v. Nwabufoh (2011) ALL FWLR (Pt. 591) SC 1438. The court is urged to hold that the plaintiff has no enforceable contract between him and any of the applicants.

Issue 4: The Supreme Court in Adejumo v. Olawaiye (2014) ALL FWLR Pt. (743) SC 1910 stated that to determine whether an action is statute barred, the court will look at the writ of summons and statement of claim alleging when the wrong was committed and the date when the action was filed. The Supreme Court in Adejumo v. Olawaiye (2014) ALL FWLR Pt. (743) SC 1910 stated that to determine whether an action is statute barred, the court will look at the writ of summons and statement of claim alleging when the wrong was committed and the date when the action was filed. The court is urged to dismiss this suit with heavy and punitive costs.

The Plaintiff filed COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION ON NOTICE CHALLENGING JURISDICTION. It is deposed to by one Joseph 0. Njoku, the Plaintiff/Respondent in this suit. He deposed: The deponent’s employer failed to inform her that the Plaintiff/Respondent sued as Administrator to the Estate of Sir Philip U. Njoku. Paragraph 2 of the 1st, 3rd – 5th Defendants/ Applicants is false; the plaintiff/respondent never pleaded that the cause of action arose in 2000, rather it was the first time a demand notice was written to the 1st defendant and the other defendants. Paragraph 5 of the defendants/applicants’ affidavit is false; some of the electricity bills bear the names of the 1st and 4th defendants/ applicants. Paragraph 6 of the defendants/applicants’ affidavit is false; the 1st defendant took the stead of PHCN PLC and has been performing all the roles of PHCN PLC till date. The deponent deposes to the above facts in good faith believing the contents of this counter-affidavit to be true and correct in accordance with the Oaths Act.

It is accompanied by a written submission where in the counsel stated that in a Notice of Preliminary Objection dated 9th May, 2013 and filed same day, Learned defence Counsel challenged the jurisdiction of this Court based on the competence of the suit but failed; in fact, the defendants were asked to pay a cost of Eight Thousand Naira (N8,000.00) which they have refused to pay till today. After being served a further amended statement of claim dated 24/10/2019 and filed same date, they have raised another Motion still challenging the jurisdiction of this Court.

The Plaintiff /Respondent hereby adopts the issues raised by the Defendants/ Applicants and shall address them one after the other.

Issue One:

The counsel stated that the defence Counsel’s argument that there is no cause of action against the 3rd, 4th and 5th defendants was grossly misconstrued and misleading. He argued that the plaintiff never referred the 3rd, 4th and 5th defendants as agents to any body in the said paragraphs 6 and 7 of the statement of defence. He also argued that it is the duty of the plaintiff to bring to Court a party whose presence is crucial to the resolution of his case. He also argued that it is the duty of the plaintiff to bring to Court a party whose presence is crucial to the resolution of his case. Finally, he argued that it is the duty of the plaintiff to bring to Court a party whose presence is crucial to the resolution of his case. The Supreme Court in the case of GWVS (NIG) LTD VS. NIGERIA LNG LTD (2017)8 NWLR (PT.1568) 381 @ 384 R 1 held that proper parties are those who were active or concurring in the matters which gave the plaintiff the right to rescind a contract, while necessary parties are those who are not only interested in the subject matter of the proceedings but also who in their absence, the proceedings could not be fairly dealt with. The counsel argued that the 3rd, 4th and 5th defendants/applicants were natural persons who performed crucial roles in the circumstances leading to this action. He urged the court to resolve issue one in favour of the plaintiff/respondent and discount the argument of defendants’ Counsel on this issue.

Issue Two:

The plaintiff has sued all the defendants jointly and severally, arguing that the Gazette annexed as Exhibit “A” is an official communication between the Federal Government and its agencies. Counsel argued that the liabilities of PHCN Plc were transferred to the 2nd defendant, but this does not defeat the suit of the plaintiff who sued all the defendants jointly and severally. Counsel also urged the court to resolve issue two in favour of the plaintiff, as liabilities of joint parties are not separated or shared by a Gazette in a joint action.

Issue Three:

The plaintiff has proved by his pleading that he had been a customer to NEPA, and when PHCN PLC took over from NEPA, he became a customer to PHCN PLC, and when EEDC inherited PHCN Plc, he continued to be a customer to EEDC till date. Exhibit “JN” shows that the plaintiff is a customer to EEDC (1st defendant), 3rd, 4th and 5th defendants. The plaintiff receives the bills sent to him through his father’s house from when the cause of action arose until 2010 when the defendants became fraudulent and sleazy in their transaction with the plaintiff. The plaintiff has always paid his bills promptly and at times in advance up to the time the defendants became sleazy. He urged the court to resolve issue three in favour of the plaintiff/respondent.

Issue Four:

The most important details in this text are that the Counsel to the defendants (1st, 3rd, 4th and 5th) has been supplying evidence aimed at misleading the Honourable Court. The plaintiff never pleaded that the action first accrued on 27th March, 2000, rather he complained that he wrote a demand letter to the defendants who neither replied the letter nor corrected their mischief. The cause of action can be found on the Writ of Summons and not in a paragraph of averment. The counsel argued that when Counsel discovers that his client has clearly defaulted in a Claim against him, the honourable path to follow is to seek redress even if it is out of Court and not to begin to shop for technicalities to cover up the outright mischief and impunity on the part of public servants. Counsel urged the court to dismiss this Motion with punitive costs for being incompetent, vexatious and misleading.

RESOLUTION OF MATTER:

When did action in this case said to have arisen.  The 1st 3rd – 5th defendants are of the view that action arose in 2000. Thus, one of their grounds for bringing this application is that the cause of action in this suit first arose in 2000 while this suit was filed in 2012 outside the statutory required time. I observed that throughout the submission it was nowhere mentioned what this statutorily required time is. No Act or Law was made reference to that stipulated the required time. The 1st, 3rd – 5th Defendant based their submission on statute barred on the pleadings of the Plaintiff in the amended. The Plaintiff has denied this assertion. The onus is always on the defendant who alleges that an action is statute barred to prove same. The paragraph 12 reads:

“Plaintiff avers that he has been writing to the 1st defendant to correct the errors in the wrong bills calculated or inflated against his account but in vain; one of such letters was written on 27th March 2000. The Defendants neither replied to the said letter nor effected correction on the outrageous bills which continued to come without recourse to want Plaintiff actually consumed. The defendants are hereby given note to produce the said letter or the plaintiff shall rely on the counter – part copy he retained”

Looking at the paragraphs following the reference paragraph. it is obvious that whatever the Plaintiff complained of -subject to prove -in paragraph 12 did not stop in year 2000. It continued till 2010, 2011, 2012. In this case I do not think this particular paragraph 12 can be read in isolation.

The cause of action did not arise in year 2000. If it did rise in the year 2000, it continued. I am of the view that there is no law under which the action of the Plaintiff could have been said to be statute barred.

It is contended that the 3rd – 5th are agents of a disclosed principal and therefore are not proper parties in this suit. The Plaintiff responded that he did not sue them as agents. On the surface of the parties – the 3rd defendant is the Operational and maintenance Engr Mbaise District, 4th Defendant is Marketer, Mbaise District and 5th Defendant managing director/CEO. EEDC.

The 3rd – 5th Defendants are employees of the 1st Defendant. Employee is defined as a person who is hired for a wage, salary, fee or payment to perform work for an employer. In agency law the employee is called an agent and the employer is called the principal. Agency is defined as the relationship of a person (called the agent) who acts on behalf of another person, company, or government, known as the principal. Principal is defined as main person in a business. 2) employer, the person hiring and directing employees (agents) to perform his/her/its business. It is particularly important to determine who is the principal since he/she/it is responsible for the acts of agents in the “scope of employment” under the doctrine of respondent superior. See https://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=621

Naturally, even if an official acts within the bounds of the organisation, he may still be held personally accountable if he commits an unlawful conduct or acts with gross negligence. Officers who conspire to deceive the public, lie to the government, rob investors of their money, steal from the company, embezzle, sexually harass others, or engage in any other unlawful activity may be subject to personal criminal or civil fines as well as jail time.

It is common knowledge that an agent who acts on behalf of a known and disclosed principal is not liable. This is so because whatever the agent does, the principal also does. The circumstances are the same as if the agent’s actions or inactions were made by the principal. Qui facit through alium facit per se ipsam facere vindetur, which literally translates to “he who does an act through another is deemed in law to do it himself,” is how the common law principle is phrased in Latin. See ALHAJI ABUBAKAR ISA & ORS V. A. A. RANO CONSTRUCTION LIMITED (2017) LPELR-45063(CA)

However, there are exceptions to the overall legal principle set out in the aforementioned situations. An agent of a revealed principal, for example, is not accountable and is not rigid. In the case of an offender, there is no agency. A person who engages in wrongdoing cannot serve as another person’s principal. In the case of a wrongdoer, the agent-principal connection is irrelevant. Therefore, even if he may be working on behalf of the principal, if a person enters into a contract in his or her own name without disclosing the identity or presence of a principal, they are still individually accountable to the other contractual party.

According to established legal precedent in ASAFA FOODS FACTORY V. ALRAINE (NIG) LTD. (2002) 12 NWLR (PT. 781) P. 353 @ 773, an agent of a disclosed principal may be held equally liable with the principal, taking into account all relevant facts, the circumstances of the event giving rise to the claim, and, most importantly, the nature of the agent’s actions.

The plaintiff affirmed that 3rd – 5th Defendants are employees or workers of the 1st Defendant. there is an allegation against them. They can be described as joint tortfeasors.  In FCMB PLC V. ONOBO & ORS (2015) LPELR-40421(CA), it is stated:

“The relation of an agent and a principal is one of the modes by which joint liability in test arises. It is trite Law that an agent who commits a tort on behalf of his principal and the principal are joint tort feasors and may be sued jointly or severally. In other words, an agent who commits a tort on behalf of his principal is a joint tort feasor with his principal. See Pan Brothers Ltd. vs. landed Property Ltd & Anor (1962) All NLR (Pt. 1) 22, Management Enterprises Ltd & Ors Johnson Otusanya (1987) 4 SCNJ 110,Ifeanyi Chukwu Osondu Co Ltd v. Soleh Boneh Nig. Ltd (2000) 3NWLR (Pt. 656) 322,Alhaji lai Mohammed v. Chief Afe Babalola San (2011) LPELR 8973 (CA).”  Per ELECHI ,J.C.A (Pp. 16 paras. C)

Exhibit C of the 1st 3rd – 5th Defendants is Deed between Enugu Electricity Distribution Plc and Nigeria Electricity Liability management Company LTD/GTE. Enugu Electricity Distribution Company PLC is the assignor. Paragraph a of the recitals stated:

“The Assignor was registered in (2005) pursuant to the provisions of the Electric Power Sector Reform Act 2005 (The EPSR ACT”) to, inter alia take over as a going concern, the distribution activities and related business of the Power Holding Company of Nigeria (PHCN) in the zonal distribution district, and in this regard, to acquire, hold, take up and utilize such of PHCN’s assets and employees, meet and/or make good such of the liabilities of, assume and or enjoy such of the rights of, and undertake and/or fulfil such of the obligations and functions of PHCN that pertains to and /or may be incidental to the distribution of electricity in accordance with the provisions of the EPSR Act

I do not think that by the combined effect of Exhibits A, B ,C, the 1st Defendant has abdicated its duty of electricity distribution. Therefore, the Enugu Electricity Distribution Company’s administration and management are typically responsible for the issue of electricity bills to customers like the plaintiff in this lawsuit. Only the defendants could have performed the claimed/alleged acts of disconnecting the plaintiff’s electrical supply or removing cables in the course of their official duties related to electricity distribution.

The consumers were given over to EDDC. No invitations to bargain with the new businesses were extended to NEPA or Power Holden Company customers. Therefore, the consumer has the right to have any unresolved issues they had with the NEPA resolved by EDDC. The client must also work with the EDDC to address any obligations they still owe the NEPA.

In my view, consumers of electricity are different from employee.  A change in the ownership of electricity distribution has not to them with them. I think their major concerns is and should be sufficient and adequate service. It is the distribution company that sends bill every month and not any other body.

The 1st, 3rd – 4th Defendants annexed exhibit D -Power Holding Company of Nigeria Plc bill on account no: 58/32/23/0266-01 showing sum due for payment at 15-9-2012 as N113,669.14 and the Plaintiff annexed exhibit JN -a bill on the same account showing sum due for payment at 15-01-2014 as N171.483.15.

Thus, it is the same account number, account name. what just changed was the demander or collectors name.

Again, the estimated billing system, in my opinion, does not recognize persons/names but rather accounts and buildings/properties. A debt owed on a building is not cancelled, waived, absolved or forgiven just because the resident has moved away. Anyone who moves into the property must pay off any overdue utility costs. The bill does not accompany the previous resident to his new residence. Anyone who moves into the block has responsibility for the unpaid and overdue debts.

Estate means the property that one leaves after death; the collective asset and liabilities of a dead person. When there is no Will, the Administrator of an estate administers the deceased’s affairs. An estate administrator is the same as an executor of a will. The distinction is that the Administrator of the estate is appointed by the court rather than mentioned in the Will. Personal Representatives is an umbrella word for Administrators and Executors. Adequate provision of social amenity may be one of the duty the Administrator owns the estate of the the deceased.

On the other hand, any building resident who may suffer the repercussions of the first defendant’s conduct or inactions may also file a lawsuit to contest such action.

In my opinion, the Plaintiff has standing to bring this action since she is a resident of the building and the Administrator of Sir Philip Njoku’s Estate.

From what I have said above, the motion of the 1st, 3rd – 5th Defendants dated and filed 24th day of January, 2020 is dismissed.

I so hold

I.M.Njaka

Judge

1-6-2023

Appearance:

Joe Njoku Esq., in person

C.C Onyekanne Esq., for the 1st 3rd – 5th Defendants.

Previous post SUIT NO. HAM/66/2022- 1. BARRISTER JOHNSON IWUCHUKWU 2.THE AHIAZU MBAISE LOCAL GOVERNMENT COUNCIL (Represented by the Chief Larry Chikwe Interim management committee Ahiazu Mbaise Local Government Council) VS 1. NZE LEO AGOMUO IWU 2. MR. JOHN BEN IWU 3. MR. NGOZI IWU- BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP: – HON. JUSTICE I. M. NJAKA- ON FRIDAY THE 3RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023-Jurisdiction of the High Court- the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court over lower courts and tribunals -the High Court’s duty to prevent abuses of power and ensure that inferior tribunals operate within the law and their designated jurisdiction -the three kinds of jurisdiction exercised by the High Court, including civil and criminal proceedings, appellate jurisdiction, and supervisory jurisdiction- the court’s ability to review administrative determinations of inferior tribunals and quash them when they offend against the law- when appeals should be directed to the High Court or other specialized courts based on the nature of the legal issues involved- Certiorari and Prohibition-Principles of Judicial Review-Judicial review is not an appeal but a review of the decision-making process- Limitations on Review- a reviewing court should not overstep into the realms of appellate jurisdiction and should focus on the legality rather than the correctness of a decision- Exclusive Appellate Jurisdiction-the limitations on exclusive appellate jurisdiction- High Court may hear appeals from customary courts in certain circumstances – Nature of Customary Law-Abuse of Court Process-the circumstances under which multiple proceedings can be pursued simultaneously -Territorial Jurisdiction- whether it is appropriate for parties to actively contest jurisdiction in one court while simultaneously pursuing a similar case in another court-Admissibility of Documents Attached to Affidavits- when documents are attached to an affidavit or counter-affidavit as evidence in court proceedings, objections to their admissibility are generally not raised- Jurisdiction of Customary Courts- Customary courts must operate within their jurisdictional limits. If a customary court assumes jurisdiction over persons or matters outside its purview, its decisions can be challenged and quashed through legal remedies like certiorari – Alternate Remedies and Writ Jurisdiction-The existence of alternative remedies, such as appeals, does not necessarily prevent a High Court from exercising its writ jurisdiction. The High Court may consider various factors when deciding whether to grant writs like certiorari- Preventing Abuse of Legal Processes- Courts should be cautious about allowing criminal charges to be used as tools to advance private interests, especially in disputes over land titles-The judiciary should prioritize justice and fairness over personal or ulterior motives.
Next post SUIT NO: HOW/194/2023- PROFESSOR BENARD ODOH VS. 1. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE 2. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE EBONYI STATE 3. THE STATE SECURITY SERVICE EBONYI STATE – BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP: – HON. JUSTICE I. M. NJAKA- delivered ON THE 3RD DAY OF OCTOBER 2023- the importance of protecting fundamental rights, especially in cases involving political persecution-Duty of the party alleging violation of fundamental rights to present material facts before the Court.-principles related to arrests and detentions-arrests should be based on sufficient evidence -the Court to protect individuals’ rights when they are violated-duties and responsibilities of the Nigeria Police and the Department of State Services (DSS) in maintaining law and order and safeguarding national security-The importance of cooperation and coordination between law enforcement and security agencies and underscores the need to respect and protect human rights.
Close

Related Post

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

November 25, 2024

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)

October 10, 2024