THE IMPEACHMENT OF THE FORMER GOVERNOR OF EKITI STATE : DR. PETER AYODELE FAYOSE AND HIS DEPUTY

The law governing the impeachment of a Governor and a Deputy Governor in Nigeria is provided for in Section 188 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. The said Section 188  set out  the conditions precedent to the impeachment of a Governor or Deputy Governor of any State in Nigeria.

Under Section 188 a Governor or Deputy Governor can only be impeached by the State House of Assembly on the ground of gross misconduct after an  allegation of gross  misconduct  has been made against such a Governor or Deputy Governor and the allegation was  thereafter  investigated by an Investigative Panel appointed by the Chief Judge of the State under Section 188 (5).

When I was with the law firm of Awomolo,Otaru & Associates  -  a former partnership  of the duo of  Chief Adegboyega Awomolo, SAN and Mr. Roland Otaru,SAN, wherein the former was the principal partner and the latter was  the managing partner- the firm was briefed by Ekiti State House of Assembly to lead a team of lawyers representing the House before the Investigative Panel appointed by the then Chief Judge to investigate the   allegations of acts of gross misconduct against the  former Executive Governor of Ekiti State, Dr. Peter Ayodele Fayose and his Deputy. 

The said team was led by  Mr. Roland Otaru,SAN and with the learned SAN were  Gboyega Oyewole (former Attorney General and Commissioner for Justice Ekiti State), Tayo Aluko (Afe Babalola & Co), Akintude Esan ( Awomolo,Otaru & Associates ).

Below is  the said Investigative Panel Reports upon which  the  Governor  and his   Deputy Governor were impeached by the Ekiti State House of Assembly.


REPORT OF THE INVESTIGATIVE PANEL INTO ALLEGATIONS OF GROSS MISCONDUCT AGAINST HIS EXCELLENCY, THE EXECUTIVE GOVERNOR OF EKITI STATE, DR. PETER AYODELE FAYOSE AND HIS DEPUTY CHIEF (MRS.) BIODUN OLUJIMI.



INTRODUCTION

The Ekiti State House of Assembly in accordance with section 188 (5) of 1999 Constitution of Federal Republic of Nigeria requested the Honourable Chief Judge of Ekiti State vide a letter dated the 26th September, 2006 to set up a Seven (7) man panel to investigate allegations of gross misconduct against the Executive Governor of Ekiti State Dr. Peter Ayodele Fayose (hereinafter referred to as the Governor) and his deputy, Chief (Mrs.) Biodun Olujimi (hereinafter referred to as the Deputy Governor).

The Chief Judge of Ekiti State in accordance with relevant provisions of the same 1999 Constitution inaugurated the Seven (7) man panel on the 10th of October, 2006. The names of the Seven-man Panel are as follows.

1. Mr. Remi Bamigboye - Chairman
2. Mr. Alli Apanisile - Member
3. Mr. Sesan Adesuyi - Member
4. Rev. Segun Da-Silva - Member
5. Chief Olu Alade - Member
6. Pastor Solomon Ajisafe Omoniyi - Member
7. Mrs. Olufunmilayo Olukogbon - Member

All the members of the panel were sworn in on the 10th of October, 2006 at the High Court premises, Ado – Ekiti.

OBSERVATION

Immediately after the swearing in ceremony, the Panel sat at the High Court number 2 at Ado Ekiti. The Panel made its inaugural sitting with the counsel representing the Governor in attendance. It should be noted that neither the Ekiti State House of Assembly nor its counsel made any appearance before the Panel on the 10th of October, 2006. The Panel thereafter adjourned its sitting till 12th of October, 2006 by 9.00am to enable the Ekiti State House of Assembly to present its case against the Governor and His Deputy.

Meanwhile, the Panel wrote a letter to the Speaker to enable the Ekiti State House of Assembly, being the petitioner appears before the Panel today, the 12th of October, 2006.

The Panel states that the Chief Judge of Ekiti State has obliged the Panel a copy of allegation as contained in the notice of impeachment against the Governor and his Deputy.

The chairman called on the Ekiti State House of Assembly to open its case. The Panel observed that neither Ekiti State House of Assembly nor its legal representatives were present. The Panel thereafter adjourned till 01:00pm to deliver its report.

REPORT

The conclusions of the Panel is that having regard to Section 36 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and the sensitive nature of the allegations against the Governor and his Deputy, and failure of the Ekiti State House of Assembly to appear before the Panel, the Panel concluded that all the allegations of gross misconduct against the Governor and his Deputy as contained in the notice of impeachment dated 26th of September, 2006 are deemed abandoned by the Ekiti State House of Assembly.

It is trite that, he who alleges must prove beyond reasonable doubt in criminal allegation as it is in this case. The allegations are therefore unsubstantiated, gold digging and therefore failed in its entirety. This Panel hereby absolves the Governor and his deputy of all the allegations contained in the notice of impeachment.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

REPORT OF THE INVESTIGATION PANEL OF SEVEN PERSONS APPOINTED BY HONOURABLE JUSTICE JUBRILL B.K. ALADEJANA ON THE ALLEGATIONS OF ACTS OF GROSS MISCOUNDUCT LEVELED AGAINST THE EXECUTIVE GOVERNOR OF EKITI STATE. DR. AYODELE FAYOSE DATED 16TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2006

Report of the Report of the investigation panel of seven persons appointed by Honourable Justice Jubrill B.K. Aladejana on the allegations of acts of gross misconduct leveled against the Executive Governor of Ekiti State - Dr. Ayodele Fayose.

Introduction: Pursuant to section 188 (5) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, this panel of seven persons was set up by Honourable Justice Jubril B.K. Aladejana on Friday, 13th October 2006.

The seven persons are:

1. Mr. Emmanuel Bamidele Omotoso Chairman
2. Deacon Olajubu Solomon Owoeye Member
3. Eng. Ismail Olowolafe Dayisi Member
4. Mr. Kayode Failani Member
5. Pastor (Mrs) Funmi Adeniyi Member
6. Rev. Father Anthony Oluwole Ijasan Member
7. Major J. O. Odusina (Rtd) Member

Venue: Ekiti State House of Assembly Complex Ado-Ekiti

Rules of procedure: Pursuant to section 188, subsection 7(a) of the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 the Ekiti State House of Assembly prescribed the Rules of procedure which are 23 in number, hereinafter referred to as "the Rules".

This panel in compliance with section 188 (7) (a) of the 1999 constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 exercised its powers and functions in accordance with the Rules.

Notices: Notices of sittings duly signed by the Chairman of the Panel were dispatched to all the parties concerned viz:-

(i) The Speaker of the House,
(ii) The Executive Governor of Ekiti State – Dr. Peter Ayodele Fayose and
(iii) The Deputy Governor of Ekiti State – Chief (Mrs.) Abiodun Olujimi.

Commencement of sittings: Relying on rule 4 of the Rules, the Panel commenced its sitting on 13th October, 2006 at 10.30a.m.

Attendance: The legal Representatives of the House of Assembly and Deputy of Governor of Ekiti State Rowland Otaru, SAN, with Gboyega Oyewole, Tayo Aluko, Akintude Esan, and Joseph Omodele Adewumi Esquire respectively.

Absent: The Executive Governor of Ekiti State, Dr. Peter Ayodele Fayose and his legal representative were absent.

Witnesses: Ekiti State House of Assembly called three witnesses and closed its case. The witnesses were viz:-

(a) M.P. Ogele, Esquire, a private legal practitioner and National Coordinator of Ekiti State Equity, Justice and Peace Movement.
(b) Abubakar Aliyu Madaki, Deputy Superintendent of Police attached to Economic and Financial Crimes commission. (EFCC).
(c) Mr. Gbenga James, Managing Director, Biological Concepts Limited, Afao-Ekiti, Ekiti State and Avian Specialties Nigeria Limited, a close friend of Dr. Ayodele Fayose.

These witnesses were cross-examined by the legal representative of Her Excellency, Chief (Mrs.) Abiodun Olujimi.

The Executive Governor – Dr. Peter Ayodele Fayose and his witnesses failed to appear before the panel but forwarded his response to the 7 allegations of gross misconduct against him. The Deputy Gov., Chief (Mrs) Abiodun Olujimi called no witness. Her legal representative rested her case on the House of Assembly.

Addresses: Learned counsel to the Deputy Governor Joseph Omodele Adewumi Esquire addressed the panel followed by learned counsel to the House of Assembly, Rowland Otaru, SAN, with Gboyega Oyewole, Tayo Aluko and Akintunde Esan.

Close of proceedings: After the addresses of the aforesaid learned counsel, the proceedings of the panel was declared closed on 14th day of October, 2006, when it became obvious that the Governor of Ekiti State – Dr. Peter Ayodele Fayose would not attend the panel sittings.

Report:

Dr. Peter Ayodele Fayose, The Executive Governor of Ekiti State.

After careful consideration of the evidence of the witnesses for the Ekiti State House of Assembly which was unchallenged by the Executive Governor, the panel hereby reports thus:-

Allegation One:

Illegal Operation of Foreign Accounts contrary to paragraph 3 of the Code of Conduct for public officers to wit.

Operation of foreign account with the Bank of Africa, United State of America with VISA CREDIT NO 45397806 and 28083056 valid until August, 2007, contrary to the provisions of paragraph 3 of the Code of conduct for Public Officers.

Evidence: Olatunji Adegoke, Personal Assistant to the Executive Governor, Dr. Peter Ayodele Fayose in whose custody the credit card No. 45397806 was found made confessional written statement to the Economic and Financial Crime Commission on 24th day of July 2006 to the effect that the aforesaid credit card belonged to Dr. Peter Ayodele Fayose. The statement was tendered in evidence by EFCC representative. A copy of the Visa credit of the Bank of America U.S.A. valid until August 28 with the signature of the Executive Governor, Dr. Peter Ayodele Fayose, was also received in evidence. The evidence was unchallenged.

Verdict: Guilty

Allegation Two:

Illegal Operation of Foreign Account Contrary to paragraph 3 of the Code of Conduct for Public Officers to wit:

Operation of Foreign accounts Nos: 50633925, 60642924 and 808909594 kept with Barclays Bank Plc. 38, Hans Crescent Knightsbridge, London, SWL XOLZ contrary to paragraph 3 of the Code of Conduct for public officers.

Evidence: The EFCC tendered a copy of the Premier Bank Account of Barclays Bank Plc, 38 Hans Crescent Knightsbridge, London with account No 50633925 and Account Name Mr. Ayodele Fayose and same was received in evidence. This evidence was unchallenged.

Verdict: Guilty

Allegation Three:

Illegal diversion of Local Government Funds contrary to Section 162 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999.
Diversion from the Ekiti State Joint Local Government Account the sum of N11.7 Billion received from the Federation Account from January 2004 to June 2006.

Evidence:

There are overwhelming evidence to the effect that various sums of money from the Ekiti State Joint Local Government Account were diverted to illegal quarters. The evidence were uncontroverted.

Verdict: Guilty

Allegation Four

Receipt of illegal gifts contrary to paragraph 6 of the Code of Conduct to wit:
Receipt of the sum of ₤37,000.00 (Thirty Seven Thousand Pounds sterling only) from the Biological Concepts Ltd. Knowing it to be the proceeds of the Poultry Project embarked upon by the State Government.

Evidence:

Mr. Gbenga James, The Managing Director of Biological Concepts Ltd. Gave evidence before the Panel that out of the money for the Integrated Poultry Project he gave ₤37,000 (Thirty Seven Thousand Pounds sterling) to Adegoke Olatunji the Personal Assistant to the Executive Governor, Dr. Peter Ayodele Fayose on the instruction of the Executive Governor.

Verdict: Guilty

Allegation Five:

Receipt of the illegal gift contrary to paragraph 6 of the Code of Conduct to wit:-
Receipt of a house lying and being at 10 Kobiowu Crescent, Iyaganku, GRA, Ibadan Oyo State valued at over N40 million built from the proceeds of the poultry project.

Evidence:

Evidence was led by the prosecution to show that there was an agreement between Mr. Gbenga James, the Managing Director of both Biological Concepts Ltd. and Avian Specialties Ltd. And the Governor to build a building worth 40 million at Ibadan from the proceeds earmarked by the State Government for the poultry project.

Mr. Gbenga James gave evidence that the building drawn by Grid Associates was actually built at 10 Kobiowu Crescent, Iyaganku G.R.A. Ibadan, Oyo State valued N40 million being part of the money earmarked by the State Government for the poultry project.

The building plan of the said building was tendered through Mr. Gbenga James by the prosecution.

Various documents to corroborate this evidence were tendered and received in evidence.

Verdict: Guilty

Allegation Six

Receipt of illegal gifts of two houses contrary to paragraph 6 of the Code of Conduct to wit:-

i. Property lying and being at 23, Ring Road Restaurant Street, Behind Total Petrol Station, Iyaganku, GRA, Ibadan, Oyo State valued at about N20 million built from the proceeds of the contracts of Ekiti State Governor's Office awarded to Grid Associates headed by Abiodun Fari-Arole.
ii. Property lying and being at Are Road, Afao-Ekiti State valued at about N25 million built from the proceeds of the contracts for Fountain Hotel awarded to Grid Associates headed by Abiodun Fari-Arole.
iii.The sum of N42 Million collected from Mr. Abiodun Fari-Arole of Grid Associates through Mr. Ayobola Abiola, then of the Standard Trust Bank Plc, now with FCMB Plc, Dugbe Branch being proceeds of the contract for Fountain Hotel and Governor's Office.

Evidence:

This allegation was substantiated with unchallenged oral documentary evidence tendered by the EFCC and Mr. Gbenga James, the Managing Director of Biologicawl Concept Ltd. and Avian specialties Ltd.

Verdict: Guilty

Allegation Seven:

Illegal transfer of the sum of $100,000 to the United State of American contrary to the money laundering act 2004.
Transfer of the sum of $100,000 to the United State of America on 20th August, 2004 through Account No 45703770 of City Bank, 244, Mani Street, White Palms NY 10601 belonging to Mr. Toney Orubuloye contrary to the money laundering Act, 2004.

Evidence:

The EFCC representative gave evidence that Abiola Ayobola of Zonal Head-West First City Merchant Bank Ibadan transferred a sum of $100,000 dollars to the United States of America on 20th August 2004 through account No 45703770 of City Bank, 244, Mani Street, White Palms NY 10601 belonging to Mr. Toney Orubuloye for the benefit of His Excellency Governor Ayo Fayose and personal staff who reportedly ran out of cash in United State of America.

This evidence was unchallenged.

Verdict: Guilty.

Conclusion:

In view of the available evidence before the Panel, the Panel came to the conclusion that all the aforementioned allegations of acts of gross misconduct against the Executive Governor of Ekiti State. Dr. Peter Ayodele Fayose have been proved.

Thanks.

Yours faithfully.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

REPORT OF THE INVESTIGATION PANEL OF SEVEN PERSONS APPOINTED BY HONOURABLE JUSTICE JUBRIL B.K. ALADEJANA ON THE ALLEGATIONS OF ACTS OF GROSS MISCONDUCT LEVELEC AGAINST THE DEPUTY GOVERNOR OF EKITI STATE. CHIEF (MRS.) ABIODUN OLUJIMI. DATED 16TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2006

INTRODUCTION: Pursuant to section 188 (5) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, this Panel of seven persons was set up by Honourable Justice B.K Aladejana on Friday, 13th October 2006. The seven persons are:

1. Mr. Emmanuel Bamidele Omotoso Chairman
2. Deacon Olajubu Solomon Owoeye Member
3. Eng. Ismail Olowolafe Dayisi Member
4. Mr. Kayode Filani Member
5. Pastor (Mrs) Funmi Adeniyi Member
6. Rev. Father Anthony Oluwole Ijasan Member
7. Major J.O. Odusina (Rtd) Member

VENUE: EKITI STATE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY COMPLEX ADO EKITI

RULES OF PROCEDURE: Pursuant to section 188, subsection 7(a) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 the Ekiti State House of Assembly prescribed the Rules of procedure, which are 23 in number and hereafter referred to as "the rules".

This Panel in compliance with section 188(7) (a) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria exercised its powers and functions in accordance with the Rules.

NOTICES: Notices of sittings duly signed by the Chairman of the Panel were dispatched to all the parties concerned viz:- The Speaker of the House, (ii) The Executive Governor of Ekiti State – Dr. Peter Ayodele Fayose and (iii) The Deputy Governor of Ekiti State – Chief (Mrs) Abiodun Olujimi.

COMMENCEMENT OF SITTINGS: Relying on rule 4 of the Rules, the Panel commenced its sittings on 13th October, 2006 at 10.30am.

ATTENDANCE: The Legal Representatives of the House of Assembly and Deputy Governor of Ekiti State Rowland Otaru S.A.N. with Gbenga Oyewole, Tayo Aluko, Akintunde Esan and Joseph Omodele Adewunmi Esquire respectively.

WITNESSES: Ekiti State House of Assembly called three witnesses and closed its case. The witnesses were viz:

(a) M.P. Ogele, Esquire, a private legal practitioner and national Coordinator of Ekiti Justice and Equity movement.
(b) Abubakar Aliyu Madaki, a deputy Superintendent of Police, attached to Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).
(c) Mr. Gbenga James, Managing Director, Biological Concept Limited, a close friend of Dr. Ayodele Fayose.
dollars) from his secretary when she was on her way to London on the instruction of the Executive Governor, Dr. Ayodele Fayose.

However, in her response to the allegation of acts of gross misconduct, which her counsel adopted as her defense to the allegation, she stated therein that she collected the said sum for remission to Mr. Osinowo a friend of Mr. Gbenga James, for a project.

However, Mr. Tunde Osinowo in his written statement to the EFCC on 6th February, 2006 denied knowing anything about a landed property and that the Deputy Governor, Chief (Mrs.) Abiodun Olujimi never brought any Dollars to him. He denied having any land dealing with Mr. Gbenga James and Mrs. Olujimi. This evidence was unchallenged.

VERDICT: In view of the unchallenged evidence before the Panel that Chief Mrs. Abiodun Olujimi, Deputy Governor of Ekiti State received a sum of $50,000 (Fifty Thousand Dollars) from the secretary of Mr. Gbenga James, being part of the money earmarked for the Poultry Project coupled with the fear that Chief Mrs. Abiodun Olujimi failed to appear before the Panel to clarify the whereabouts of the said sum of fifty thousand dollars, this Panel has no option than to come to the conclusion and hereby come to the conclusion that Chief Mrs. Abiodun Olujimi was the beneficiary of the said sum of money. She is found GUILTY.

ALLEGATION TWO: Failure to comply with the Decree establishing the National Youth Service Corps Scheme, which mandates all holders of certificates equivalent to a bachelor's Degree to observe a one year compulsory Youth Service Programme.

EVIDENCE: The Ekiti State House of Assembly adduced no evidence before the Panel in proof of this allegation.

REPORT: As there is no evidence before the panel upon which the panel can write a report, the Panel hereby holds that this allegation is deemed abandoned by the Ekiti State House of Assembly and is hereby stuck out.

Thanks

Yours faithfully,

THE PRINCIPLES OF LAW ON THE JURISDICTION OF COURTS OF LAW IN NIGERIA

BEING THE TEXT OF

 AKINTUNDE ESAN’S LEGAL ILLUMINATIONS

 PRESENTED BY

AKINTUNDE ESAN, LL.B, BL, ChMC, ACMC.

TO MARK HIS FIRST DECADE AT THE NIGERIAN  BAR

http://akintundeesan.blogspot.com

 

1.0 INTRODUCTION

 

1.1 This paper is an illumination on the principles of law on the jurisdiction of courts of law in Nigeria to hear and determine a case on the merit. The purpose of this piece is not to consider the jurisdiction of the courts in Nigeria as defined and spelt out by the Nigerian Constitution and statutes, but to exposit the principles of law on jurisdiction as expounded and propounded by the superior courts of record in Nigeria.

1.2 The paper explores judicial authorities on issues such as the definition, sources, importance, determinants, conditions precedent of jurisdiction of a court as well as how and when to raise an objection to jurisdiction of a court, the grounds upon which objection to jurisdiction could be raised and objection to the  jurisdiction of the court vis - a – vis demurrer, abuse of court process and waiver  and other relevant jurisprudence of jurisdiction as it relates to objecting to the jurisdiction of the court to hear and determine a case before it on the merit. 

2.0 WHAT IS JURISDICTION

 

2.1 The Black’s Law Dictionary[1] defines jurisdiction simply as “A court’s power to decide a case or issue”. 

2.2 Judicially, the word jurisdiction has been held to mean the authority the court has to decide matters before it or to take cognisance of matters presented in a formal way for its decision.[2] Per Adekeye, J.C.A (as he then was) re-affirmed the definition of jurisdiction in A.-G., Oyo State v. N.L.C.[3]thus:

"The word jurisdiction means the authority which a court has to decide matters before it or to take cognisance of matters presented in a formal way for its decision. Madukolu v.Nkemdilim (1962) 2 SCNLR 341, Ndaeyo v. Ogunnaya (1977) 1 SC 11, National Bank of Nigeria Ltd. v. Shoyoye (1977) 5 SC 181, A-G., Federation v. Guardian Newspapers Ltd. (1999) 9 NWLR (Pt. 618) 187.".

3.0 THE SOURCE OF JURISDICTION

 

3.1 The Jurisdiction of a court of law is a very hard matter of law which is donated by the Constitution and the enabling statute.[4] A court cannot confer or vest in itself jurisdiction not specifically conferred on it by a statute or the constitution[5]

 

3.2 ONNOGHEN J.S.C in the case of Gafar v. Govt., Kwara State[6], puts this way:

"It is settled law that courts are creatures of statute based on the constitution with their jurisdiction stated or prescribed therein. That being the case, it is obvious that no court assumes jurisdiction except it is statutorily prescribed as jurisdiction cannot be implied nor can it be conferred by agreement of parties; see Ariyo v. Ogele (1968) 1 All NLR 1; Timitimi v. Amabebe (1953) 15 WACA 374; Osadebe v. A.-G., Bendel State (1991) 22 NSCC (Pt. 1) 137 at 160; (1991) 1 NWLR (Pt. 169) 525 at 572."

3.3 It is settled from the dictum of learned supreme court jurist that no court assumes jurisdiction except it is statutorily prescribed and that  jurisdiction cannot be implied nor can it be conferred by agreement of parties.

4.0 WHAT DETERMINES JURISDICTION

 

4.1 Two factors to examine when considering whether or not a court has jurisdiction are:

a. The claim of the plaintiff; and

 

b. The applicable law when the cause of action arose

 

4.1.1 THE CLAIM OF THE PLAINTIFF

 

4.1.1.1 It is the claim of the plaintiff and not the defence that is to be consider in determining whether the court has jurisdiction or not. As it is the plaintiff who in the determination of his rights invokes the judicial powers of the Constitution vested in the courts.[7]

 

4.1.1.2 Thus, the relevant court processes to be considered by the court in determining a preliminary objection are the facts as deposed to in affidavit attached to the preliminary objection, the writ of summons and the statement of claim, where one has been filed and served. The statement of defence is not one of the relevant materials for that purpose. See   PDP v. Adeyemi[8]where Onnoghen, JCA (as he then was) in at 550,para. B –C  puts it thus:

“The relevant thing(s) to be considered by the court in determining the issue of jurisdiction are the facts as deposed to in affidavits, writ of summons and statement of claim (where one had been filed and served). The statement of defence is not one the relevant materials for that purpose.”

4.1.2 THE APPLICABLE LAW WHEN THE CAUSE OF ACTION AROSE

 

4.1.2.1 The applicable law is that which was in force at the time when the cause of action arose and not that which was in force when the issue of jurisdiction was raised.[9]

 

4.1.2.2 Thus, there is distinction between cause of action jurisdiction and adjudicatory jurisdiction. The law which supports a cause of action is not necessary to co exist with the law which confers jurisdiction on the court which entertains the suit founded on that cause of action. 

4.1.2.3 The cause of action jurisdiction arose, where the jurisdiction of the court to entertain an action is determined upon the state of the law conferring jurisdiction at the point in time the action was instituted and heard. See ANSA v. R.T.P.C.N. (2008) ALL FWLR (Pt.405) 1681 at 1700 A-B. Per DENTON-WEST, J.C.A. (P. 30, paras. B-D) [10]

 

5.0 THE IMPORTANCE AND RELEVANCE  OF JURISDICTION

 

5.1 Jurisdiction is fundamental to adjudication as it is the special cord of a court of law, any decision taken by a court without jurisdiction is incompetent, and is subject to being nullified on appeal.[11]

 

5.2 Once a court lacks jurisdiction, a party cannot use any statutory provision or common law principle to impose it because absence of jurisdiction is irreparable in law. The matter ends there and the only procedural duty of the court is to strike it out.”[12]

 

5.3 Similarly, the Supreme Court  in Umannah v. Obong Victor Attah[13], per Tobi JSC held as follows:

“Where the issue of jurisdiction is raised in a matter, once the court determines that it has no jurisdiction in the suit, it need not proceed further to consider any other issue since there is no longer the jurisdiction for doing so. It follows therefore that it is only after that that it can proceed to consider other issues raised by the party invoking its jurisdiction.”

6.0 CONDITIONS PRECEDENT TO JURIDICTION

 

6.1 In Nwankwo v. Yar’adua[14], the Supreme Court restated the time-honoured principle of jurisdiction  laid down in  the celebrated case of Madukolu v. Nkemdilim[15]thus:

“The law is indeed trite that a court is only competent to exercise jurisdiction in respect of any matter where-

1. It is properly constituted as regards numbers and qualification of the members and no member is disqualified for one reason or the other.

2. The subject matter of the case is within its jurisdiction and there is no feature in the case which prevents the court from exercising its jurisdiction.

3. The case comes by due process of the law and upon fulfillment of any condition precedent to the exercise of jurisdiction. See Madukolu & Ors. v. Nkemdilim & Ors.(1962) 2 SCNLR  341.”

7.0 WHEN TO RAISE AN OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION OF THE COURT

 

7.1 The issue of jurisdiction can be raised at any time in a proceeding and whenever raised, it is to be decided when the point or issue is raised Daggash v. Bulama[16]

"To be borne in mind, is that issue or question of locus standi, relates to or deals with jurisdiction and the competence of the court to entertain and determine the action or petition. So, issue of jurisdiction can be raised at any stage of the proceedings and whenever raised, it is to be decided when the point or issue is raised. See Norwich v. Norwich Electric Tramway Co. (1906) 2K.B. 119; Adani v. Igwe (1956) 2 FSC 81 at 89 and recently, NDIC v. Central Bank of Nigeria & Anor. (2002) 7 NWLR (Pt. 766) 272, (2002) 3 SCNJ 75 at 89 and Afro-Continental (Nig.) Ltd. & Anor. v. Co-operative Association of Professionals Inc. (2003) 5 NWLR (Pt. 813) 303, (2003) 1 SCNJ 530 at 537,539."Per Ogbuagu, J.C.A. (P. 135, paras. C-G)

7.2 The issue of jurisdiction once raised must be determined first.[17] The Supreme Court in Drexel Energy and Natural Resources Ltd. v. Trans International Bank Ltd.[18]per Ogbuagu JSC, made an instructive pronouncement  that:

“Once the issue of jurisdiction is raised in any court the determination of that issue cannot and should not and ought not be deferred until the conclusion of the substantive suit.”

7.3 The law is trite that jurisdiction is a threshold issue and that once an objection is based on the issue of jurisdiction, it must be resolved first before further steps are and can be taken in the proceedings. Accordingly, in FRIN vs. Gold[19], the Supreme Court, per Mukhtar, JSC, held thus:

“Jurisdiction of court is very fundamental and lack of jurisdiction robs a court of the competence to hear and decide a matter. In other words, once a court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate on a matter, its adjudication of the matter will be declared a nullity by an appellate court.”

7.4 Also, in Cotecna International Ltd vs. Ivory Merchant Bank Ltd[20], Mohammed, JSC, stated the law thus:

“The validity velnon of the jurisdiction of the court touches on the competence of the court to hear and determine a cause or matter before it, and is fundamental to its exercise of jurisdiction and of adjudication and determination of the cause before it. In this respect, the existence or absence of jurisdiction in the court goes to the root of the matter and sustains or nullifies the decision of the court in respect of the relevant subject matter.”

8.0 HOW TO RAISE OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION

 

8.1 It is no longer a recondite issue of law that, the issue of jurisdiction can be raised at any time and/or stage by a party even on appeal at the Supreme Court for the first time. See NDIC vs. CBN[21] where it was held that: 

“Objection to the jurisdiction of  Court can be taken at any time depending on what material are available.It could be taken in any of the following situations  :

a) on the basis of the statement of claim; or

b) on the basis of evidence received;

c) by motion supported by affidavit setting out the facts relied on;

d) on the face of Writ of Summons where appropriate as to the capacity in  which the action was brought, or against who the action was brought.”

8.2 Thus objection to jurisdiction can be raised by motion where not raised in the pleadings. The procedure whereby an objection is raised by motion on notice though not stated in the statement of defence is allowed depending on the nature of the issue. 

8.3 Where there is a pending motion challenging the jurisdiction of a trial court, it would be wrong for the court to proceed to try and determine the case without first determining the motion challenging its jurisdiction.[22]

 

8.4 The Court of Appeal in Rockshell Int. Ltd v. Best Quality Service Ltd[23],per Nwodo,JCA

“The respondent raised this objection on several issues by way of motion on notice and not by stating it in the statement of defence. This procedure is allowed depending on the nature of the issue. See Shipping v. Tigris International (1999) 6 NWLR (Pt. 608) 701; Odive v. Obor (1974) NSCC 103,(1974) 2 SC 21, (1974) 1 ALL NLR (Pt.1) 436; Okafor v. Attorney General,Anambra State (2005) All FWLR (Pt.274) 252, (2005) 14 NWLR (945) 210”  

8.5 Thus, where the issue bothers on jurisdiction objection to jurisdiction can be raisedby motion on notice though not pleaded or stated in the statement of defence as required by a rule of court. 

8.6 In considering Order 24 of the Kano State Civil Procedure Rule which states that  “No demurrer shall be allowed”,  the Supreme Court in  Nasir v. Kano State Civil Service Commission[24], in the lead judgment per Mukhtar, JSC made the following instructive pronouncement:

The purpose of pleading and raising  any point therein, as is require in Rule (2) supra is to avoid spring surprises on parties, and this elementary law of practice and procedure which does not require the interpretation of the said Rule (2) supra to understand.See George v. Domimion Flour Mills Limited (1965) 1 ALL NLR page 71,AniemekaEmegokwu v. JameOkadigbo 1973 4 SC 113 and Umoffia v. Ndem 1973 12 SC 69.If the function of pleadings is to put the other party on notice of what to expect at the trial, then a motion on notice, (as was in the instant case)  to dismiss a case on point of law precludes element of surprises. The appellant cannot feign ignorance of the point of law before the motion was moved.The appellant was very much aware of what the respondents were seeking from the court, and had the opportunity to meet it headlong. The appellant cannot say that he was prejudiced, for I believe even if that point of law on statute of limitation was raised in the statement of  defence, he could not have preferred  more argument than he did in the course of the proceedings in respect of  the motion. As I have stated earlier in the judgment in the treatment  of issue (1),the Statute of Limitation is a matter of jurisdiction which can be raised at  any stage of litigation, and I will add here, even in the Supreme Court”

9.0 RULES OF COURT CANNOT DICTATE WHEN AND HOW TO RAISE THE ISSUE OF JURISDICTION:

 

9.1 The rules of court cannot override statutory provisions:In Societe Bics A. Compagnie Moulages & Anor v. Charzin Ind. Ltd[25], per Muhammad JCA (as he then was)

“In the instant case, Appellants has not filed their Statement of Defence. In spite of the fact that the Appellants had chosen to raised their preliminary objection in a manner unknown to law, it must be appreciated that had it been manifest from Respondent’s Writ and claim that the action against the Appellants was fundamentally defective and untenable, it would have been proper for the Court to dismiss the action without waiting for the Appellants to file their pleadings. It has been held that where the point of law raised is founded on lack of jurisdiction, it is possible to apply for dismissal of the action even before the fulfilment of the conditions stipulated by the rules of Court for raising the objection. The Court falls back, at such moments, to its inherent jurisdiction which persists in spite of the rules of Court. This must be so because the Court could only assume jurisdiction, anyway, if same had existed. See: Adejumo v. Military Governor, Lagos State (1972) 1 All NLR (Pt.1) 159 and Enwesor v. Onyejiewe (1964) 1 All NLR14  “

9.2 In Nasir v. Kano State Civil Service Commission[26], per Ogbuagu, JSC[27] in his concurring judgment held as follows:

It is now firmly settled that issue of jurisdiction or competence of a court to entertain or deal with a matter before it, is very fundamental. It is a point of law and therefore, a rule of court, cannot dictate when and how, such point of law, can be raised. Being fundamental and threshold issue of jurisdiction, it can be raised at any stage of the proceedings in any court including this Court. An Appellant Court can even raise it suo motu. See the case of Anya v. Iyayi (1993) 7 NWLR (Pt. 305) and Kotoye v. Saraki (1994) 7 NWLR (Pt.357) 414 at 466. I need emphasize as it is also settled that mandatory Rules of Court, are not as sacrosanct as mandatory statutory provisions and therefore, a rule of court, cannot override a statutory provision of the law,See the case of Katto v. Central Bank of Nigeria (1991) 9 NWLR (Pt.212) 126. I therefore, that the objection of the Respondents, was rightly and properly upheld by the two lower courts.”

10.0 OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION AND ABUSE OF COURT PROCESS

 

10.1 The Court of Appeal in Salvador v. I.N.E.C.[28], per Saulawa, JCA, held:

A typical example of an abuse of court processes is where, as in the instant case, two or more processes of similar nature are filed and issued against the same parties in respect of the same subject matter, and praying the same reliefs. See Iwuagolu v. Azyka (2007) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1028) 613; Adeleke v. O.S.H.A. (2006) 16 NWLR (Pt.1006) 608;Senate President v. Nzeribe (2004) 9 NWLR (Pt.878) 251; Dapianlong v. Dariye (No.2) (2007) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1036) 332 respectively.

10.2 Consequently, where a defendant is confronted with a suit which is apparently an abuse of court process, he does not need to wait until he files a statement of defence in the matter before raising a preliminary objection on the jurisdiction of the court.[29]

 

10.3 Where the court concludes that its process is abused, the appropriate order to  make is that of dismissal of the process.See Arubo v. Aiyeleru,[30] and Per Ariwoola ,JSC in T.S.A. Ind. Ltd v. F.B.N. Plc[31]

 

11.0 OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION AND DEMURRER

 

11.1 An application or preliminary objection seeking an order to strike out a suit for being incompetent on ground of absence of jurisdiction is not demurrer and therefore can be filed and taken before the defendant files his statement of defence or without the defendant filing a statement of defence. This is because the issue of jurisdiction can be raised at any time. In addition, the relevant things to be considered by the court in determining the issue of jurisdiction are the facts as deposed to in affidavit, the writ of summons and the statement of claim, where one has been filed and served. The statement of defence is not one of the relevant materials for that purpose.[32]

 

11.2 In Nnonye v. Anyichie[33], Oguntade JSC held:

‘It seems to me therefore that cases to the effect that jurisdiction can be raised before service of statement of defence are those in which it is ex facie apparent from the writ of summons and statement of claim that there is no jurisdiction in the Court. Where it is still necessary to call evidence in proof of matters which may lead the court to decline its jurisdiction, it is inevitable that the fact be clearly pleaded”

11.3 In Arjay Ltd V. Airline Management Support Ltd.[34] (2003) 5 MJSC 1, the respondent had argued that the preliminary objection raised by the appellants in the trial court  did not comply with the provisions of Order XXVII of the Federal High Court Rules, Cap. 134 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 1990, in that there was no Statement of Claim in place. It contended that, the filing of the Statement of Claim was a condition precedent to be fulfilled under the said Order XXVII before the appellants could bring their preliminary objection challenging the jurisdiction of the Court. In answer to this objection Ogundare JSC  at   32  -33,paras. A-G held that:

 “I agree with the appellants to the effect that the preliminary objection in question challenged the jurisdiction of the trial court to entertain the action. This is not a demurrer application in which case there should be a statement of claim in place, the facts of which the appellants would be required to admit before bringing their objection.  I agree with the appellants' submission that there is a difference between an objection to the jurisdiction and a demurrer. I also agree with them that an objection to the jurisdiction of the court can be raised at any time, even when there are no pleadings filed and that a party raising such an objection need not bring the application under any rule of court and that it can be brought under the inherent jurisdiction of the court. Thus, for this reason, once the objection to the jurisdiction of the court is raised, the court has inherent power to consider the application even if the only process of court that has been filed is the writ of summons and affidavits in support of an interlocutory application, as in the case in hand.”

11.5 In Nigeria Deposit Insurance Corporation v. Central Bank of Nigeria & Anor[35], per Uwaifo, JSC:

“The tendency to equate demurer with objection to jurisdiction could be misleading. It is a standing principle that in demurer,  the plaintiff must  plead  and it is upon that pleading that the  defendant will contend that accepting all the facts  pleaded,  to be true, the  plaintiff has no cause of action, or where  appropriate, no  locus  standi: see' Federal Capital Development  Authority V. Naibi (1990)  3  NWLR (pt.  138)  270; WilllamsV  Williams (I995)  2  NWLR (pt.  375)  1;  Akpan V. Utin  (1996) 7 NWLR (pt.  463) 634;  Brawal Shipping (Nig.) Ltd. V. F. I.  Onwadike Co. Ltd. (2000) 11 NWLR (pt. 678) 387.But as   already shown the issue of jurisdiction is not a matter for demurer proceedings.  It is much more fundamental than that and does not entirely depend as such on what a plaintiff may plead as facts to prove the relief he seeks. What it involves is  what will enable  the plaintiff  to seek a  hearing'  in court over  this grievance, and get it resolved because he is able to  show that the court is empowered to entertain the subject matter; It  does not always follow that he must plead first in order to  raise the issue of jurisdiction.”

11.6 In Microsoft Corporation v. Franike Associates Ltd[36]., Pemu JCA relying on the NDIC v. CBN case (supra.) held that :

“The filing of a preliminary objection by the respondent at the lower court challenging  the court’s jurisdiction without filing a defence does not amount to a demurrer”

12.0 GROUND FOR RAISING OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION

 

12.1 The major grounds for raising an objection to jurisdiction are:

a. Mode of commencement of an action

 

b. Lack or improper service

 

c. Lack of reasonable cause of action

 

d. Locus standi

 

e. Limitation of action

 

f. Abuse of court process

 

g. Non fulfilment of condition precedent:

i. Rules of Court

ii. Statute e.g pre-action notice

 

h. Estoppel per rem judicatam

 

i. Improper Parties to an action

 

j. Venue or place of institution of action

 

k. Ouster clause in statute

 

13.0 THE RIGHT PARTY TO RAISE OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION

 

13.1 On the question  whether the duty to raise absence of Jurisdiction in a Court is placed upon a particular party, the Supreme Court in Omokhafe v. Elugbe[37],  per Katsina-Alu, JSC held:

“I must stress here that the duty to raise absence of jurisdiction in a court to hear a case is not placed upon a particular party, or defendants in a proceeding. It is of course from experience that it is always the defendant who raises it. The court itself can and often raises the question. See Adesanya V. President (1981) 1NCLR 388. Indeed it is settled law that the issue of jurisdiction could be raised at any stage of the proceedings up to the Supreme Court. See Federal Republic of Nigeria V. Ifeagwu (2003) 15 NWLR (Pt. 842) 113: Pan Asian Co. Ltd V. NICON (1982) 9 S.C.: Tukur V. Gongola State (1989) 4 NWLR (Pt. 117) 57. When it is successfully raised the suit is terminated by a striking out order. An order striking out a case effectively brings the proceedings to an end unless and until an appellate court rules otherwise. Therefore it is erroneous to think or argue as the respondent has done by his preliminary objection that the 4th defendant could not contest before this court correctness of the decision of the court below on jurisdiction just because it was the 1st to 3rd defendants alone that had raised the issue before the court below. If the court below had struck out the suit on the ground that the court has no jurisdiction to hear it by virtue of Decrees 1 and 13 of 1984, the order would have enured to the benefit or advantage of the 4th defendant notwithstanding that the issue was raised by the 1st to 3rd defendants. It seems to me that the 4th defendant by the same parity of reason is clearly entitled to contest on appeal before this court the correctness of the decision of the court below on the point.The court below heard the objection as raised by the 1st to 3rd defendants. The Court took the view that the objection was not properly raised. It therefore discountenanced it. The question of jurisdiction of the court to hear the suit therefore legitimately becomes a point decided by the court below which could be challenged on appeal before this court irrespective of the party that had first raised the objection before the court below. I therefore overrule the objection by the respondent on the point.”

14.0 WHETHER THE ISSUE OF JURISDICTION CAN BE WAIVED

 

14.1 In the case of Bello v. Yakubu[38], it was held that the issues of jurisdiction cannot be waived by a party to a suit. Similarly, in S.P.D.C.N. Ltd. v. Esowe (supra)[39], the court held thus:

“The issue of jurisdiction cannot be waived by the parties or by the court. The competence of a court to adjudicate on matter is a legal and constitutional prerequisite. See Odofin v. Agu (1992) 3 NWLR (Pt. 229) 350. Once the court is held for any reason to lack jurisdiction, no matter how well the proceedings are conducted, they are void.”

14.2 It is well settled that, where there is an objection to jurisdiction of an inferior court a party who consents to the exercise of jurisdiction is not thereby estopped from afterward raising the objection since the jurisdiction cannot be enlarged by estoppel.[40]

 

14.3 In Mobil Producing Nigeria Unlimited v. Monokpo[41], Tobi, JSC graphically puts it thus:

“Jurisdiction being the forerunner of judicial process, cannot by acquiescence, collusion , compromise, or as in this case, waiver, confer jurisdiction on a court that lacks it.  Parties do not have the legal right to donate jurisdiction on a court that lacks it.Non - compliance with the rules which affect the very foundation, or props of the case, cannot be treated by the court as an irregularity but as a nullifying the entire proceedings. Once the non-compliance affects the substance of the matter to the extent that the merits of the case are ruined, then it is impossible to salvage the proceedings in favour of the party in blunder, who in this appeal are the respondents, no amount of waiver by the party can be of any assistance to the adverse party. The defence of waiver lacks merit and so I do hold.”

15.0 SUBSTANTIVE AND PROCEDURAL JURISDICTION

 

15.1 In Kossen (Nig.) Ltd. v. Savannah Bank(Nig.) Ltd[42]., it was that :

“In reply to the above submissions learned counsel for the respondent, quite correctly, pointed out that there is difference between jurisdiction over subject matter which is unlimited and covered by the 1997 Constitution and procedural jurisdiction. The former cannot be expanded or compromised. But procedural jurisdiction could be waived or acquiesced in by the affected party Thus where wrong procedure was adopted in commencing a suit or an action, and no objection was raised by the adverse party, then the proceedings based on such wrong procedure is valid”

15.2 In Mobil Producing Nig. Ultd V LASEPA & Ors.[43] ,per Ayoola, JSC held:

That an irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction should  not be confused with a total lack of jurisdiction takes  cognizance of the general meaning of the word "jurisdiction"  as "the authority which a court has to decide matters that  are litigated before it or take cognizance of matters presented  in a formal way for its decision". (See Halsbury's (op cit)  paragraph 715) Procedure for invoking the jurisdiction of  the court should not be confused with the authority of the court to decide matters which on the face of the proceedings  have been properly presented in the formal way for its  decision and which are within its jurisdiction.

15.3 On the question whether Service of a pre-action notice are matters of substance or procedural.  In Mobil Producing Nig. Ultd V LASEPA& Ors.(supra) Ayoola,JSC  held that:

Service of a pre-action notice on the party intended to be sued pursuant. to a statute is, at best, a procedural  requirement and not an issue of substantive law on which  the rights of the plaintiff depend. It is not an integral part of the process for initiating proceedings. A party who has  served a pre-action notice is not obliged to commence  proceedings at all or, barring any limitation period, to  commence one within any time after the time prescribe for  pre-action notices. That is why in section 29(2) of the Act  he is referred to as an "intended plaintiff'. The argument  that a pre-action notice forms part of the cause of action of  the plaintiff is misconceived and untenable as it ignores the  distinction between matters of substance and matters of  procedure. Notwithstanding that, sometimes, the distinction  between substance and procedure is blurred, it is generally  accepted that matters (including facts) which define the  rights and obligations of the parties in controversy are  matters of substance defined by substantive law; whereas  matters which are mere vehicles which assist the court or  tribunal in going into matters in controversy or litigated before  it are matters of procedure regulated by procedural law.  Facts which constitute the cause of action are matters of  substance and should be pleaded, whereas facts which  relate to how a party is to invoke the jurisdiction of the  court for a remedy pursuant to his cause of action is a  matter of procedure outside the realms of pleadings. The  distinction was stated thus in Halsbury's Law of England, Volume 8( 1), 4th Edition, paragraph 1066:  " ... generally speaking, it may be said that substantive rules give or define the right which it is sought to enforce and  procedural rules govern the mode or machinery by which  the right is enforced."

16.0 WHETHER A PRELIMINARY OBJECTION COULD BE RAISED EVEN AFTER THE FILING AND EXCHANGE OF PLEADINGS.

 

16.1 A preliminary objection could be raised even after the filing and exchange of pleadings.

It is firmly settled that a preliminary objection or preliminary point of law, could be raised even after the filing and exchange of pleadings See Fadare &  Ors. v. Att.-Gen. of Oyo State (1982) 1ANLR (Pt. 1) 24; (1982) 4 S.C. 1 at 21 & 22. Per Ogbuagu, J.C.A. (Pp. 134-135, paras. D-A)[44]”

“A preliminary objection on point of law challenging the validity of the institution of a suit or petition as in the instant case leading to the appeals, it is now firmly settled, could only be determined at the initial stage by reference to the pleadings, particularly, the statement of claim or the petition as in the instant case. So, once the issue, cannot be determined on the pleadings or petition or in respect of the exhibit attached to the petition, the trial court or tribunal, is entitled to and indeed ought to proceed with/to full trial of the case and decide the point after evidence have been proffered at the trial. See Akinbi v.The Military Governor, Ondo State & Anor.(1990) 3 NWLR (Pt.140) 525 at 531 - 532 C.A”

17.0 CONCLUSION

 

17.1 The essence of this paper is to enable litigation lawyers have a proper perspective of the dynamics of raising objection to the jurisdiction of a court or tribunal to hear and determine a case brought before it on the merit. 

17.2 The raising of objection against the  jurisdiction of a court to hear and determine a matter should be taken as a preemptive case management strategy to prevent the court  from determining a case on the merit, when you “know” by virtue of your level of legal intelligence that, you cannot win the case on the merit.It could also be deployed to buy time while you prepare your defence. 

17.4 Where you have a strong case on the merit, employing an objection to jurisdiction strategy may be counterproductive. In such a case, it is better to proceed to get judgment that would settle the dispute once and for all.  

ENDNOTES

1. Ninth Edition, at page 927

2. See Ndaeyo v. Ogunnaya (1977) 1 SC 11; National Bank v. Shoyoye (1977) 5 SC 181; Attorney General Federation v. A.G. Abia State (2001) 7 SC (Pt.1) 100

3. [2003] 8NWLR (Pt.821) 1

4. Yusuf v. Obasanjo (2004)

5. KLM Airlines v. Kumzhi (2004) 8 NWLR (Pt. 875) 231 (CA)

6. (2007) 4 NWLR (Pt.1024) 375

7. Adeyemi v. Opeyori (1976) 9-10 SC 3, Tukur v. Government of Gongola State (1989) 4 NWLR (Pt.117)517,Egbuonu v. B.R.T.C. (1997) 12 NWLR (Pt. 531) 29, Okulate v. Awosanya (2000) 2 NWLR(Pt.646)530.

8. (2002) 10 NWLR (Pt. 776) 524

9. A.-G., Oyo State v. N.L.C. [supra]

10. United Bank for Africa Plc v. Mr. Abbas Issa Mohammed & Anor. ( 2009 )

11. A.-G., Oyo State v. N.L.C. [supra]

12. Per Tobi, JSC in Umanah  v. Obong Victor Attah (2006) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1009) 503 at 525 paras. D-F

13. (2006) 17 NWLR (Pt.1009) 503 at 525 paras D-F

14. (2010) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1209) p. 518, at p. 560, paras. E-H

15. (1962) 2 SCNLR 341

16. (2004) 14 NWLR (Pt. 892)Per OBADINA, J.C.A .See also (2003) LPELR-CA/J/152/2003

17. Oloba v. Akereja (1986) 3 NWLR (Pt.84) 508

18. (2008) 18 NWLR (Pt.1119) 388. At pages 424 – 426 paras H-E

19. (2007) 11 NWLR (Pt.1044) 1 at 18-19 paras H-D

20. (2006) 9 NWLR (Pt.985) 275 at 297 paras C-E

21. (2002) 7 NWLR (Pt. 766) 272 at 294, para. H;296,paras B-E

22. F.M.B.N  v. Uwadiak (2004) 10 NWLR (Pt. 882) 626 (CA)

23. (2010) All FWLR (Pt. 508) 234 at 256 – 257, Paras. H-C

24. (2010) 2 KLR (Pt.277) 651 at 661- 662,para H-C  OR (2010) 6 NWLR (PT 1190) 253 at  269-270, paras. H-C

25. (2003-2007) 5 I.P.L.R 203 at 226, paras. A-F

26. (Supra) at page 276 paras. C-D

27. At page 276 paras. C-D

28. (2012) 7 NWLR (Pt.1300) 417 at 449 -450,Paras. H – C

29. See: Usman v. Baba (2005) 5 NWLR (Pt. 917) 113 at 133-134, H-A (CA)

30. (1993) 3 NWLR (Pt.703) 392

31. (No.1) (2012) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1320) 326 at  349 para. C

32. See   PDP v. Adeyemi (2002) 10 NWLR (Pt. 776) 524 (supra)

33. (2005) 2 NWLR (Pt. 910) 623 at 659

34. (2003) 5 MJSC 1

35. (2002) 7 NWLR (Part 766) 272 at 296 – 297,paras. D-H

36. (2010) 5 CLRN 145 at 158, para 40

37. ( 2004) 11-12SC 60 at 65

38. (2008) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1106) p. 104, at p. 119, paras. E

39. at p. 90, paras. A-B

40. See Jadesimi v. Okotie – Eboh (No. 1) (1986) 1 NWLR (Pt. 16) 264 and Osibamowo v. Osibamowo (1991) 3 NWLR (Pt.177) 85

41. (2004) 9 WRN at 84-85, paras. 35-25 or (2003) 18 NWLR (Pt. 852) 346 at 434 – 435, paras E-B

42. (1995) 9 NWLR (Pt. 420) 439 at 451,para. D

43. (2002) 12 SC. (Pt.1) 26 at 37 -38

44. Daggash v. Bulama (2004) 14 NWLR (Pt.892)

 

Akintunde Esan is a Legal Consultant  and a Chartered Mediator. 
He is the Managing Partner at Ase Olodumare Chambers, a Lagos based online Law Firm engaged in the provision of consultancy services on commercial, corporate, property,  employment matters and disputes to local and international clients.

HOW TO CREATE YOUR BLOG

I love sharing knowledge , because knowledge is the key to human freedom and human development.Those who hate the sharing of knowledge are enemies of human progress and those who engage in the sharing of knowledge for the purpose of human destruction are of the forces of darkness either by omission or commission.

If you are out there and you want a platform for the  sharing of  knowledge for the purposes of human freedom and development, having your own blog is one such platforms, it is for you that, I post this blog .

Wisdom is of universal application, it cannot be bound  or determined by any religion, race, colour, creed,tradition, nation, tribe,group or person, once it is so, it is not wisdom but a doctrine or a belief or a tradition and the like.
 

How to Create your Blog Like I Created Mine

 

To start a blog with Blogger, visit the Blogger home page at   www.blogger.com
Enter your username and password, and click Sign in.
Enter a display name and accept Blogger's Terms of Service.
Then click the Create a Blog link and get started!
Pick an address (URL) and a blog title.
Then, choose your favorite blog template (this is how your blog will look when you publish it).
Now get creative, add information to your personal profile, and customize how your blog looks, if you feel up to it.


Start blogging now!
  

CAN YOU SUE A PERSON FOR NOT ADMITTING HAVING SEX WITH YOU

It is all over the media that, Andressa Urach also known as Miss Bum Bum has threatened to sue Cristiano Ronaldo for not admitting having sex with her.
The question then is, can you file a civil suit against a person for not admitting having sex with you.
If you can, what  are the reliefs you will pray the Court for.
The burden of proof is on you to prove that, there was a sexual intercourse in the first place.
Was the intercourse consensual, of course if it is not consensual that is a criminal offence.
Did you suffer any injury as a result of the intercourse.
Usually, the  law suit on sexual disputes is premised on the allegation of rape which is  a criminal offence, thus, the threat by Andressa is a novel issue of law.
One wonders why she is not alleging rape.
To be continued.
By Akintunde Esan

Lord Most High Be Magnified

From the ends of the earth (From the ends of the earth)
From the depth of the sea (From the depth of the sea)
From the height of the heaven (From the height of the heaven)
Your name we raise
From the hearts of the weak (From the hearts of the weak)
From the shouts of the strong (From the shouts of the strong)
From the lips of all people (From the lips of all people)
Your song we raise Lord
Throughout the endless ages
You have be crowed with praises
Lord most high
Exalted in every nation
Your're soverign of all creation
Lord most high
Be magnified
From the ends of the earth (From the ends of the earth)
From the depth of the sea (From the depth of the sea)
From the height of the heaven (From the height of the heaven)
Your name we raise
From the hearts of the weak (From the hearts of the weak)
From the shouts of the strong (From the shouts of the strong)
From the lips of all people (From the lips of all people)
Your song we raise Lord
Throughout the endless ages
You have be crowed with praises
Lord most high
Exalted in every nation
Your're soverign of all creation
Lord most high
Be magnified.
These are Lord Most High Lyrics by Hillsong United

LORD MOST HIGH Lyrics by Bob Fitts

 From the ends of the earth

 From the depths of the sea

 From the heights of the heavens

 Your Name we raise

 From the hearts of the weak

 From the shouts of the strong

 From the lips of all people

 This song we raise

 Chorus:

 Throughout the endless ages

 You will be crowned with praises

 Lord Most High

 Exalted in every nation

 Sovereign of all creation

 Lord Most High

 Be magnified

CONFLICT NEGOTIATION AND MEDIATION

Individual approach to conflict negotiation or mediation is affected by the extent to which an individual balances interest-driven concerns (goal attainment), and relationship-driven concerns (developing and maintaining positive, working relationships). 

To be an effective conflict negotiator or mediator, you must first understand your personal style or approach to conflict negotiation or the parties to conflict mediation and then adapt and adjust that style in response to the circumstances under which you must negotiate or mediate.

Although terminology may vary, most experts on conflict management agree that the attitudes  to conflict management can generally be described as falling into one of the following five attitudes:

                                i.            Collaborative  

                              ii.            Competitive                    

                            iii.            Compromising   

                          iv.            Accommodating

                            v.            Avoiding                                             

There is no one “right”  attitude to  managing conflicts; each attitude is helpful in certain situations and can have negative consequences when overused, or when used inappropriately.

                          i.                  COLLABORATIVE  (Interest- and relationship-driven)

§ Highly motivated to find a mutually valid solution

§ Possess high self-esteem, which exhibits itself in significant concern for self and others.

§ Goal is not winning but mutual satisfaction.

§ Seeks a solution that meets the needs of all sides.

§ Investments of time and energy in digging deep into an issue to identify the underlying concerns and interests of the parties and finding solutions that truly satisfy these concerns.

Appropriate when

-         There is a need to maintain satisfactory working relationships with your counterparts, which will be worthwhile in the long term.

-         The concerns of both sides are too important to be compromised,

Caution: Not all problems and conflicts require such optimal solutions. Be careful not to overuse collaboration on less substantive matters, particularly just to minimize risk or avoid responsibility. In addition, your collaborative efforts should elicit similar, collaborative responses from your opposition; if they don’t, this may be a signal that you need to rethink the relationship issues and develop another negotiation approach and strategy.

                        ii.                  COMPETITIVE(Interest-Driven)

§  The objective is to win regardless of the cost.

§  High concern for self and low concern for others,

§  Not interested in a win/ win settlement, prefers a lose/win situation to a win/win situation outcome.

§  High degree of self-assertiveness

§  Reluctant to cooperate.

§  Power-oriented - uses whatever power and influence is available to protect and promote interests.

Appropriate when:

-         Quick, decisive action is vital, e.g. emergencies;

-         Unpopular courses of action are needed, e.g., cost-cutting, enforcing stringent regulations; and

-         Initial, more collaborative approaches have shown that your opponents are likely to take advantage of noncompetitive behavior.

Caution- An overuse of the competitive approach, however, may result in lost alliances and partnerships, reluctance on the part of your subordinates to provide needed information or data (i.e., because it challenges your position), and a competitive climate where more time may be spent on fighting for influence and power than on productive problem-solving.

                      iii.                  Compromising (Interest- and relationship-driven)

§  Less interest and relationship driven than collaboration

§  “I will if you will” involves concern for self and concern for others.

§  Has sufficient assertiveness and a good level of sensitivity towards the other’s needs.

§  The aim in the conflict resolution is for both parties to make equal concession so there is neither a winner nor a loser.

§  Eager to close the deal by doing what is fair and equal for all parties involved in the negotiation.

§  This approach requires that you deal directly with the conflict and underlying interests at hand, but doesn’t require that you explore these interests in as much depth as the collaborative approach.

Appropriate when:

-         You and your opponents have equal power and are strongly committed to mutually exclusive objectives.

-         Temporary settlements to complex issues also may involve compromise, particularly when there is significant time pressure. leaves the way open for more collaborative negotiations in the future.

Caution: Often unnecessarily rush the negotiation process and make concessions too quickly. Tendsto findtemporary mutually acceptable solutions or settlement that partially satisfy your interests and those of your opponents though not necessarily straining your working relationship.

                    iv.                  ACCOMMODATING(Relationship-driven)

§  Places emphasis on the concerns and interests of the opposition rather than your own.

§  Peace at any cost is the goal of an accommodator.

§  Highly motivated toward peace

§  Sacrifice their own needs to satisfy the other person.

§   This style is the opposite of the competitive style.

§  Enjoy solving the other party’s problems and preserving personal relationships.

§  Willingness to forgo your own agenda in favor of moving forward and resolving the conflict.

Appropriate when:

-         The issue at hand is very important to your opponents and the outcome has no particular negative consequences for you or your interests. Under such circumstances, accommodation can be used as a goodwill gesture to help maintain a cooperative relationship with the opposition and build up social credits for future issues that may be more important to you.

Caution: Overuse of accommodation, i.e., continual deference to the concerns of your opponents, may deprive you of the recognition and respect you need to influence future negotiations and outcomes with your opponents. Preserving harmony and avoiding disruption through accommodation must be balanced against maintaining your leadership and credibility and achieving your objectives.

               v.            AVOIDANCE (Neither interest nor relationship driven)

§  Avoids conflict altogether,

§  Address neither your interests nor the competing interests of the opposition.

§  Avert their own desires/needs

§  Have little concern for others desires and needs.

§  Put the matter aside and waiting for things to improve

§  When conflict surfaces, they withdraw and refrain from   saying anything.

§  Do not like to negotiate and don’t do it unless warranted.

Although not generally viewed as a useful strategy or a long-term solution, avoidance is appropriate under the following circumstances:

ü  An issue is trivial and doesn’t merit your time

ü The potential damage of confronting the conflict far outweighs any possible benefits

ü You have little or no power and perceive no chance of satisfying your interests.

POSTPONEMENT: Postponement is a variation of avoidance, is a useful strategy when you need time to regroup and assess a situation, gather more information or resources, or recruit allies who have the power and influence required to address and negotiate the conflict more effectively.

Both the competitive and accommodating attitude are destructive attitude, the former seeks to destroy others to satisfy an insatiable emotional urge while the latter sacrifices his or her happiness for peace to reign. To this type peace first and others will follow. Studies have shown that a combination of collaboration, compromise, and accommodation seems to facilitate the best overall, long lasting results. However, a compromiser who is usually open to negotiation may adopt a highly competitive stance on an issue that is extremely important to him.

ADOPT A STYLE THAT IS APPROPRIATE TO THE CURRENT SITUATION AND YOUR GOALS.

One key to successful conflict management is the ability to realize when your own natural management style is, and is not, appropriate.

-         If you know that you tend to compete for space and dominate conversations, especially when you are trying to win a point, you need to improve on your conflict management skills by developing constructive communication and active listening skills.

-          If, on the other hand, you find it difficult to state your point clearly and with sufficient conviction, or you tend to avoid conflict at any cost, work on improving your ability to clearly state your interests and communicate your needs to the opposition.

No single approach or style for conflict management will prove successful under all circumstances. Through careful assessment and preparation, however, you will be able to adjust your approach and avoid the negative emotional reactions that often derail communication and almost always escalate the level of conflict. 

By Akintunde Esan, Legal Practitioner and Chartered Mediator, Managing Partner at Ase Olodumare Chambers, a Lagos based dispute resolution law firm