IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA IN THE ABUJA JUDICIAL DIVISION HOLDEN AT ABUJA BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP: HON. JUSTICE E.D. SUBILIMNICN/ABJ/151/2024: COURT 7 Ekene Thadeus Enoja V Colvi Limited Monday 20th January, 2025 The case was scheduled today for Report of Settlement was adjourned to March 5, 2025.
Monday 20, January 2025, Cause List BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP: HON. JUSTICE E.D. SUBILIM NICN/ABJ/106/2024: COURT 7
IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA IN THE ABUJA JUDICIAL DIVISION HOLDEN AT ABUJA BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP: HON. JUSTICE E.D. SUBILIMNICN/AB.J/106/2024: COURT 7 Agbanoma Kennedy Adiheji V Correspondent Limited Monday 20th January, 2025 The case was scheduled today for Adoption of Final Written Address was adjourned to February 26, 2025. For Adoption
Tuesday 21, January 2025, Cause List BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP: HON. JUSTICE E.D. SUBILIM NICN/ABJ/394/2024: COURT 7
IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA IN THE ABUJA JUDICIAL DIVISION HOLDEN AT ABUJA BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP: HON. JUSTICE E.D. SUBILIMNICN/AB.J/394/2024: COURT 7 Olamijula I. Thompson Amura Tanko Manasseh F. Yakwo Igbayue A. Bethel Ezigbo Kingsley Simon Celestine V Solsan Technology Venture Limited Mr. Shola Ajay Tuesday 21th January, 2025 The case was scheduled today for Hearing was adjourned to March 13, 2025. For hearing
JUDGEMENT DELIVERED BY CHIDIEBERE NWAOMA UWA, JSC – SC.889/2017
CHIDIEBERE NWAOMA UWA JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT. CHIDIEBERE NWAOMA UWA JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT. BEFORE THEIR LORDSHIPS UWANI MUSA ABBA AJI. HELEN MORONKEJI OGUNWUMIJU. CHIDIEBERE NWAOMA UWA. STEPHEN JONAH ADAH. ABUBAKAR SADIQ UMAR. JUSTICE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA JUSTICE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA JUSTICE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA JUSTICE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA JUSTICE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA SGT. AKAWU BALA. APPELLANT AND NIGERIAN ARMY. RESPONDENT JUDGEMENT DELIVERED BY CHIDIEBERE NWAOMA UWA, JSC. I have read in draft the judgment of my learned brother, Hon. Justice Helen Moronkeji Ogunwumiju, JSC, just delivered. I agree with his reasoning and conclusion that this appeal has merit and should be allowed. I shall add a few comments on the issue of whether or not the Appellant can validly place reliance on Section 193 of the Armed Forces Act which protects against double jeopardy and makes it unlawful for a person to be tried twice for an offence? The said Section 193 of the Armed Forces Act Cap A20 LFN, 2004 provides as follows: “Where the conviction of a person by a court-martial for an offence has been quashed under this part, he shall not be liable to be tried for that offence by a court-martial or by any other court.” Clearly, the aforementioned provision is a derivative of Section 36 (9) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) which provides that: “No person who shows that he has been tried by any Court of competent jurisdiction or tribunal for a criminal offence and either convicted or acquitted shall again be tried for that offence or for a criminal offence having the same ingredients as that offence save upon the order of a superior Court” In IGBINEDION v. FRN(2014) LPELR-22766(CA)(Pp 43-43 Paras A-D) my learned brother has previously held on the doctrine of double jeopardy as follows: “On the plea of double jeopardy, the plea presupposes that no man shall be vexed twice on the same facts and for the same offence. This implies that once a man has faced the Court of law for an offence and has been convicted or acquitted by the Court, such a man cannot be charged to Court on the same facts and offence on a later date. This is guaranteed by S.36(9) of the Constitution which provides as follows: “No person who shows that he has been tried by any Court of competent jurisdiction or tribunal for a criminal offence and either convicted or acquitted shall again he tried for that offence or for a criminal offence having the same ingredients as that offence save upon the order of a superior Court” Similarly, his lordship Mary Ukaego Peter-Odili, JSC in PML (SECURITIES) CO. LTD v. FRN (2018) LPELR-47993(SC) (Pp 68-71 Paras F-C) held on the position of the law on the plea of double jeopardy/ autre fois acquit and convict, as follows: “The Appellant had sought to rely on Section 36 (9) to talk of its being visited with double jeopardy in the trial initiated in Federal High Court, Benin. The Appellant needs to be reminded that for Section 36 (9), Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria on double jeopardy to apply, the Appellant must establish that it has been either acquitted or convicted for the same offence for which it is presently called upon to answer. I place reliance on Kalu v. Nigerian Army (2010) 4 NWLR (PT. 1185) 433 at 451. Sections 181 and 182 of the Criminal Procedure Act provides as follows: ‘181 (1) Without prejudice to Section 171 of this Act, a person charged with an offence (in this section referred to as “the offence charged”) shall not be liable to be tried thereafter if it is shown – (a) that he has previously been convicted or acquitted of the same offence by a competent Court; or (b) that he has previously been convicted, or acquitted by a competent Court on a charge on which he might have been convicted of the offence charged; or (c) that has previously been convicted or acquitted by a competent Court of an offence other than the offence charged, being an offence of which, apart from this section, he might be convicted by virtue of being charged with the offence charged. (2) Nothing in Subsection (1) of this section shall prejudice the operation of any law giving power to any Court, on an appeal, to set aside a verdict or finding of any other Court and order a re-trial. 182. A person acquitted or convicted of any offence may afterwards be tried for any distinct offence for which a separate charge might have been made against him on the previous trial under the provisions of Section 158 of this Act.’ ‘According to Section 36 (9) of the 1999 Constitution, it is a conviction or acquittal by a Court of competent jurisdiction that can found a plea of autre fois convict or autre fois acquit.” For a plea of double jeopardy/ autrefois acquit or autrefois convict to succeed, the factors laid out in the above cases must be proved to the satisfaction of the Court. In analyzing these pleas, there is the need to make it clear that there must have been a trial of the accused, that is, hearing and determination of the charge against him on the merits otherwise a subsequent trial as contemplated by Section 36 (9) of the Constitution of Nigeria, 1999 cannot be prevented. There should also have been the trial of the accused previously where he must have been convicted or acquitted. If there had been no trial previously, then the subsequent trial for the same offence is not barred. For the acquittal or the conviction to be an effective defense to the charge, it must have been handed down by a Court of competent jurisdiction. In other words, the court must have had complete jurisdiction to adjudicate
JUDGMENT (Delivered by Uwani Musa Abba Aji JSC-SC/CV/1165/2023)
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA HOLDEN AT ABUJA ON FRIDAY, THE 12 DAY OF JANUARY, 2024. BEFORE THEIR LORDSHIPS JOHN INYANG OKOR UWANI MUSA ABBA AJI IBRAHIM MOHAMMED MUSA SAULAWA ADAMU JAURO EMMANUEL AKOMAYE AGIM SC/CV/ 1165/2023 JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT BETWEEN: DAUDA LAWAL AND BELLO MUHAMMAD MATAWALLE ALL PROGRESSIVES CONGRESS (APC) INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION (INEC) PEOPLES DEMOCRATIC PARTY (PDP) Appellants Respondents JUDGMENT (DELIVERED BY UWANI MUSA ABBA AJI, JSC) The 3rd Respondent (INEC) conducted the Governorship Election for Zamfara State on 18/3/2023. The Appellant, Dauda Lawal, was the candidate sponsored by the 4th Respondent, while the 1st Respondent, Bello Muhammad Matawalle, was the candidate sponsored by the 2nd Respondent. At the conclusion of the election, the Appellant, having scored the highest number of lawful votes cast, was declared the winner of the election and was duly returned. The Appellant polled the total of 377,726 votes while the 1st Respondent polled the total of 311,976. The difference of votes between the 3rd Respondent and the 1st Respondent is 65,750. Dissatisfied with the declaration and return of the Appellant, the 1st and 2nd Respondents filed a Petition before the Zamfara State Governorship Election Petition Tribunal which sat in Sokoto, Sokoto State, and challenged the election and return of the Appellant on two grounds. The trial Tribunal delivered its judgment on the 18/9/2023, and dismissed the Petition as unmeritorious. Peeved by the decision, the 1st and 2nd Respondents appealed to the lower Court, which on 16/11/ 2023, delivered its judgment and allowed the appeal of the 1st and 2nd Respondents andordered that: A. That the gubernatorial Election held in Zamfara State on the 18th day of March, 2023 is inconclusive and the return of the 1st Respondent by the 3rd Respondent is hereby set aside. B. The 3rd Respondent is hereby directed to hold fresh election in Maradum Local Government and affected polling Units in Birnin Mogaji Local Government and Bukuyum Local Government. My learned brother that delivered the lead judgment has covered much in his reasoning and conclusion of the judgment. May I just peep in. The case of the lst and 2nd Respondent as revealed by them is that the “declaration of result in Form EC8E was wrong. This is for the reason that the result of Maradun Local Government in Form ECC, was not reckoned with in arriving at the entries in Form EC8E”. You cannot jump the guns or put the cart before the horse in election petition, by abandoning Form EC8A, which ought to be the basis and foundation for proving polling unit results, and use the ward result or local government result. Any other Form or document or evidence other than that which emanates from the polling unit may be used to ascertain election result or to compare with, but cannot serve as a primary and direct evidence for the purpose of proving election petition, since it cannot bear what directly transpired at the polling unit, but what has been transferred or copied. Forms EC8A, (Exhibits R1A-R10A) in this case, are the primary evidence of the election and ought to be preferred to Collations in Exhibits P163-P175, P182C and R12C in the upper hierarchy of the election. Exhibits RIA-R10A (EC8A) is the primary document the Respondents ought to have been used to prove the wrong entries made into Exhibits P163-P175, and not the other way round or vice versa. Even if Exhibits RIA-R10A (EC8A) appeared mutilated, blurred and illegible to read, they ought to have been used for the purpose of confirmation and not to be discarded or relegated to the back. It forms the vital and direct evidence or document to be used. Besides, if there was conflict in the document or mutilation, oral evidence would have been called to settle it, but it was too late to do. that since the lower court did not have the jurisdiction and ought not to have resolved it the way it did. Besides, any other Form or document is susceptible or amenable to tampering or doctoring unlike form EC8A, which is always done in the presence of all witnesses and election stakeholders. It is a document produced from consensus and agreement of parties and witnesses present in an election at the polling unit, and can hardly come to be if there is a dispute to it. One of the reasons and wisdom behind poling unit by polling unit proof or disproof of election petition is that the wrong committed therein can be excised and cut off without affecting the bigger unit like the ward, local government or state as the case may be, and not to disenfranchise a good number of eligible and valid voters or deny them the exercise of their civic responsibility. Furthermore, it is the ground for obtaining and testing direct evidence or eyewitness report. Results generated from Polling Units are the foundation upon which every election is predicated. See the case of Buhari V. INEC (2008) LPELR-714 (SC) Pp. 172-173, paras.E-D. The 1st and 2nd Respondents ought to have proved the polling Units affected Maradun LGA and not to ask this court to order for a fresh election in a whole LGA without specificity or particularization of the polling units affected. The court must be wary to order for a fresh election, especially considering the costs and risks that may be involved as this pertains a restive State like Zamfara.In NWOBODO V. ONOH (1984) 15 NSC 1 @ P. 22 lines33-35, this court held inter alia that “To prove the falsity beyond reasonable doubt of the collated results of the deputy returning officers, a petitioner must not only prove the results collated by the assistant returning officers but must also prove the votes counted by the presiding officers and the scores of each candidate
Tuesday 21, January 2025, Cause List BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP: HON. JUSTICE E.D. SUBILIM NICN/ABJ/392/2024: COURT 7
IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA IN THE ABUJA JUDICIAL DIVISION HOLDEN AT ABUJA BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP: HON. JUSTICE E.D. SUBILIMNICN/AB.J/392/2024: COURT 7 Stevens Obi Manu V Abuja Environmental Protection Board Federal Capital Territory Administration Honorable Minister of Federal Capital Territory Tuesday 21th January, 2025 The case was scheduled today for Mension was adjourned to March 17, 2025. For hearing
Tuesday 21, January 2025, Cause List BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP: HON. JUSTICE E.D. SUBILIM NICN/ABJ/353/2024: COURT 7
IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA IN THE ABUJA JUDICIAL DIVISION HOLDEN AT ABUJA BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP: HON. JUSTICE E.D. SUBILIMNICN/AB.J/353/2024: COURT 7 Victor Odewale Odekunle V Joint Admission and Matriculation Board Tuesday 21th January, 2025 The case was scheduled today for Mension was adjourned to March 17, 2025. For hearing
National Industrial Court Cause List BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP: HON. JUSTICE E.D. SUBILIM NICN/ABJ/385/2023: COURT 7
IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA IN THE ABUJA JUDICIAL DIVISION HOLDEN AT ABUJA BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP: HON. JUSTICE E.D. SUBILIMNICN/AB.J/385/2023: COURT 7 Mrs. Joyce Williams Nchelem V Mrs. Bernadetta Oddiah Ajila Tuesday 21th January, 2025 The case was scheduled Ruling today was adjourned to March 13, 2025. For continuation of hearing
National Industrial Court Cause List BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP: HON. JUSTICE E.D. SUBILIM NICN/ABJ/352/2024: COURT 7
IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA IN THE ABUJA JUDICIAL DIVISION HOLDEN AT ABUJA BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP: HON. JUSTICE E.D. SUBILIMNICN/AB.J/352/2024: COURT 7 Barr. Usman Safiyanu Liman V Corporate Affairs Commission Registrar General, Corporate Affairs Commission Tuesday 21th January, 2025 The case was scheduled for a hearing today was adjourned to March 17, 2025.
ADMINISTRATION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT, 2015
Section: ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS PART 1 – PRELIMINARY 1 Purpose.2 Application. PART 2 – ARREST, BAIL AND PREVENTIVE JUSTICE 3Arrest generally.4 Mode of arrest.5 No unnecessary restraint.6 Notification of cause of arrest and rights of suspect.7 Arrest in lieu prohibited.8 Humane treatment of arrested suspect.9 Search of arrested suspect.10 Inventory of property of arrested suspect.11 Examination of arrested suspect.12 Search of place entered by suspect sought to be arrested.13 Power to break out of a house or place for purpose of liberation.14 Arrested suspect to be taken immediately to police station.15 Recording of arrests.16 Central Criminal Records Registry.17 Recording of statement of suspects.18 Arrest by police officer without warrant.19 Refusal to give name and residence.20 Arrest by private persons.21 Arrest by owner of property.22 Arrest of suspect doing damage to public property.23 Handing over of an arrested suspect by a private person.24 Offence committed in the presence of a Judge or Magistrate.25 Arrest by Magistrate.26 Arrest for an offense committed in the presence of a Judge, Magistrate or Justice of the Peace.27 When the public is bound to assist in the arrest.28 Pursuit of a suspect into other jurisdictions.29 Quarterly report of arrests to the Attorney-General.30 Release on bail of a suspect arrested without a warrant.31 Power to release on bail before a charge is accepted.32 Remedy of a suspect detained in custody.33 Police to report to supervising Magistrates.34 Chief Magistrate to visit police stations every month. PART 3 – WARRANTS 35General authority to issue warrants.36 Form and requisites of warrant of arrest.37 Warrant to be issued on complaint only if on oath.38 Warrant may be issued on any day.39 Warrant, to whom directed and duration.40 Warrant of arrest may in exceptional cases be directed to other persons.41 Public summons for person absconding.42 Publication of public summons.43 Execution of warrant and procedure.44 Power to arrest on warrant but without the warrant.45 Court may direct particulars of security to be taken on execution of warrant.46 Procedure on arrest of suspect outside division or district of court issuing warrant.47 Warrant issued by the Federal High Court.48 Re-arrest of suspect escaping.49 Provisions of sections 12 and 13 to apply to arrests under section 48. PART 4 – PREVENTION OF OFFENCES AND SECURITY FOR GOODBEHAVIOUR 50 Police to prevent offences and injury to public property. 51 Information of design to commit offence.52 Arrest by police to prevent offences.53 Prevention by other public officers of offences and injury to public property.54 Power of Magistrate to require execution of recognizance for keeping peace.55 Security for good behavior for suspected persons.56 Security for good behavior for habitual offenders.57 Order to be made.58 Procedure in respect of suspect present in court.59 Summons or warrant in case of suspect not present.60 Copy of order under section 59 to accompany summons or warrant.61 Power to dispense with personal attendance.62 Inquiry as to truth of information.63 Order to give security.64 Discharge of suspect informed against. PART 5 – PROCEEDING IN ALL CASES SUBSEQUENT TO ORDER TO FURNISHSECURITY 65Commencement of period for which security is required.66 Conditions of recognizance.67 Power to reject sureties.68 Procedure on failure of suspect to give security.69 Power to release suspect imprisoned for failure to give security.70 Power of High Court to cancel recognizance.71 Discharge of sureties. PART 6 – PUBLIC NUISANCE 72Conditional order for removal of nuisance.73 Service of order.74 Suspect to whom order is addressed to obey or appear before court.75 Consequences of failure to obey order or to appear.76 Procedure where suspect appears.77 Consequences of disobedience to order made absolute.78 Order pending inquiry.79 Prohibition of repetition or continuance of nuisance. PART 7 – ATTACHMENT WHERE A PERSON DISOBEYS SUMMONS ORWARRANT 80 Attachment of property of suspect absconding.81 Order to attach property.82 Restoration of attached property.83 Issue of warrant in lieu of or in addition to summons.84 Power to take bond for appearance.85 Provisions of this Part generally applicable to summons and warrant. PART 8 – PROVISIONS RELATING TO CRIMINAL TRIALS AND INQUIRIES INGENERAL 86Application of Part 8.87 General authority to bring suspect before a court.88 Right of making complaint.89 Form of complaint.90 Form of documents in criminal proceedings.91 Rule as to statement of exception.92 Limitation of period for making a private complaint. PART 9 – PLACE OF TRIAL OR INQUIRY 93Venue generally.94 Offence at sea or outside of Nigeria.95 Offence committed on a journey.96 Offence commenced and completed in different States.97 Chief Judge to decide question as to court of inquiry or place of trial.98 Chief Judge may transfer a case.99 When cases may be remitted to another court.100 Removal under warrant.101 Transfer of case where cause of complaint has arisen out of jurisdiction of court.102 Court may assume jurisdiction under certain conditions.103 Assumption of jurisdiction after commencement of proceedings. PART 10 – POWERS OF THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL 104Information by the Attorney-General.105 Issuance of legal advice and other directives to police.106 Prosecution of offences. PART 11 – CONTROL OF CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS BY THE ATTORNEYGENERAL 107 Discontinuance of criminal cases.108 Withdrawals from prosecution in trials and inquiries before a court. PART 12 – INSTITUTION OF PROCEEDINGS 109 Different methods of instituting criminal proceedings.110 Mode of instituting criminal proceedings in a Magistrate court.111 Returns by Comptroller-General of Prisons. PART 13 – FIRST INFORMATION REPORT 112 Procedure for receiving complaints and first information report. PART 14 – ENFORCING APPEARANCE OF SUSPECT 113 Compelling appearance of a suspect.114 Summons and warrants.115 Making of complaint and issue of process. PART 15 – ISSUE, FORM AND SERVICE OF SUMMONS 116 Issue and service117 Issue of summons and contents.118 Hearing by consent before return date of summons.119 Summons with immediate return date in special circumstances.120 Discretion in ex parte application.121 Summons to be in duplicate.122 Service of summons.123 Normal methods of effecting service.124 Service where person summoned cannot be found.125 Service on public officers.126 Service outside jurisdiction of court.127 Proof of service