Legal Palace

28/07/2021

What is your thought on the ebeano supermarket that was allegedly burnt down by a 9year old girl?

28/07/2021

Good morning learned colleagues!
With the news trending in Nigeria of a 9year old girl burning down Ebeano supermarket worth a whopping 10million dollars (5 billion Naira)with CCTV footage showing the girl and her sisters, what is your thought on the accusation? If you feel she is guilty can you take time to critically explain why you feel so, and the adequate punishment for the 9year old girl, also taking into account that she is underage and how the law will melt out the punishment. But if you think she isn't guilty also leave a comment telling us why you think so.

28/03/2021

New design

07/03/2021

07/03/2021

In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
On Wednesday, the 18th day of March, 2020

CA/L/1513/2018

Before Their Lordships
MOHAMMED LAWAL GARBAJustice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

UGOCHUKWU ANTHONY OGAKWUJustice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

JAMILU YAMMAMA TUKURJustice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

Between
1. REGISTERED TRUSTEES OF AUTO SPARE PARTS AND MACHINERY DEALERS ASSOCIATION
2. MR. DANIEL OFORKANSI - Appellant(s)

AND
1. MR. OBOJIOFOR OBINNA JOHN
2. MR. JAMES C. ONWUGAMBA
3. MR. PHILIP N. EZEABASILI
4. MR. NWADIMKA NATHANIEL - Respondent(s)

Other Citations
; ;

Summary
INTRODUCTION:
This appeal borders on civil procedure.

FACTS:
This is an appeal against the decision of the High Court of Lagos State, which was delivered by Ogunjobi, J.

The contest bordered on tenure of office and alleged elongation of tenure, with respect to the Executive Officers of the Auto Spare Parts and Machinery Dealers Association (ASPMDA). It was the case of the Respondents that the ASPMDA Constitution, under which the Executive Officers were elected, stipulated a tenure of two years, but that the Executive Officers were seeking to elongate their tenure by claiming the four year tenure provided in the Amended Constitution, which was adopted after they were elected.
On the contrary, Appellants contended that the Executive Officers took their oath of office under the Amended Constitution and that the tenure was for the four years provided thereunder.
The Respondents commenced an action by Originating Summons, and claimed as follows:
"(i) AN ORDER directing the 2nd Defendant and other members of the executive committee to vacate their respective offices at the expiration of their tenure of office on 7th, August 2018.
(ii) AN ORDER of perpetual injunction restraining the 2nd Defendant from further contesting for the position of the executive chairman of ASPMDA having successfully contested and won two terms in office, the maximum terms stipulated in the old 1986 Constitution of ASPMDA.
(iii) AN ORDER directing the 2nd Defendant led executive committee members or the interim government of ASPMDA, as the case may be, to conduct a fresh election for the positions on the executive committee specified under the new 2016 ASMDA Constitution.
(iv) The Cost of this action."

The Appellants filed a preliminary objection challenging the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain the action, based on the grounds of lack of locus standi of the respondent, non-compliance with requirement of pre-action notice, non-suitability of originating summons as the originating process in the matter.
The preliminary objection and the Originating Summons were heard together, and in its judgment , the trial Court dismissed the preliminary objection and entered judgment for the Respondents on their Originating Summons. Appellants appealed to the Court of Appeal.

ISSUES:
Appellants submitted the following issues for determination:
"1. Whether in the light of Article 21(A) of the ASPMDA Constitution (as amended in 2016), the trial Court possessed the requisite jurisdiction to entertain the suit ab initio?
2. Whether the lower Court was right when it held that, in spite of the pendency of Suit No: LD/5010GCMW/2018, the instant suit was not an abuse of Court process?
3. Whether the Learned Trial Judge was right in placing sole and heavy reliance on the conditions stated in B.B Apugo & Sons v. OHMB (2016) LPELR 40598 (SC) in holding that the Respondents possess the requisite standing to institute the action, even in the face of the positive facts placed before it suggesting otherwise?
4. Whether the dust raised as to the time the Amended Constitution became operative viz-a-viz [sic] the tenure of the members of the Executive Council as well as the dispute as to membership of the association duly raised are not sufficient hostile facts to warrant calling of evidence?
5. Whether it can be said that the lower court adequately considered all the issues raised for determination before it by the Appellants in its decision?"
DECISION/HELD:
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

04/02/2021

Nigerian constitution and Religion

Over the last decade, Nigeria has been plagued with lots of issues concerning religion. Many have claimed that Nigeria is an islamic nation and others have claimed that the state religion of Nigeria is christianity. Where does the Law stand amidst all this disparity and confusion?

The Nigerian constitution as many already know is the supreme law of the land by virtue of Section 1(1)(supremacy clause) which provides that “This constitution is supreme and its provisions shall have a binding force on all authorities and persons throughout the federal republic of Nigeria”.

Having established this important fact, with regards to the matter of religion whether or not a state or the entire country is allowed to solely practice a single religion and sanction anyone who does not comply, the constitution in section 10 provides that “ The Government of the federation or of a state shall not adopt any religion as state religion “. In essence, the president of the federation or governor of any state is prohibited by the constitution he/she swore to protect and preserve not to adopt any religion as official state religion of the country or any part.

Any Nigerians citizen is permitted to practice his/her religion wherever and whenever he pleases in any part of the country and legally speaking he/she is only exercising right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion enshrined in section 38(1) of the Nigerian constitution which provides that “every person shall be entitled to freedom of Thought, conscience and religion, including freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom( either alone or in community with others, and in public or in private) to manifest and propagate his religion or belief in worship, teaching,practice and observance”.

Drop your thoughts in the comment section.

04/02/2021

There’s this popular street notion that “lawyers are liars” but is that really the case?

A barrister has both a duty to their client and a corresponding duty to the court. Although I am bound to represent my client to the best of my abilities, I am also bound not to mislead the court. If my client tells me he is guilty, I cannot tell the court he is innocent. All I can do is test the prosecution’s case by asking their witnesses questions and then rely on the legal burden of proof, which requires the jury to declare that my client is innocent until proven guilty. However, if I think my client is guilty – because all the evidence I have seen suggests this – then I must be realistic about his chances at trial. More often than not he will accept this and plead guilty, which means that his sentence will be discounted by approximately one-third for his acceptance of responsibility.

29/01/2021

You can now join and message us on Whatsapp, just save the name as Legal Palace. We intend to bring the best of cases, controversies and things happening in our dear country. We hope to keep you abreast of the latest news. Click on the link to join.
Message Legal Palace on WhatsApp.

27/01/2021

In law it is still the case that a husband and wife alone cannot be guilty of a conspiracy. This law comes from the legal fiction that a husband and wife are of one mind, and are presumed to have one will. As a conspiracy requires an agreement between two minds, a husband and wife cannot – in law – conspire alone. There has to be a third party.

26/01/2021

Let's retrace our steps to one of the basics of the law. Carlil V Carbolic smoke ball [1893] 1 QB 256 (see comment section for fact of the case) which is a popular case for legal students and luminaries is responsible for a key principle which provides that a contract can be made with the entire world (unilateral contracts) hence if anyone fulfils the conditions stated expressly stated out in the contract then a binding agreement is made.
Having said all, can we drag Nigerian politicians to the floor of the court if they fail to implement any of the policies and promises that persuaded the people to vote for them?
Can we say they breached a unilateral contract?
Drop your thoughts below