Ahamefula v. Guaranty Trust Bank Plc & Ors. – Suit No. FHC/L/CS/244/2015, Dagat J.:
“On the issue of not complying with the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act as regards service outside jurisdiction, generally, the processes to be served outside jurisdiction must have an endorsement on it showing that it is to be served outside jurisdiction in compliance with Section 97 of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act. The courts have held that where this endorsement is missing the process is voidable and may be set aside on the application of the adverse party. See Odua Investment vs. Talabi (1997) 7 SCNJ 600. Normally, an adverse party need only to file a notice of preliminary objection and take no further step to succeed. However, with the advent of proceedings in lieu of demurrer, the adverse party is forced to file his counter affidavit and other processes. I must state that the 5th Respondent is entitled to petition the court to set aside the service on him, however, this would defeat the objectives of the Fundamental Rights Enforcement Procedure Rules, 2009 which are special proceedings and which seek to do substantial justice. Kindly see the preamble to the Fundamental Rights Enforcement Procedure Rules, 2009. In the interest of justice, I hold that the processes served on the 5th Respondent is proper.”
The above statement of the law is as contained in the Judgment of Hon. Justice J. K. Dagat of the Federal High Court, Lagos Division, delivered on 28th day of March, 2017.
Continue reading In a fundamental rights suit, failure to comply with section 97 of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act is not fatal.
NBA v. Kehinde  11 NWLR (Pt. 1576) 225 at 246-247, paras. G-E, per Tukur, JCA:
“Let me quickly state here that the regulatory functions of the Legal Profession in Nigeria is not bound up in one Body. It is a duty shared by many including: The Body of Benchers established by section 3 of the Legal Practitioners Act, Cap. L.11, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004; General Council of the Bar established by section 1 of the Legal Practitioners Act, Cap. L.11, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004; Nigerian Bar Association recognised by sections 8(3) & 24 of the Legal Practitioners Act, Cap. L.11, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004; Council of Legal Education established by the Legal Education (Consolidation) Act, Cap. L.10, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004; Legal Practitioners Privileges Committee established by section 5(1) of the Legal Practitioners Act, Cap. L.11, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004; Legal Practitioners Remuneration Committee established by section 15(1) of the Legal Practitioners Act, Cap. L.11, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004; Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee established by section 10(1) of the Legal Practitioners Act, Cap. L.11, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004; and the Supreme Court of Nigeria. While some of these bodies have narrow powers, with functions that are sealed in water-tight compartments, others like the Nigerian Bar Association have functions which are interwoven with the functions of others…”
The Respondent, a legal practitioner, sued the Appellant, the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), contending that the invitation by the NBA for mandatory or compulsory validation or verification of records of legal practitioners in Nigeria for a fee constitutes an infraction of the statutory role of the Chief Registrar of the Supreme Court of Nigeria and the Council of Legal Education.
Continue reading The functions of the NBA are interwoven with the functions of other regulatory bodies in the legal profession.
Chief John Oyegun v. Chief Francis Arthur Nzeribe  16 NWLR (Pt. 1220) 568 at 581, paras. D-E, per Ogbuagu, JSC:
“It is now settled that where the chances of an appeal succeeding are extremely remote (as in the instant appeal), it behoves counsel in the case to advise his client of the uselessness of pursuing such an appeal which patently lacks merit. See the case of K. R. Textile Allied Products Ltd. v. Henry Stephens Shipping Co. Ltd. & 2 ors. (1989) 1 NWLR (Pt. 95) 115 CA. It is now about thirteen (13) years since judgment was given in favour of the respondent against the appellant who has not shown any reason whatsoever, why he is unwilling to pay a debt/loan he never denied owing.”
What happened in the case was that the Respondent loaned some money to the Appellant (free of interest) but the Appellant failed to repay same. On 23rd October, 1996, the High Court of Imo State, Oguta, delivered a Judgment against the Appellant ordering him to pay the money to the Respondent. The Appellant still refused to obey the Judgment of Court. He however decided to appeal the Judgment of the trial Court over 5 years after the Judgment was delivered. His application for extension of time within which to appeal the said Judgment was refused by the Court of Appeal. He further appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that his fundamental right to fair hearing has been breached. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the argument was ‘completely misconceived in the extreme.’ See page 581 of the report. The apex Court upheld the decision of the Court of Appeal which held that the Appellant failed to satisfactorily explain the reason for the delay. The Court further held that it would not interfere with the exercise of discretion by the Court of Appeal, noting that ‘in matters of discretion, no one case can be an authority for another and the court, cannot be bound by a previous decision to exercise of discretion in a particular way.’
The Supreme Court thereafter criticised the Appellant’s Counsel for filing the otherwise frivolous appeal. See quotation above.
“…In essence, it is clear that what the CBN and the NCC have done, is not to interfere with the corporate governance of Etisalat (now 9mobile), but to play a key role in ensuring the protection of the overall value of the firm, and the larger stakeholder interest…” Sanford U. Mba.
Sanford U. Mba, Doctoral researcher on comparative corporate insolvency and restructuring law at Central European University(CEU) writes the opinion below from Budapest. Mba_Sanford@phd.ceu.edu
Continue reading “Etisalat and The Illogic of CBN and NCC’s Intervention”: A Rejoinder, Reflection and Call to Action.