Connect with us


Can Appeal Entertain Fresh Suit? (II)



Lacking in merit it, however, reversed the consequential orders made by the trial court, and it gave the portion of the land built on by the respondent and the economic trees planted thereon to the respondent.

The appellant was dissatisfied with the judgment of the Upper Area Court and he appealed to the Adamawa State High Court sitting in its appellate jurisdiction.

In its judgment delivered on T” May 2008, the High Court of Adamawa State dismissed the appeal as lacking in merit and upheld  the judgment of the Upper Area Court. Still dissatisfied, the appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal. Held (Unanimously allowing the appeal):

On Nature of an appeal –

An appeal is a complaint by a party to a suit from a court of lower jurisdiction to a higher court for a review of the decision of the lower court to find out whether the lower court had rightly and properly applied the law to the facts and evidence adduced before it. [Oredoyin v. Arowolo (1989) 4 NWLR (Pt.114) 172 referred to.) (P. 370, paras. D-E) .

On Nature of an appeal –

An appeal is a continuation of the original suit before the trial court rather than the beginning of a new suit. (Oredoyin v. Arowolo (1989) 4 NWLR (Pt.114) 172; Babalola v. State (1989) 4 NWLR (Pt.llS) 264; Ngige v. Obi (2006) 14 NWLR (Pt. 999) 1 referred to.] (P. 370, paras. E-F)

On Purpose of grounds of appeal and whether appellate court restricted thereto – Grounds of appeal are the initial process with which an aggrieved party to a suit will rely upon to show the error of law or fact alleged in a judgment he is appealing against, and which he wants the appellate court to rely upon and set aside the judgment. The appellate court is therefore restricted to the grounds of appeal put before it. [Saraki v. Kotoye (1992) 9 NWLR (Pt.264) 156; BOSIEC v. Kachala (2006) 1 NWLR (Pt. 962) 587; Dume: (Nig.) Ltd. v. Nwakhoba (2008) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1119) 361 referred to.] (P. 370, paras. F-G)

On Duty on appellate court to consider all grounds of appeal-

An appellate court is bound to consider all the grounds of appeal put before it and must decide whether the complaints of the appellant against the

decision of the lower court had been made out or not and give its reasons thereon. (P. 370, paras. G-H) Per BULKACHUWA, J.C.A. at pages 370-371, paras. H-D: “In the instant appeal, the appellate Upper Area Court, Michika had considered the grounds of appeal and the issues raised from them and came to the conclusion that all the grounds of appeal lack merit and must therefore fail, the logical decision of that court after arriving at such a conclusion should have been the dismissal of the appeal before it, and not the issuance of a consequential orders.

By holding that the grounds of appeal lack merit, the said court has fulfilled or accomplished its function in respect of that appeal and lacks the power of giving further orders or as in the instant case consequential orders in respect of the subject matter of the appeal. Ukachukwu v. Uba (2005) 18 NWLR (Pt.956) 1; Anyaegbunam v. A .-G., Anambra State (2001) 6 NWLR (Pt. 710) 532; INEC v. Nnaji (2004) 16 NWLR (Pt.900)  73; Alamieyeseigha v. Yeiwa (supra).

I agree entirely with the appellant that a finding by the Upper Area Court, Michika that the grounds of appeal before it were lacking in merit is a pronouncement by the appellate court of the dismissal of the appeal and the court was thusfunctus officio to make any further orders consequential or whatever. The lower court i.e. the appellate High Court was in the circumstances wrong to have upheld that decision.”

On Attitude of appellate court to findings of fact by trial court and when it will interfere therewith – An appellate court should not ordinarily interfere with the decision of a trial court where such trial court had evaluated the evidence and made proper findings on such evidence based on the facts unless it is shown that the finding is perverse and not flowing from the facts relied upon. In the instant case, the trial court properly evaluated the evidence and reached the correct decision based on the facts before it. The appellate Upper Area Court, Michika was therefore wrong to have interfered with the judgment on a wrong basis and the appellate High Court was wrong in affirming its decision. (Onowan v. Iserhein (1976) 1 NMLR 263 referred to.] (Pp. 37 1-372, paras. G-B) Nigerian Cases Referred to in the Judgment: Ajuwa v. ouu (1985) 2 NWLR (Pt. 9) 710 Akeredolu v. Amina (2003) 1 FWLR (Pt. 186) 86

Alamieyeseigha v. Yeiwa (2002) 7 NWLR (Pt. 767) 581 Anyaegbunam v. A .-G., Anambra State (2001) 6 NWLR (Pt. 710)532 BOSIEC v. Kachala (2006) 1 NWLR (Pt. 962) 587 Babalola v. State (1989) 4 NWLR (Pt. 115) 264 Dume: (Nig.) Ltd. v. Nwakhoba (2008) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1119) 361 INEC v. Nnaji (2004) 16 NWLR (Pt. 900) 473 Ngige v. Obi (2006) 14 NWLR (Pt. 999) 1 Onowan v. Iserhein (1976) 1 NMLR 263 Onwuchekwa v. C.CB. Plc (1999) 5 NWLR (Pt. 603) 409 Oredoyin v. Arowolo (1989) 4 NWLR (Pt. 114) 172

Sanusi v. Ayoola (1992) 9 NWLR (Pt. 265) 275 Saraki v. Kotoye (1992) 9 NWLR (Pt. 264) 156 Udo v. Okupa (1991) 5 NWLR (Pt. 191) 365 Ukachukwu v. Uba (2005) 18 NWLR (Pt. 956) 1 Nigerian Statute Referred to in the Judgment: Area Courts Law, 1968, S. 59(1)(a) Appeal:

. This was an appeal against the judgment of the appellate High Court which affirmed the decision of the Upper Area Court which reversed the decision of the trial court. The Court of Appeal,. in a unanimous decision, allowed the appeal.

History of .the Case: Court of Appeal:

Division of the Court of Appeal to which the appeal was brought: Court of Appeal, Jos Names of Justices that sat on the appeal: Zainab Adamu Bulkachuwa, J .C.A, (Presided and Read the Leading Judgment); Bode Rhodes-Vivour,J.C.A.; Abubakar Datti Yahaya, J .C.A. Appeal No.: CA/J/216/2008 Date of Judgment: Wednesday, 14th July, 2010 Names of Counsel: A.R. Abdulsalam, Esq. – for the Appellant B.W. Umar, Esq. – for the Respondent High Court: Name of the High Court: High Court of Adamawa State Date of Judgment: Wednesday, T” May, 2008 Upper Area Court: Name of the Upper Area Court: Upper Area Court, Michika Date of Judgment: Thursday, 11 th March, 2004 Counsel: A.R. Abdulsalam, Esq. – for the Appellant B.W. Umar, Esq. – for the Respondent BULKACHUWA, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment):

This is an appeal against the decision of the Adamawa State High Court sitting in its appellate jurisdiction on the T” May, 2008.

The case originated at the Madagali Area Court No.2 Shuwa on a retrial order by the Upper Area Court, Michika. The appellant’s claim before the trial court was over a piece of family land which he said was given to the defendant/respondent by his late father.

That after the demise of his father the respondent sold a portion of the land to a third party, he therefore claimed declaration of title on the whole land and an injunction from further use of the land.

The appellant as plaintiff testified and called three other witnesses, the defendant also testified and called three witnesses, after a visit to the locus in quo, and addresses of counsels for the respective parties, the trial court in a considered judgment delivered on the 11th March, 2004 found for the plaintiff and declared title on him, ordered the defendant to remove all the economic trees he planted on the land, vacate same or in the alternative sell the economic trees to the plaintiff.

Being dissatisfied with the judgment of the trial court, the defendant appealed to the Upper Area Court Michika on an original

ground of appeal and with the leave of the court filed five additional grounds of appeal. The Upper Area Court, Michika after hearing

the parties and the respective counsel to the parties found the appeal lacking in merit but reversed the consequential orders wherein

it gave the portion of the land built on by the defendant and the economic trees planted thereon to the defendant.

The plaintiff being dissatisfied with the judgment of the Upper Area Court appealed to the Adamawa State High Court sitting in

its appellate jurisdiction on six grounds of appeal. In a considered judgment, the court on 7/5/2008 upheld the judgment of the Upper

Area Court, Michika with all the consequential orders and dismissed the appeal as lacking in merit.

The plaintiff/appellant being dissatisfied has now appeal to this court on four grounds of appeal in a notice of appeal filed on the 22nd of July, 2008. Parties filed and exchanged briefs of argument as required by the rules of this court. In a brief of argument filed on the 22/9/2008 as settled by learned counsel A.R. Abdulsalam Esq., for the appellant, the following issues were raised identified for the determination of the appeal; Whether the lower court was right to have confirmed the judgment of the appellate Upper Area Court Michika having no jurisdiction and was functus officio to have awarded and confirmed portion of the land to the respondent when all the grounds of appeal before the Upper Area Court sitting on appeal of the respondent were unmeritorious and failed. Thus all the grounds of appeal were dismissed.

Whether consequential order can be made to deprive the declared owner by a court and confirmed by the appellate court of some portion of land when there was no evidence to support the award of some portion of land to the respondent.   Whether the principle of prescription and long possession can deprive the true owner of whole land as declared by the trial court of title to portion of land. The respondent in his brief of argument as settled by B .W.Umar Esq., adopted the issues formulated by the appellant, these issues will therefore be the issues that will also be adopted by this court in the determination of this appeal.

The appellant submits on his issue one relying on the findings of the trial court at page 104 of the record which says;

“Therefore with all these contradiction in the evidence of the defendant’s witnesses, it vividly shows (sic) that there are some elements of doubt as to whether the defendant is the really (sic) owner of the farm land

in dispute. This court has come to the conclusion that both plaintiff’s witnesses and the defendant’s witnesses said that the defendant had built his house 33 years ago and also planted some economic trees on the land in dispute about 30-33 years ago, this court hereby confirm the house of the defendant to him as well as these economic trees which the defendant planted during the lifetime of Ijarafu the plaintiff’s father 30- 33 years ago.

But all those economic trees or any trees planted by the defendant after the death of Ijarafu, the plaintiff’s father are not included.

Continue Reading


Can NBA Fight For Self ?



Does NBA really understand the difference between an Annual Conference and a regular Seminar/Workshop/Talkshow?
Dear Benchers, silks, Professors seniors and colleagues, please I have a question.The SPIDEL Annual Conference 2021 has come and gone. Question bothering me are, what specific benefits has the conference brought towards improving or promoting the welfare, security and economic advancement of lawyers in Nigeria? How would the outcome of the conference positively impact the lives of lawyers in Nigeria? Of what benefits to the welfare of members of the NBA, are the topics discussed at the conference? How for example has the presence of Bala Mohammed, Rochas Okorocha, Aisha Yesufu, Dino Melaye, Seyi Makinde, etc contributed to solving or will contribute to solving any one or more of the many challenges facing members of the NBA?
Recall that the NBA was set up primarily to: Advance the interest of lawyers in Nigeria; Create opportunities for lawyers to prosper; Promote peace, unity and oneness among the various segments within the profession. Redress any noticed injustice to any segments of the profession; Assist in making legal education and law practice in Nigeria better; Guard jealously all jobs and rights exclusive to lawyers in Nigeria; Make lawyers more relevant and useful to society; etc. Now, in what ways would the papers delivered and the talkshows witnessed at the Ibadan SPIDEL  conference 2021 help achieve any one of these and others objectives of the NBA? 
Meanwhile, you are not unaware that (1). Majority of Nigerian Lawyers are jobless, and indeed feel frustrated, disenchanted and disappointed as a result. Meanwhile countless untapped/unopened opportunities exist for employment for many lawyers in Nigeria.  Nigeria is the only country without legal departments in LGA’S and without lawyers working as full-time Legal officers in the LGA’s.  Nigeria is the only country without legal sections or Legal Departments in its police departments and formations. Happily, section 66 (3) NPFEA, 2020 has directed the mandatory posting of Lawyers as fulltime employees to all police Stations in the country. What is the NBA waiting for to liaise with relevant stakeholders to see that this beautiful mandate is implemented without any delays, with a view to creating job opportunities for lawyers in Nigeria as well as improving the human rights conditions and records of the various Police locations across the country in addition to decongesting our courts by controlling and minimising the filing of frivolous criminal charges? Why didn’t the SPIDEL Conference 2020 look at any of these? In Nigeria, over 90 percent of all the MDA’s (Ministries, Departments and Agencies) have no legal departments and no lawyers in their employment as Legal officers. Over 60 percent of all high and higher schools in Nigeria have no legal departments and no lawyers in their employment as legal officers. Beside these, many aspects of the traditional jobs of the Nigerian lawyers are being taken away (stolen) by intruding non lawyers and foreigners. Very soon, unless something drastic is done to stop this ugly trend, lawyers in Nigeria may have only little or no jobs to call their own. Even deeds, land agreements, tenancies are now drafted by non lawyers with impunity. Lest I forget, illiterate land agents charge and are paid much more than Lawyers are paid in conveyancing which is the lawyer’s traditional job space.
I had suggested and expected that the SPIDEL conference should have been devoted to talking about one or more of the many problems that weigh the NBA and Nigerian lawyers down with a view to dispassionately discussing same in a manner that would bring about some positive results that would directly and positively affect members of the NBA. Same suggestions I had made (without success) in 2019 and in 2020.
 In summary, what exactly is the benefit of the just concluded SPIDEL conference to the Nigerian lawyer? Which of the countless problems facing the Nigerian lawyers did the SPIDEL conference  look at? Do we really understand the difference between an Annual General Conference of a professional association and a mere seminar/webinar or worshop? I used to think that when an association organises a Conference for its members, it is devoted to looking at the various aspects of the internal affairs of the association and the lives of its members with a view to looking at ways of finding solutions to the association’s challenges and also discussing how to move the association and its members forward. I thought that an annual general Conference is akin to an “annual retreat” where only issues directly affecting the organisation/association and its members are focused on. Occasional webinars, seminars and workshops on the other hand may be devoted to discussing issues generally affecting society, in line with the objects of the affected association. In the case of the NBA, all of its Conferences, webinars, seminars and workshops are organised and devoted almost entirely to discussing problems bedevilling other people, with no or little attention paid to the challenges directly facing the NBA and its members. Please, I pray, can the promising Akpata administration, in line with its campaign promises, try to do something different for the Nigerian lawyers and his profession. My own survey shows that majority of Nigerian lawyers are disappointed with succesive NBA Leaderships, and are therefore disenchanted and rapidly loosing interest in the affairs of the NBA. Major reason: the NBA hardly cares about the internal challenges of its own members, but are more concerned about and fighting vigorously about the headaches of other people. Example: I commend NBA’s efforts towards ensuring financial Autonomy for the Judiciaries in Nigeria; I commend the NBA for assisting JUSUN over 90 percent of whose members are not Lawyers. I support financial autonomy for the Judiciary. But, please, don’t you think that if the NBA should apply the same vigour and energy with which NBA fights for JUSUN, towards fighting to (1) create more opportunities for employment for the teeming population of unemployed/jobless lawyers in Nigeria, things would be better for the profession. If the NBA should devote half of such efforts to fighting off worsening encroachments and intrusions by non lawyers into the legal practice Space, lawyers wouldn’t remain the same in Nigeria. Think about this, especially about the difference between a Conference and a seminar or workshop. My friend says NBA Conferences are achieving their Objectives because NBA Conferences are”for networking and closing deals”. Okay, my answer is this: _”are we saying it is not possible to discuss these critical issues directly affecting the organisization and its members (issues that promote our own welfare) and still do the (1) networking, (2) Closing of deals, (3) etc…? Please note that I am not against conferences. I am a lover of conferences. All I am suggesting is that topics discussed at these conferences  ought to focus primarily on issues directly affecting the NBA and its members.” Do not forget, the NBA was set up primarily to make lawyers better.  When would the NBA come home to start fighting for its members, as the NBA usually fights for other people—non lawyers? When?
I remain yours faithfully.

By: Sylvester Udemezue
Udemezue is a contributor

Continue Reading


Appraising Contributions Of Justice Omereji To Rivers State Judiciary



Honourable Justice George Omereji (rtd) is one judge that needs no introduction in the Rivers State Judiciary where he stood out in the bench like a colossus to dispense justice to all.
Justice Omereji was bold, astute and incorruptible. He was well acquainted with the real nitty-gritty of justice dispensation probably because he had served as a magistrate long before he was appointed a judge of the Rivers State Judiciary.
The legal luminary, who hails from Egbeda in Emohua Local Government Area of Rivers State, exuded an aura of discipline at the bench such that no attorney could go to his court unprepared. He also ensured that lawyers maintained both the dress code and courtroom decorum.
Sir Omereji was always in the news while he served as a judge because of his unwillingness to bend. He asserted himself well and carved out a niche in the annals of judicial officers.
The eminent jurist did not only preside over matters with clinical detachment, he taught lawyers what they ought to do or needed to have done in certain circumstances.
Speaking with The Tide in Port Harcourt on Monday, Blessing Enyie (Esq), noted that Justice Omereji while serving in the bench had established himself as a good judge.
Mr. Enyie, who resides at Elele in Ikwerre Local Government Area of the state, pointed out that the eminent jurist displayed proper judicial temperament, patience, courtesy, open-mindedness and tact as he conducted his trials.
He averred that Justice Omereji expounded the law in a manner that brought peace to parties in a conflict or dispute. 
Sir Omereji once remarked at one of his court sessions thus; “When you see parties disobeying the law, it is their lawyers that have encouraged them to do so. According to him, the ordinary person fears the coercive powers of the court.
He was ready to bring to book any person no matter how highly placed who was in breach of the law. Indeed, some lawyers dreaded to appear before Justice Omereji. 
However, his insistence on propriety and justice belied his benevolence. The legal luminary is a kind man and has touched many who have come in contact with him.
Justice Omereji, a graduate of the University of Lagos, was revered while in the bench because of his sagacity, boldness and forthrightness. He treaded where others could not. He so much believes in justice.
Throughout his career in the bench, the eminent, jurist had neither exhibited acts of nepotism nor tribalism little wonder then, that he was chosen as the Chairman of the judicial commission of inquiry to investigate RT. Hon. Chibuike Rotimi’ Amaechi’s administration over the sale of valued assets of Rivers State and other related matters.
At inception, Justice Omereji had assured that the commission would work within the law and grant parties fair hearing. He is a stickler to principles and an avid adherent to the rule of law.
As a fearless judge, he took over the trial of the alleged killers of Soboma George, the ex-agitator, when some other judges had declined to conduct the trial.
He concluded the trial, convicted and sentenced the three persons charged with conspiracy and murder of the ex-agitator, Soboma George and Joy John Ejims, a groundnut seller in Port Harcourt more than 10 years ago.
Justice Omereji had ruled that the three accused persons, Dougbra Ogbe, Emmanuel Gladstone, Bere Matthew, should be hanged on their necks till they are dead for conspiring and killing Soboma George and Joy John Ejims at a football field in Nembe Street in Borokiri area of Port Harcourt on the 24th of August, 2010.
Another landmark judgement delivered by the eminent jurist was the award of N10 million damages against the Divisional Police Officer of Eneka Police Division, Chief Superintendent of Police (CSP) Yahaya Bello -Sam for the violation of the fundamental human rights of a senior lawyer, Afolabi Olabisi.
He held that the police failed to prove that the lawyer committed any crime before he was detained and pointed out that the action of the police was oppressive.
Omereji described the DPO’s action as a flagrant violation of the law and condemned Olabisi’s detention in the same cell with suspected criminals.
There are a plethora of other judgements in which Justice Omereji awarded damages against the state and Federal Government over violation of individuals’ rights.
 During Rt. Hon. Chibuike Rotimi’s administration, he awarded damages against the Rivers State Ministry of Transport for seizure of a truck belonging to a private company.
Justice Omereji is one man who did not mind whose ox was gored, whenever he delivered his judgements so long as justice was served. His lifestyle advocates probity and forthrightness.
He serves justice without fear or favour. He is reputed as one of the boldest judges to have served in the state judiciary. According to him, his mum in blessed memory had taught him how to be bold.
In tribute to his mum, at her funeral on November 7, 2020 Justice Omereji said, “You have taught me that one can only be remembered for what he has done and not by what he has”.
Apart from the fact that his mum had influenced him positively, Justice Omereji is also a devout Christian who believes in leading by example. 
His exemplary Christian leadership and contributions to his faith earned him his ordination as a Knight of the Anglican Church.
Interestingly, this belief has helped to make Omereji the diligent and forthright man he is today.
Consequently, when the Rivers State Governor, Chief Nyesom Wike needed an impartial and bold umpire to manage the affairs of Rivers State Independent Electoral Commission (RSIEC) he looked for Justice Omereji and appointed him the chairman of the body.
Sir Omereji immediately swung into action with his commissioners, worked diligently and tirelessly to justify the confidence reposed in him by the people of Rivers State.
Indeed, the eminent jurist conducted the last local government elections in the state which has been hailed for being the only election that was neither marred by violence nor death. The RSIEC chairman was recently given an award by Rivers State youths for conducting a free and fair local council election. Justice Omereji who spoke at the award ceremony expressed gratitude to God for enabling him to achieve the feat.
He also thanked the youths for recognising the achievement of the electoral body.
Omereji, who spoke during the award ceremony, stated that the award though given to him could not have been achieved without the contributions of his able lieutenants and dedicated same to the entire electoral body.
A Port Harcourt-based journalist, Mr. Ralph Echefu, who spoke with The Tide in Port Harcourt at the weekend described Justice Omereji as nice team leader, who carried his lieutenants along.
Mr. Echefu, who also featured at the award ceremony, noted that by the chairman’s speech, he was a good manager and team leader.
There is no doubt, however that the retired judicial officers, has often demonstrated his ability to lead each time an opportunity availed itself.
The jurist was at a time, the chairman of all magistrates in the state. He led the organisation well with an avowed commitment and display of uncommon integrity. As a chairman of the magistrates association, he was then a chief magistrate in the state.
Having served creditably as a chief magistrate, Justice Omereji was found worthy to be appointed the Chief Registrar of the state Judiciary.
During his service as a chief registrar, he was instrumental to the rehabilitation of the state judiciary. He worked with former Chief Judge of the state, Hon. Justice Iche Ndu to bring about far reaching changes in the justice system.
Justice Omereji was later elevated to a judge of the Rivers State Judiciary, a position he held until he turned 65 and retired meritoriously on September 24, 2020, after 35 years of service to humanity.
A Port Harcourt based lawyer, Mr. Chijoke  Agi, described Justice Omereji (rtd) as one of the most fearless judges ever to have been appointed to the bench in recent times.
Mr Agi, who spoke with The Tide in Port Harcourt at the weekend, remarked that the current RSEIC chairman is a man well suited for leadership given his track record.
According to him, the eminent jurist is a charismatic leader and there are not many like him in the state.
The Port Harcourt lawyer also described Justice Omereji as an epitome of discipline and noted that he would go places because of his transparency and forthrightness.
He noted that many Port Harcourt-based lawyers who appeared at Justice Omereji’s court would no doubt hold the eminent jurist in high esteem because of the manner in which he dispensed justice.
Also speaking, another Port Harcourt-based lawyer, Endurance Akpelu (Esq) described the retired judge as a man of the people and noted that he was always ready to render a helping hand.
Mr. Akpelu pointed out that Justice Omereji was a man of integrity who would always justify the confidence reposed in him.
He said that the retired judge left legacies every where he went and added that he had begun to do same at RSIEC.
“Men like him are hard to find”, Akpelu stated.
Conclusively, Hon. Justice George O. Omereji, is straightforward, incorruptible, astute person as well as a an avid adherent to rule of law. Posterity will continue to reward him for his firm belief in justice for all.

By: Chidi Enyie

Continue Reading


Reps Adopt Petroleum Industry Bill For 3rd Reading



Court Fixes Morrow For Ex-JAMB Registrar, Prof. Dibu Ojerinde’s Bail Plea A Federal High Court, Abuja, will, on July 8, hear the bail application filed by Prof. Dibu Ojerinde, former Registrar, Joint Admissions and Matriculation Board (JAMB), over allegations bordering on fraud.
Justice Obiora Egwuatu fixed the date, on Tuesday, after the court declined the oral application for bail by Counsel to the ex-JAMB registrar, Peter Olorunisola, SAN.
The Tide source reports that while the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC) is the prosecution, Ojerinde is the sole defendant in the suit marked: FHC/ABJ/CR/97/21.
However, after the 18 counts were read to Ojerinde, he pleaded not guilty to all the charges.
“Having listened to his plea of not guilty, we shall be applying for a date for hearing the matter,” lawyer to the ICPC said.
Although Olorunnisola said he was not objecting to Shogunle’s request, he informed the court that he had filed an application for a bail on behalf of his client.
He said the application was filed June 29.
The anti-corruption commission lawyer, who acknowledged the receipt of the bail application, opposed it.
He told the court that a counter affidavit had been filed to that effect.
The defence lawyer, however, said that he was just being served with the counter affidavit by the prosecution and was yet to go through it.
The senior lawyer, therefore, prayed the court to allow Ojerinde to continue to enjoy the initial bail granted him by another court pending the hearing of his formal bail application.
Olorunnisola argued that his client would be appearing before a State High Court in Minna, Niger, in another matter the next day (on Wednesday), pledging that the defendant would always be available to stand his trial.
Besides, he said that Ojerinde’s travel documents were already in the custody of the Minna court, which granted him bail, assuring that the ex-JAMB registrar would not jump bail.
But Shogunle opposed the oral application
“We oppose the application for temporary bail. It is not a term known to the law,” he responded.
The ICPC lawyer said that if the defendant would be appearing before a Minna court the next day, the state had a facility to ensure his attendance in court.
Olorunnisola who countered Shogunle’s submission, said Section 165(1) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) gives the court a discretion to grant the bail.
Ruling, Justice Egwuatu said having listened to the arguments of the parties, a short date would be fixed to hear the bail application.
The judge, who adjourned the matter until July 8, ordered Ojerinde to be remanded in a correctional centre, pending the hearing of the bail plea.
The Tide source reports that the operatives of the anti-corruption commission had, on March 15, arrested Ojerinde, in Abuja, on allegations bordering on misappropriation of funds.
The commission said that the former chief executive officer allegedly committed multiple frauds, while heading JAMB and the National Examination Council (NECO).

Continue Reading