Connect with us

Law/Judiciary

Implied Contract: Meaning, Form(III)

Published

on

That portion of the brief
is hereby reproduced hereunder as follows:
The consideration for this service is again not  predetermined at the time of offer as it is based on the  Scale of Fees, exhibit 36, and can only be determined  after the designs have been executed and the project  cost determined, which is the normal practice and  which is what the respondent insisted on in paragraphs  10 – 15 and particularly paragraph 30 of the amended statement of defence and paragraphs 12 – 17 and 30 – 36 of the defence witness’ statement on oath of OW 1, the Director of Works. In paragraph 30 of the defence  witness’s written statement on oath, DWI clearly stated  thus: “That a consultant engaged in consultancy services  such as this must produce designs such as architectural,  electrical, mechanical, structural and bill of quantities, and that it is based upon all these components that he  can charge for his services … “This position concurs with what the appellant was saying in exhibits 3 and 6.
The following points stand out very clearly. The award of contract and/or offer to the appellant by the respondent is at the time and/ or point of oral engagement admitted by the respondent through its counsel in paragraph 2.1 on page 11 of his written address which stated no fee and/or amount and before commencement of the designs by the appellant.
(b) It is the appellant who charges his professional fee once he is engaged as a consultant for the design service after the completion of the design service and he is not again awarded a contract after the oral engagement.
(c) The correct position is not that the appellant  must produce designs before being awarded the contract but rather before charging his fee after the designs which is based on exhibit 36, which specifies fees for each of these professionals individually
(d) The appellant followed this strict procedure as he properly gave notice to the respondent of charging his full professional fee in exhibit 11 which he charged only after the respondent had neglected, ignored and/or disregarded his strict notice/warning by defaulting on payment by the preparation of a provocative 60% valuation for the 100% completed work in exhibit 12 and then charged his full fee of NI8,244,853.63 in exhibit 13 as he warned he would, this amount now being the consideration for this contract.
(e) This is typically a case of “future consideration” which is defined by Black’s Law Dictionary as “consideration to be given in the future, especially consideration that is due after the other party’s performance” and/or “consideration that is a series of performances, some of which will occur after the other party’s performance.”
(f) The respondent did not ask for any discount on this fee.
(g) The appellant acted within the provisions of clause 14 of the contract agreement exhibit 10 which allows any of the parties to cancel the contract agreement by giving a seven day notice to the other.”
Learned appellant’s counsel further submitted that: The fact that it is the consultant alone who charges his fee i.e. the appellant in this instant case is further affirmed by the minutes of meeting between the respondent’s 3-man F & GPC Committee and the appellant with his partner on the request for discount on the appellant’s fee exhibit 4 which on the first page in the seventh line after the attendance list stated. “The management had appointed a three man Committee in its last F & GPC meeting to negotiate on that aspect of the contract stage to seek a discount from the consulting firm. The three man Committee presented the request of the council to the consulting firm.” That the meeting  was thus not to impose a fee on the appellant but rather to seek a discount on his fee as again he alone charges his own professional fee for the services rendered.
He then cited the case of Zakhem Con. (Nig). v. Emmanuel Nneji Zakhem Can. (Nig.) (2006) 12 NWLR (Pt. 994) 297 at 311-312, paras. H-B where the Supreme Court held thus:
“It is possible for a contract to emerge from a series of correspondence between two persons. But it must be apparent, when the correspondence exchanged are read together, that parties have come to an agreement .
“The final exercise of judgment must of necessity involve a consideration of all the correspondence that is properly put in evidence by both sides.”
Learned counsel then referred to the correspondence in both the written submissions and oral evidence in court of both parties that payment for this service is by way of charging fees based on the scale of charges for the professionals.
In a further submission learned counsel then cited the Court of  Appeal case of M.D. Kanu Sons & Co. Ltd. v. First Bank Nig. Plc (2006) 5 SCNJ 400 at 417 where the Court held thus:
“It is settled law that if time is made the essence of  an agreement and the time frame is not met by the performance of acceptance within the time stipulated, the offer or will not be held to a contract. Further, an offer may only be accepted in the manner and terms attached to the offer.”
That having defaulted by giving the appellant a 60% evaluation in exhibit 12 for the 100% completed work, the respondent had implied a full acceptance of the effect of such default which is clearly contained in exhibit in the sum ofN18,244,853.63, and this was consequently charged in exhibit 13.
On how to interpret a contract involving several documents, counsel referred to the Supreme Court case of Central Bank of Nig . & Anor v. Mrs. Agnes Igwillo “Where a contract which includes contract of  employment involves several documents, the trial court can only determine the issues before it on the basis of the documents including letters relating to the contract and the conduct of the parties.” (Attorney- General of Kaduna State v. Atta (1986) 4 NWLR (Pt. 38) 785; Leyland Nig. Ltd. V DizengoffW.A. (1990) 2 NWLR (Pt. 134) 610 referred to).  Learned counsel further submitted that the parties both  admit the scale of charges as the basis for charging fees and that the respondent having defaulted by the preparation of only a 60%  valuation certificate for the 100% completed work, it is therefore duty bound to pay the professional fees charged in exhibit 13, the “contract agreement – exhibit 10 having been cancelled by its own clause 14 and the respondent having been properly informed in exhibit 11 by the appellant that that was the only option in the event of any default.
Learned counsel concluded that with this full understanding between the parties, the appellant could rightly charge the full professional fees for the design service as he did after the conditional due prior notice to the respondent on which the respondent duly defaulted. Issues one and two will be taken together as had already been done by learned counsel for the respondent.
(a) Whether or not the judgment of the trial court is against the weight of evidence and Whether or not the appellant can unilaterally alter the contract agreement in exhibit 10 between the parties. Appellant’s counsel strongly contended that the learned trial
Judge relied and evaluated only two out of the 39 exhibits tendered  which were exhibits 10 and 15 to reach his decision on the design of the proposed Guest House in Abuja and that of the Palace of Mishkaham Mwaghavul respectively. That he furthermore failed to place probative value on exhibits 11 – 14,16 – 33 and 36 – 37 and
also exhibits 1 – 3 and 6. That out of 39 exhibits tendered only 9 were mentioned by the trial court and only two were evaluated with probative value being placed thereon.
Learned respondent’s counsel on the other hand stated that all the documentary evidence relating to issues before the court were adequately considered. He further submitted that the appellant did not show that the learned trial Judge in the inference drawn or the conclusion reached in his decision on the accepted evidence cannot be justified.
It is, however, common ground that the officials of the respondent at various times in the year 2008 orally engaged the appellant’s consultancy firm to render consultancy services to it by producing pre-contract designs for its proposed Guest House at Abuja and Palace at Mangu. In both cases as can be gleaned from the facts placed before the trial court, that the designs comprised  of 5 components, namely Architectural, electrical, mechanical,  structural designs and a bill of quantities.
With regard to the Guest House at Abuja, the appellant was asked orally by the respondent’s Chairman sometime in August 2008, at a meeting which took place in Jos between the appellant
and officials of the defendant, to produce the designs for the Guest House. The appellant subsequently obtained the site plan from officials of the respondent, produced an architectural design of the Guest House and also submitted a bill ofN4,013,896.23.

The gravamen of the dispute between the parties is that the said bill which the appellant insisted was only for the architectural design was regarded by the respondent’s officials to represent a bill for the entire structural, mechanical and electrical designs as well as the bill of quantities. A similar dispute arose when the appellant upon being commissioned for the project, received an oral briefing from the Mishkaham Mwaghavul himself and then produced and submitted the designs to the respondent inclusive of the bill of quantities as required. This time the respondent contended that there was no formal agreement between the parties.
The appellant, however, in his reply brief clearly stated that following the failure of the trial Judge to make findings on material and important issues of fact as contained in its brief of argument, particularly in exhibits 10 – 13, and 16 – 18, the court will be left with no alternative than to allow the appeal. He then cited the case of Olagunju v. Adesoye (2009) 33 WRN 1 at 36, (2009) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1146) 225 at 263, paras. F-G where the court held that:
“This is why it is firmly established that where a trial court fails to make findings based on material and important issues of facts or approaches the evidence called by the parties wrongly, the appellate court will have no alternative but to allow the appeal.”
He further cited the case of Karibo & Ors. v. Grend & Anor. (1992) 3 NWLR (Pt. 230) 426 at 441. Also case of Morenikeji & 4 Ors. v. Adegbosin & 4 Ors. (2003) 8 NWLR (Pt. 823) 612.
There are however two pertinent questions to be deliberated upon in considering issues one and two in this appeal.
(1)     Did the trial Judge properly evaluate the documentary evidence placed before him?
Was there a valid contract which the appellant could unilaterally rescind?
I shall however begin by referring to page 326 of the record of proceedings where the learned trial Judge clearly stated thus:
“An evaluation of the evidence adduced is necessary.  Let me start by pointing out that the plaintiff did not write exhibits 4, 7 and 8 as erroneously stated by Mr. Tahvan at p. 14, para. 1 of his written address.  Exhibit 4 contains the minutes of the meeting held between the defendant’s three man committee set up by its F. & G .P.C. and the plaintiff and his partner
for the purpose of negotiating a discount of the bill submitted by the plaintiff to the defendant. These are the minutes of the meeting which the plaintiff claims were falsified to the extent that the fee charged by plaintiff, 5% of which he agreed to discount to bring it down to N4,013,896.23, was made to look as if the plaintiff had agreed that the fee covered all the five components of the design project. Exhibit 7 is a letter written on the defendant’s letter  headed paper under the hand of one Moses Zamfara on behalf of the defendant’s Chairman. It is dated 0811 0/2008. It requests the submission by the plaintiff of the structural, electrical and mechanical drawings and designs as well as the bill of quantities for the proposed project otherwise the defendant would not enter into any agreement with him. It is emphasized at paragraph 3 that the defendant’s approval of the pre-contract work was inclusive of the above stated requirements.
Exhibit 8 is entitled “Award of contract” and written under the hand of Engineer Gyang C. Wash, the Director of Works of the defendant, on behalf of the defendant’s chairman. It is written to Zamani Consultants and is dated the 1011 0/2008. The document is a photocopy of the original. It is therein stated that the contract awarded is for “consultancy services for the design of (Architectural), Structural, Electrical, Mechanical and Bills of Quantity) proposed Guest House of Mangu L.G.C. in Abuja” at the cost ofN4,013,896.23.” The learned trial Judge went further to refer to and observe on exhibit 5 thus:

Continue Reading

Law/Judiciary

Can NBA Fight For Self ?

Published

on

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

Law/Judiciary

Appraising Contributions Of Justice Omereji To Rivers State Judiciary

Published

on

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

Law/Judiciary

Reps Adopt Petroleum Industry Bill For 3rd Reading

Published

on

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

Trending