Why UK court dismissed Ogoni suit judgment over Shell - ITREALMS

ITREALMS:

A court in the United Kingdom has given reasons for rejection of the application by some leaders of Ejamah Ebubu community in Ogoniland to register the judgement of a Nigerian Federal High Court in the country for enforcement, reports ITREALMS.

Claimants had applied to register the judgement to enforce a N183 billion judgment sum, which was the judgement sum and the interest over the spill incident in the community in or about 1969, a spill Shell Petroleum Development Company said arose from third party activities during the Nigerian civil war.

The company also said the spill site had since been remediated.

The claimants recalculated the High Court judgement of N17 billion plus interest to be N183 billion as at January 2019, but admitted to the UK court that the sum was overstated.
The claimants also obtained an order of a Nigerian court to seize and sell the assets of SPDC to satisfy the said judgment, while the matter is still the subject of several proceedings, including pending appeals at the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Nigeria.

In the judgement, on Thursday, a copy of which was obtained by ITREALMS, the UK court declined the request for registration of the Nigerian court judgment after finding that SPDC suffered a serious breach of natural justice “through being prevented from presenting its defence to the claim” in Nigeria.

The court also the claimants overstated the judgement sum.

Reacting to the ruling, spokesperson for Shell Nigeria, Bamidele Odugbesan, said: “This spill was caused by third parties during the Nigerian Civil War, a challenging period which resulted in significant damage to oil and gas infrastructure in the region. While SPDC does not accept responsibility for these spills, the affected sites in the Ebubu community were fully remediated.

“We are pleased that the English court has rejected the registration of this judgement for enforcement in the UK. This matter is still the subject of several proceedings in the Nigerian Courts, including pending appeals at the Supreme Court of Nigeria, and it remains our position that no payment is due. It is regrettable that the legal process in this case has focused for so long on procedural issues and not the merits of the case when we have always maintained that we are ready to defend this case based on the available facts.”


Nenye Dom/Editor

 *JOIN our alert's group | Share stories with us | Advert placement: WhatsApp | SMS: +2348033592762 *Twitter: @ITREALMS *Email: itrealms.dsa@gmail.com*

Court says no to suspension of FOI suit against Lagos - ITREALMS Online

ITREALMS:

For the second time in four months, a Lagos High Court has struck out a motion by the Lagos State Government to suspend proceedings in a Freedom of Information suit brought against it by Media Rights Agenda (MRA) pending the Government’s appeal against the court’s ruling that the FOI Act, 2011 is applicable to the Government of Lagos State and all other States, reports ITRealms.

Justice Beatrice Oke-Lawal, sitting in the Ikeja Judicial Division of the State High Court, struck out the re-listed motion for stay of proceedings on June 20, 2018 for lack of diligent prosecution by the Lagos State Government, which she ordered to pay MRA N30,000 as costs. She had previously struck out the motion for the same reason on February 19, 2018, following which the Government applied to have it re-listed.

The suit arose from an FOI request made by MRA in November 2016 to the Lagos State Ministry of Health asking, among other things, for details of plans by the Ministry to provide the Araromi Zion Estate located in Akiode Area of Ojodu Local Council Development Area (LCDA) with health care services taking into consideration the peculiar needs and circumstances of the community as well as details of the budgets and costs estimates for the implementation of the plans, if any.

When the Ministry failed to respond to MRA’s request despite a reminder issued to it, the organization filed a suit against the Ministry and the Attorney-General of Lagos State asking the Court to declare the Ministry’s refusal to provide it with the information wrongful and compel the institution to disclose the information to the organization in accordance with the FOI Act.

But the Ministry filed a notice of preliminary objection to the suit in which it contended that the court had no jurisdiction to determine the suit and asked that the suit be struck out on the ground, among others, that the FOI Act is not applicable to Lagos State and that the Ministry is not a juristic person that can sue or be sued.

In her ruling on the Ministry’s preliminary objection on November 28, 2017, Justice Oke-Lawal upheld the arguments of MRA’s lawyer, Mrs. Mosunmola Olanrewaju, that the FOI Act was validly enacted by the National Assembly and that it is applicable to the Government of the Federation as well as to State Governments. She also overruled the Government’s claim that the Ministry cannot be sued.

The Lagos State Government thereafter lodged an appeal at the Court of Appeal in Lagos on December 5, 2017, asking it to set aside Justice Oke-Lawal’s ruling which held, among other things, that the FOI Act requires no “domestication” for it to be applicable to States.  The Government and the Ministry also filed a motion on notice asking the court to stay further proceedings in the suit pending the determination of its appeal by the Court of Appeal.

However, on several occasions thereafter, when the motion was slated for arguments, neither the Ministry nor the Attorney-General of the State was represented in court. On February 19, 2018, upon a motion by MRA’s lawyer asking the court to strike out the application for stay of proceedings, the Government’s motion was struck out for lack of diligent prosecution and a date fixed for the hearing of the substantive suit.

But rather than proceed with the substantive suit, the Ministry filed an application in March 2018 asking the court to relist its motion for stay ofproceedings pending appeal. The court granted the application to relist the motion which the State Government then filed again on April 10, 2018.

On two consecutive occasions thereafter, when the matter came up for hearing, neither the Ministry nor its counsel was in court and no letter was written to the court to explain their absence.

On June 20, 2018, when the motion again came up for hearing, neither the Ministry nor the State’s Attorney-General was represented or present in court to move the motion for stay of proceedings.

MRA’s counsel, Ms. Morisola Alaba, reminded the judge that when the matter last came up on May 16, 2018, the Ministry and its lawyers were absent and the court adjourned proceedings till June 20 so that the Ministry would be given a fair opportunity to argue its case consistent with the principles of fair hearing.

She noted that the Ministry again had no representation in court and urged the court to strike out the motion for stay of proceeding for lack of diligent prosecution on the part of the Ministry.  She also prayed the court to set down the substantive case for hearing.

Ms. Alaba accused the Ministry of “intentionally delaying the case while depriving Media Rights Agenda of its right guaranteed by the Freedom of Information Act.”  She urged the court to award substantial costs of N50,000 against the State Government.

In her ruling, Justice Oke-Lawal struck out the State Government’s motion for stay of proceedings for lack of diligent prosecution and awarded costs of N30,000 to MRA against the Government.

The Court thereafter adjourned the case to October 2, 2018 for the hearing of the substantive suit.

ITREALMS ... everything news digitally!

N10B defamation suit: Ugwuonye fails to file response

ITREALMS:

... Aiyedogbon presents electronic-evidence

Barely Eighteen months after being served with court papers in a N10 billion defamation suit by ex-husband of the missing Abuja woman, Charity Aiyedogbon, Mr. David Aiyedogbon, Lagos-based lawyer, Emeka Ugwuonye, is yet to file his response to the suit, just as his trial continues, reports ITRealms.

Fortifying his evidence on Wednesday, ITRealms reports that Mr. Aiyedogbon had earlier presented an electronic evidence to support existing volumes of documentary evidence in support of his suit.

Responding to questions from Ugwuonye on the efforts he has made in searching for the missing woman, Aiyedogbon informed the Court that the Police is handling the investigation, adding that four persons, including the defendant, Ugwuonye, are already being prosecuted for their alleged involvement in the sudden disappearance of the woman.

“So far, a lot has been done. We reported the matter to the Police and Police investigations led to the arrest and charging to court of four people, including you, Emeka Ugwuonye, for being complicit in the matter. By my efforts, the Police conducted a DNA test on the lifeless dismembered body you earlier posted on Facebook and identified as that of Charity. Police investigations led to the recovery of the missing Charity’s car and two handsets in your home state, Enugu. Even this suit, wherein you are a defendant is part of my efforts to look for Charity.  

"I brought you to this Court to enable you produce the overwhelming evidence you claim you have; you said severally that Charity is dead, alleging that you have an overwhelming evidence that I killed her; and whether the defense of justification will avail you. I want you to present your overwhelming evidence before this Court. Emeka, after collecting money from members of the public, you have not taken any step in looking for Charity. I want you to tell this Court even one thing you have done in looking for Charity. You have not made any effort in this regard. Emeka, you have never reported this matter to the Police. You also have not presented your overwhelming evidence anywhere, not even to the Police. You only reported it on Facebook. The only thing you have done is to attack David Aiyegbodon,” he said.

While the cross examination was going on, the presiding Judge, Justice Peter Kekemeke cautioned Mr. Ugwuonye, stating that all the questions he raised were not relevant to the matter before the court.

After over two hours of questions and answers, the Judge reiterated that all the respondent’s questions were not relevant to the defamation suit before the Court. He however adjourned the matter to 28th of June, 2018, for continuation of the cross examination, while advising the respondent to prepare to ask questions that are relevant to the issues before the court.

It would be recalled that Mr. David Aiyedogbon approached the Court to seek redress following the alleged refusal of Ugwuonye to desist from posting materials he considered defamatory on his Facebook group, The Due Process Advocates. He also wrote Mr. Ugwuonye through his lawyers, demanding an apology and retraction, but he refused to listen, prompting Mr. Aiyedogbon to approach the court to seek redress.

Ugwuonye had falsely accused Mr. Aiyedogbon of having a hand in the sudden disappearance of his estranged wife, Charity Aiyedogbon; an unsubstantiated claim that compelled Mr. Aiyedogbon to institute the N10b suit against him.

In addition to the Ten Billion Naira damages, the Suit, with number CV/2750/16, between David Aiyedogbon (Plaintiff) and Emeka Ugwuonye (Defendant) on defamation of character, before Justice Peter Kekemeke of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) High Court 14, Apo, Abuja; also prays that the defendant be ordered to pay for the cost of the litigation.

The Plaintiff is also seeking an order of perpetual injunction “restraining the Defendant, his Agents, Privies, Associates or whosoever called” from making further defamatory publications against him and his family members.

Mr. Ugwuonye is accused of posting severally on The Due Process Advocates (DPA), a Facebook group, claiming to have evidence of the involvement of the missing Charity Aiyedogbon’s ex-husband, David Aiyedogbon in her sudden disappearance.

ITREALMS ... everything news digitally!

Pix: Late Mrs. Charity Aiyedogbon

Unfreezed account: Firm slams N200m suit against Access Bank

ITRealms:

An Abuja-based media firm, the Image Merchants Promotion Limited and its promoter, Mallam Yushau Shuaib have slammed a N200m suit against the Access Bank Plc over an alleged unlawful freezing of their four different accounts with the bank in the past two years, reports ITRealms.

The bank was dragged before a High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) Abuja by the two plaintiffs who had jointly claimed the N200m as damages for the hardships inflicted on them by the Bank with the freezing.

In the suit with No. FCT/HC/CV/0657/2018 filed on their behalf by Yunus Abdulsalam, the plaintiffs are praying the Court to declare that freezing of their account by the bank as unlawful and a clear breach of the duty of care owed them by the bank.

They are also praying for an order of the Court directing the bank to unfreeze their Private, Salary, Operational and Domiciliary Accounts of the Company and its Promoter with Access Bank Plc.

The global award-winning media outfit and its promoter are the publishers of Economic Confidential Magazine and PRNigeria, a public relations firm.

They claimed that they have tried to no avail with the bank to unfreeze their accounts which met brick walls each time and later metamorphosed to their solicitors writing the final letter to the bank.

In the suit, Shuaib says that the inexplicable freezing of his account has kept him struggling to meet up with his responsibilities as the breadwinner of his family thereby putting his four children, wife and aged parents into a state of avoidable hardship.

Also due to the inexplicable freezing of the accounts, the company claims that its businesses have suffered the following catastrophic developments: Over 20 employees and volunteers in the payroll resigned their employment because of the inability of the company to access its salary account for the purpose of paying monthly salary; The company has also lost patronage as it can no longer advise clients to pay into the operational accounts knowing fully well no withdrawal could be made to execute the job of its clients.

In addition, the media outfit says that the freezing of its Domiciliary Account prevented its financial obligations to foreign partners, subscriptions to products, services and professional membership fees. It also added that for the first time since inception, the company’s monthly print edition of the Economic Confidential Magazine could not see the light of the day.

Their solicitors had written a letter dated 21st December 2017 and addressed to the Branch Manager, Access Bank Plc,  Plot 1244, Samuel Ladoke Akintola Boulevard, Garki 2, Abuja, and received same day, the bank was informed that failure to unfreeze their accounts will resort to court action as there has been no official explanation by the bank.

The plaintiffs further claimed that since “the absence of their clients from the public service, Mallam Yushau Shuaib has been the alter ego of Image Merchants Promotions Ltd- the publisher of the widely read Economic Confidential Magazine and whose subsidiary is a leading and multi-international award-winning PR firm, PRNigeria.

They claimed that from the record of accounts in question, it was clear that the firm has been carrying out legitimate business of PR consultancy with a vast clientele base especially from the security and financial sectors of the Nigerian economy.

Plaintiffs claimed that they asked for an explanation from their mutual account officer as to the lawful justification upon which their accounts were frozen by the bank and that the response was rather evasive, opaque and vague.

Therefore, the Plaintiffs applied for an order of the Court in directing the defendant to unfreeze the four accounts and also sought for an order of the Court in awarding the sum of N200m only being general and exemplary damages against the bank for unlawful freezing of their account and breach of duty of care owed to them by the bank.

In addition, the plaintiffs demanded another sum of N1m against the bank being the cost of the suit. They also sought payment of 10% of the judgment sum from the date of delivery of judgment until the entire sum is liquidated.

No date has yet been fixed for the hearing.

Correspondent/GEE

ITREALMS ... everything news digitally!