The legal side of blogging By Adeola Kayode

Setting up a blog is relatively simple. However, sourcing for articles, news, photographs and other content to attract traffic to it is not a child’s play.

To achieve success in blogging, one may have to experience the risks facing journalists. For those doing copy-and-paste blogging, they may not understand what journalists face.

As blogging continues to gather steam, attention on the activities of bloggers will continue to rise. The popularity of online news portals is an invitation to others to jump on the train. But there is the need to understand what is required to build a respected and successful blog. While many give credit to the web for removing barriers to publishing, there is still a lot of education one needs to build a successful blog. There are also ethical sides of the job; while one also needs to consider the risks that come with information gathering.

All over the world, bloggers are also exposed to legal and risky factors of journalism. According to Public Radio International, Islamic fundamentalists have collated a list of 84 secular and atheist bloggers to be killed because they dared to oppose their views on Islam.

They have, so far, killed nine with many others already forced to close their blogs and social media accounts. In a number of countries, it is that serious. A popular Kenyan blogger who I met during WordCamp Kenya was arrested and docked for calling President Uhuru Kenyatta an “adolescent president”.

Back in 2014, a former governor of Katsina State was reported to have ordered the detention of a student for criticising him on Facebook. One Wasiu Ogunnoiki was arraigned on September 2 for allegedly “engaging in acts capable of denting the image” of Ogun State Governor, Ibikunle Amosun, on Facebook. Also recently, Seun Oloketuyi, faced court charges for allegedly defaming the Chief Executive Officer of Fidelity Bank Plc, Nnamdi Okonkwo.

Blogging and social media posts have continued to earn people a lot of enemies. It is worth examining the common myths among many bloggers. To what extent are the myths true? Here are some of the myths:

You can be anyone on online

It is common to see people who think that they cannot be held responsible for a comment they post online. The cases of defamation as a result of content posted online have been on the rise. Once you are identified, you can be held responsible for what you share on online. It doesn’t matter if you copied it from another blogger, you can be held responsible.

Copy-and-paste is not plagiarising

Some of my articles are all over the Internet and this is largely due to cope-and-paste phenomenon. In 2008, I published a research document on consumer behaviour on social media through SlideShare. That document has been downloaded and used by many people without an attribution. When you copy and post articles and images without attribution, it is not cool and you may be sued.

When you are a small player, they may ignore you. But believe me they will come after once you start making money.

The best practice is to cull some parts and attribute to the source. Unless you notify the copyright owner and get permission, you are not allowed to take an entire article and use it. You may be helping the owners to advertise their work, but it is still not right.

You can use it since it is on Google search results

The common notion is that once you find an article, image or music on Google, you can use, share, tweet it as if it were originally created by you. This is not true. Google clearly says that users are responsible for what and how they use the information obtained from its platforms, including Google Search.

For images, the best practice is to source from websites with royalty-free images. One can also subscribe to websites with stock images. Also ensure you credit the source of the photograph you use. According to the International Copyright Convention, any creative work is copyrighted even when there is no notification on it.

Traffic is everything

In the quest for traffic, it is a common practice to look for information everywhere and anywhere. Businesses are already getting smart and are associating with bloggers that are concerned about building authority rather than traffic. Instead of looking for traffic, concentrate on creating quality content. Then, traffic will follow.

PUNCH

Nigeria: The unforgivable abuse of our people By Japheth Omojuwa

This is 2015. This has been emphasised for us to take another look at the number and the year again. How many of us did not think that virtually everything would change after the year 2000? Maybe those much older but as a secondary school student in the late 1990s, the year 2000 offered a picture of possibilities and unbelievable human progress. Certain things have to be put in perspective to access progress and in doing so, one cannot afford to ignore the fact that while the world has generally moved several steps forward, certain parts of it have continued to fall short of their potentials and expectations. Nigeria is one of such.

This country is blessed; it is so easy to know. It is the only country in Africa that goes to the African Nations Cup and without any special preparation returns home with at least a bronze medal on most occasions. It is the one country where its students are guaranteed to beat all comers in universities around the world. Nigeria has a record number of doctors practising in the United States and the United Kingdom. We have professionals scattered around the world. Go to any country, including Iceland, Finland and even Somalia, Nigerians are there creating value and adding to their GDP. While a lot has been made of our stories with drugs and advanced fee fraud, a search on the Internet would reveal to you that Nigerians are doing a lot more at creating value for humanity around the world than they are in making the world a tougher place to live in.

The easiest way to measure value is money. Take the numbers, remission to sub-Saharan Africa has averaged about $60bn per year, of that number, remission to Nigeria is about $20bn per year. That is to say, a Nigerian earns $33 for every $66 earned by other sub-Saharan Africans in the Diaspora. However you want to interpret it, that’s massive! Nigeria’s greatest resource is its human resources and this has been its most abused resource.

This country is guilty! It has spent half a century obsessed with minerals and crops while the very thing that makes nations attain development is left abandoned. We will never move forward as a country as long as we continue to treat our citizens like abandoned future in an abandoned house. Day in and out we hear about people getting robbed in traffic in Lagos, no one has shown enough care to protect the people. The Lagos State Government has finally moved to restrict the movement of trucks in Lagos seeing as Lagosians were getting killed in droves via accidents mostly related to the activities of such trucks. The government runs to serve the people, it is the job of government to nip a challenge in the before it is considered as a menace but more often than not, our governments leave our citizens at the mercy of such challenges until we wail and rant and cry and scream and several lives get lost before government finally moves. It speaks to how much of a value we place on the human life in Nigeria.

Jonathan’s statue and Dickson’s status ….. NATION

Whatever his critics may say, ex-President Goodluck Jonathan is still credited with political influence in some ambitious quarters despite his failed re-election dream. Bayelsa State Governor Seriake Dickson, who is eyeing a second term, demonstrated Jonathan’s importance in the eyes of those determined to remain in power in the former president’s state.

It is interesting that Dickson considered it strategic to publicly signal the start of his re-election campaign by unveiling a statue of Jonathan. A picture of the statue was published on September 6. There was Jonathan frozen in his signature “resource-control” fashion, wearing beads and a plastic smile, waving his right hand, and holding an open umbrella painted in his party’s colours over his head.

Following the celebration of the standing sculpture, Jonathan, who was not at the event, played host to Dickson at his country home, Otuoke, in Ogbia Local Government Area of Bayelsa State. The visit resulted in Jonathan’s formal endorsement of Dickson for the position of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) standard-bearer in the December 5 governorship poll in the state.

Jonathan said on the occasion:  ”I am not expecting the governor to score 100 per cent There are three key parameters I will like to score Governor Dickson, which are payment of salaries, physical infrastructure and low indebtedness of the state in terms of bank loans and in the capital markets. If you compare what has happened in other parts of the country, you will praise the governor.”

SCRAP THE FEDERAL ROADS SAFETY CORPS BY TOLA ADENIYI

I know that the immediate and spontaneous reaction to this topic is a question that will sound like this: Is decapitation the cure to headache? Some readers, not those already discussing its scrapping would say whatever the perceived shortcomings of the FRSC might be, scrapping the agency cannot be the only option left in addressing such shortcomings.

It has been a painful conclusion for me as I put my thoughts down on paper regarding the fortunes of an agency that has had many persons claiming to be its father. I know that Dr Akinkoye popularly called Sir Koye wrote a copious paper that eventually got accepted and became the working paper for the establishment of the organization. Major Salawu also has his own version regarding the birth of the agency while late Dr tai Solarin’s tireless campaigns in the old Western region  must also be given some credit for the factors leading to the birth of the agency which General David Medayese Jemibewon created as Governor of the old Western state. It was the establishment by President Ibrahim Badamasi Babangida at the federal level that gave the agency its national image and geographical spread.

I have been compelled to write three articles on the Federal Road Safety Corps, and each of the articles was directed at exposing the many ills of the organization, and pleading each time that the organization must purge itself of such ills and reform itself. It does appear all the pleading had fallen on deaf ears.

There is no doubt that the founding fathers of the Road Safety Corps had laudable intentions. They had sought to reduce accidents on our roads by checking over-speeding, over-loading, and ensuring that rickety and unserviceable vehicles are taken off our roads.

And I must say that in the very beginning, the activities of the leadership and rank and file of the agency were geared towards achieving these objectives. Drivers of articulated vehicles that used to terrorize other road users were taught to behave and were even given lessons on road etiquette. Other drivers like cab drivers and other commercial vehicle drivers were brought under control and for years there was sanity on our highways.

All of a sudden, operatives of the Road Safety Corps thought that it was their God-given calling to start rivaling the Police, Customs, and occasionally soldiers who turned every spot on our roads to Toll gates. They began to see themselves as competitors in the nauseating game of extortion, bribe taking, and outright brigandage on our roads. They started sending fears down the spine of road users and occasionally creating panic that consequently send drivers crashing their vehicles.

Nowadays operatives of the Federal Road Safety corps have completely abandoned the reasons why they were sent to man our roads. They have now constituted themselves to Customs operatives, checking vehicle particulars and demanding proof of purchase and ownership from drivers/owners.

While they are busy with issues that are outside their brief, overloaded vehicles and rickety vehicles are turned blind eye to. Vehicles that have no plate numbers, vehicles that have no indicator lights of any kind pass through without any one stopping them. Rather, it is innocent women going about their daily business that are rudely stopped, accosted and harassed to no end. It can be said without any fear of contradiction that more than 70% of all private vehicles stopped for harassment by the Road Safety Corps operatives are driven by women. And the reason is simple. They find it easier and faster to extort money from women than from men.

Meanwhile articulated vehicles continue to dominate our roads and reckless driving by their handlers is the order of the day. We have preventable accidents almost on daily basis across the country, and yet the FRSC continues to beat its chest that its operatives are doing a good job!

Other than the fact that those who are going to be laid off will swell the unemployed market, there is no other convincing reason why the FRSC should not be disbanded today. The public perception of them and their activities is awful. When vehicle owners or drivers drive past them they are looked upon with pity and disdain.

Agencies charged with maintaining sanity on our state roads and within towns and cities are doing a lot better than the FRSC, and I believe that they should be enough to provide safety on our roads. After all, all Federal Roads pass through states, cities and towns. All vehicles that are meant to be checked on the Highways pass through towns and cities and the state roads safety corps can do a better job than what the so-called FRSC is currently [doing?]

Whether the Federal Road Safety Corps will be scrapped or not will depend largely on the country extent it can survive the raging debate calling for its scrapping. And how far it can quickly purge itself of the huge corruption charge heaped on its shoulders and redeem its image.

For now the huge investment the Nigerian public places on it through the federal Government is not justified or justifiable given its record of poor performance and wrong headedness. Luckily, I have never been stopped by any operative of the FRSC, and therefore never been subjected to their shameless extortion and beggarly bribe soliciting.

The Buhari government must take pains to look into the activities of all Federal Agencies that have any direct dealing with the public. And in doing so care must be taken to isolate any such agencies that give bad name to the government and constitute themselves into nuisances in public perception.

When we talk of corruption, we should not limit our discourse to theft and treasury looting. There are so many little acts and activities that add up to give a tag of corruption to an organization or agency. And all Agencies that wear the federal badge and conduct themselves shamelessly and irresponsibly must be brought to book in our collective effort to rid this country of the monumental corruption for which this richly endowed but sadly unfortunate space is internationally reputed.

Perhaps it will not be out of place to single out Dr Abolurin for the good image he created and nurtured for the Civil Defence corps. That is one Federal Agency which under Dr Abolurin conducted its affairs with thorough professionalism, dedication, and irreproachable probity and won the hearts of Nigerians throughout the country.

Mikel, Moses must fight for shirts – Oliseh By Jacob Ajom

Super Eagles coach, Sunday Oliseh has given kudos to his team for pulling an encouraging 2-0 win over Niger in an international friendly played at the Adokiye Amiesimaka Stadium, Port Harcourt yesterday.

Speaking after the match, which was watched by a scanty crowd but beamed live by Super Sport, the coach said, “the team have shown great improvement. There are signs of improvement as we now recover quickly after losing the ball and add more pressure when attacking. What we need do now is how to handle the ball much longer.”

The coach praised the lads for the level of understanding exhibited, particularly, in the midfield where Taraba FC star, Usman Mohammed operated from and hoped they will build from there.

“He is a very good player and I hope he will continue in that stride. Today’s performance was better than what we saw in Dar es Salaam because we had just two days of training before our trip. We will have to do more.”

Oliseh said the team was still open to the likes of John Obi Mikel, Victor Moses and any other player who was not party to the Tanzania and Niger matches. “Yes, they are still part of our plans. As you can see, these boys playing now have definitely gathered some points so those who want to displace them would have to fight for shirts. They have to show the hunger to play for Nigeria. “Everyone here is replaceable. Only Nigeria cannot be replaced. I retired and people are still playing for the country. Nobody is indispensable.”

VANGUARD

4TH DEFENDANT’S COUNTER AFFIDAVIT AGAINST THE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION ON NOTICE DATED 5TH OCTOBER, 2014

IN THE FEDERAL HIGH COURT OF NIGERIA
IN THE LAGOS JUDICIAL DIVISION
HOLDEN AT LAGOS
SUIT NO: FHC/L/CS/1673/14

WEBB TOWERS LIMITED            ----------------------------- PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT

AND

1.    THE HON. MINISTER OF THE ENVIRONMENT,
HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

2.    PRESIDENTIAL IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE
ON THE ALIENATION OF FEDERAL GOVERNMENT      -------DEFENDANTS/RESPONDENTS
LANDED PROPERTIES               

3.    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE FEDERATION
AND MINISTER OF JUSTICE

4.    COLONEL DAVID BINITIE (RTD)                   ------------------- DEFENDANT


4TH DEFENDANT’S COUNTER AFFIDAVIT AGAINST THE   PLAINTIFF’S MOTION ON NOTICE DATED 5TH OCTOBER, 2014

I Col. David  Binitie of  25 Ilabere  Avenue  Ikoyi  Lagos,  retired  Military  officer, Nigerian Citizen  make oath and say as follows;

1.    That I am the 4th defendant in this case and by virtue of my position, I am familiar with the facts of this case.

2.    That the facts herein deposed to are within my personal   knowledge or which I otherwise believe to be true and correct as indicated thereunder.

3.    That uptill date I have not been served by the Court Bailiffs with the Originating processes nor the Motion paper.  

4.    That the Plaintiff instead left at my residence at 25, Ilabere Avenue, Ikoyi; photocopies of the originating process bearing the Suit No. in this  case and along with photocopies of a Motion on Notice both marked “Advance Copy”.

5.    That I subsequently made enquiries at the Federal High Court Registry on resumption from the Court’s Strike and found out that the suit has been assigned to the Court of Hon. Justice Abang; and fixed for 10th February, 2015.

6.    That I was informed my Counsel of Messrs Layi Babatunde (SAN) & Co; of my findings whereby they wrote a letter on my behalf to Plaintiff’s Counsel requesting that I be served with the Court processes. A copy of the Letter is attached and marked exhibit “A”.

7.    That the Plaintiff’s Counsel has not replied to the said letter nor caused me to be served with the processes till date.

8.    That in the circumstance I am compelled to respond to the Advanced Copies left on my premises so as not to leave the suit undefended.

9.    That I have read the Affidavit of Ihechi Chikezi, of Counsel in support of the Motion on Notice and hereby state as follows:

(a)    That as the official and recognized sitting Tenant occupying the property known and called 25, Ilabere Avenue Street, Ikoyi; Lagos State; I am entitled to a right of first refusal based on a Federal Government policy on the disposal of such properties.

(b)    That I have since exercised my right and clearly demonstrated my intention to purchase the said property by completing and submitting the required papers and paying the specified processing fees.

(c)     That I am however waiting to be issued with the required offer letter and subsequent title document (Certificate of Occupancy) upon payment of required sum.

(d)    That the Plaintiff in the interim approached me sometime in 2008 with a view to purchasing the property from me subsequent to my full acquisition of same from the Federal Government whereby a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) dated 15th day of July, 2008 was executed with the Plaintiff.

(e)    That the 1st – 3rd Defendants are not parties to the MOU.

(f)    That pursuant to the said MOU the Plaintiff in further expression of its interest to purchase the property …… on it being secured advanced on Account the sum of N5,000,000.00 to me. A copy of the MOU is attached and marked Exhibit “B”.

(g)    That under the said MOU, its PURPOSE was clearly stated as follows:

“PURPOSE
Party A, is therefore empowered by this Memorandum of Understanding to enter into negotiations with the Presidential Implementation Committee and or other legal means to secure Letters of Offer or a replacement of the subject property by one which is of the same value, size and dimension in the Ikoyi area of Lagos State, the success of which guarantees an assignment of the rights of Party B on the property to Party A.
This MOU addresses the rights, benefits and obligations of parties herein.”

(h)    That prior to the execution of Exhibit “B”, the Plaintiff represented to me that it will facilitate my collection of the title documents within Six (6) months of the execution of the MOU; and that this promise induced me to execute the said MOU as I believed the Plaintiff’s to be capable of facilitating and accelerating the process of my completion with the 1st and 2nd Defendants.

(i)    That Seven years down the line the Plaintiff has been unable to fulfill its promise.

(j)    That instead the Plaintiff continues to complicate matters with the 1st – 2nd Defendants by making spurious and baseless allegations such that I am the only sitting tenant till date among such property occupiers in that axis who is yet to receive his title documents even though I have fulfilled the required conditions.

(k)    That to the best of my knowledge information and believe there is no provision for any Trusteeship in the MOU as the Deed of Assignment referred to was obtained by deception as it s obvious that the recitals are untrue particularly paragraphs 5,6 and 7 thereof.

(l)    That I had paid the processing fee to the 2nd Defendant in 2005 long before the Plaintiff’s expression of interest cheque of N5,000,000.00 in 2008.

(m)    That these documents referred to under paragraph 22 of the Plaintiff’s Affidavit in support of the Motion on Notice authorizing the firm of JK Gadzama & Partners to collect the title papers on my behalf were executed because of the representation of the Plaintiff that doing so will expedite the process which has now proved to be incorrect.

(n)    That I did not authorize the filing of Suit FHC/L/CS/5444/2008 said to have been discontinued as I continue to pursue administratively the processing of my title documents with the 1st – 2nd Defendants such that the Hon. Minister of the Environment, Housing and Urban Development visited the property on a working tour as with others on the avenue and assured me that the property will be sold to me as the sitting tenant and not part of any redevelopment plan.

(o)    That I was not part of any petition to the National Assembly.

(p)    That at no time did any “top officials” of other officials of 1st and 2nd Defendants send any emissaries to me with such offer as alleged in paragraph 31 of the Plaintiff’s Affidavit.

(q)    That I am not aware at all of any such threat by officials of the 1st and 2nd Defendants nor the meeting between Okwu Ezezie Esq; of Counsel and Mr. Kola Adeyemi as deposed to in paragraph 32 and 33 of the Plaintiff’s Affidavit.

(r)    That as the sitting Tenant I am the only one to which the 1st and 2nd Defendant’s can issue title documents including letter of offer on 25 Ilabere Avenue, Ikoyi as they are not even parties to the MOU and whoever I instruct to collect it can only do so on my behalf.

(s)    That I have at no time instructed the 1st and 2nd Defendants to issue the letter of offer or any other document of title on 25 Ilabere Avenue, Ikoyi; or any other property to the plaintiff.

(t)    That I verily believe in the circumstance that the 1st – 2nd Defendants will not dispose 25 Ilabere Street, Ikoyi to a stranger nor issue title documents to a stranger as I am the only recognised sitting tenant and still in full and effective occupation.

(u)    That I verily believe that the Plaintiff’s suit is a further attempt to complicate matters and delay the issuance of my title documents by the 1st – 2nd Defendants which has been long overdue.

(v)     That the MOU provides for how any dispute between the Plaintiff and myself shall be resolved as follows:

“DISPUTE RESOLUTION
In the event of dispute, difference, impasse, or deadlock arising in regard to this agreement, the parties shall attempt in good faith too settle such dispute by mutual discussions as soon as practicable after the disputing party gives notice of the dispute to the non disputing party. During such mutual discussions any resolution procedure instituted pursuant to this paragraph shall be pursued by both parties and parties shall thereafter faithfully continue to perform their respective obligations under this agreement.”

(w)    That no settlement attempt has been initiated by the Plaintiff nor explored before rushing to file this suit.

10.    That I swear to the affidavit in good faith believing the same to be true  to the best of my knowledge information and belief and in accordance with the oaths  Act of the Federal  Republic of Nigeria.    



                                ____________________
                                    DEPONENT

Sworn to at the Federal High Court
Registry, Lagos this …….. day
of ………………………… 2015.


BEFORE ME




COMMISSIONER FOR OATHS




IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
HOLDEN AT LAGOS
                                APPEAL NO: CA/L/897M/2013
                                                                    SUIT NO: LD/2727/2000
BETWEEN

1.    ACCESS BANK PLC                -             APPELLANT
Substituted by an order of court
made on 2-5-2012

2.    GLOBAL INVESTMENT & SECURITIES LTD

AND

CROWNWEALTH VENTURES LTD            ……………….          RESPONDENT










S
2.    GLOBAL INVESTMENT & SECURITIES LTD

AND

CROWNWEALTH VENTURES LTD            ……………….          RESPONDENT







APPELLANT’S BRIEF OF ARGUMENT

CLAIMANT’S WRITTEN ADDRESS AGAINST THE DEFENDANTS’ MOTION ON NOTICE DATED 29TH JANUARY, 2010

IN THE HIGH COURT OF LAGOS STATE
IN THE LAGOS JUDICIAL DIVISION
HOLDEN AT LAGOS


                            SUIT NO. LD/2055/09

BETWEEN:


THE NIGERIAN BULK OIL COMPANY LIMITED…………..CLAIMANT/APPLICANT
                                       
AND

1.    PRACTOIL LIMITED
2.    MRS. BOLA MUINAT SHAGAYA   …..………………..DEFENDANTS


CLAIMANT’S WRITTEN ADDRESS AGAINST THE DEFENDANTS’ MOTION ON NOTICE DATED 29TH JANUARY, 2010


1.00    INTRODUCTION:   

1.01    The Defendants Motion on Notice dated 29th January is the 3rd in the series of numerous Applications filed by them against the Claimant’s Suit. However, since they have evinced an intention to withdraw the previous two Applications, this address is limited to the Motion on Notice dated 29th January, 2009 which is the last in the series.

1.02    It is instructive to note that the Defendants’ Application was filed subsequent to being duly served with the Claimant’s Originating Processes, Motion on Notice for Injunction and the Interim Orders of Injunction of this Honourable Court. The Proof of the service is already in the Honourable Court’s File.

1.03    In reaction to the Defendants’ Motion on Notice dated 29th January, 2009, the Claimant herein has filed a Counter-Affidavit of 7 Paragraphs deposed to by Abdulhameed Abdullateef; a Manager with the Claimant’s Company. To the said Counter-Affidavit were attached four Exhibits i.e. Exhibits A, B, C and D. Reliance shall be placed on all the depositions contained in the said Counter Affidavit and the attached Exhibits. The kind attention of this Honourable Court is hereby drawn to Paragraph 6(i)–(xx) of the Counter-Affidavit.



2.00    STATEMENT OF FACTS:

2.01    The relevant facts germane and relevant to the determination of the Defendants’ Application are as contained in the Claimant’s Counter-Affidavit of 7 Paragraphs. Paragraphs 5(i) – (xxviii) of the said Counter-Affidavit are highly instructive.

2.02    However, it needs to be stressed herein that the Claimant in this Suit commenced this Suit after its Claims in its earlier Suit No.FHC/L/CS/537/09 was struck out for wants of jurisdiction on the part of that Court. This fact was duly pleaded in Paragraph 15 of the Claimant’s Statement of Claim and deposed to in Paragraph 18 of its witness’s Written Deposition on Oath already before this Honourable Court. The Plaintiff herein has no other Claim filed or pending before any other Court over the subject matter of this Suit.

3.00    ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION:
   
    The following issues are respectfully submitted for the Court’s kind consideration:

(i)    Whether having regard to the manifest disobedience of the Orders of this Court and continuing disregard for its processes, the Defendants/Applicants ought to be indulged by hearing of its Application without first demonstrating its readiness to obey and respect Court’s Processes;

(ii)    Whether having regard to the Rules of this Honourable Court, the Defendants/Applicant’s Application is competent;

(iii)    Whether on the whole and having regard to the circumstances of this Application, same ought not be dismissed or struck out having being brought malafide.

4.00    ARGUMENT:

4.01    In arguing the above issues, it is apposite to point out that while the Defendants/Applicants claimed to have submitted a Solitary Issue for Determination, it in essence expanded  the sole issue to Five (5) distinct issues in arguing the Application:

(i)    abatement of the ex-parte Order of Injunction;

(ii)    suppression of Material facts;

(iii)    abuse of Court Process;
(ii)    improper Constitution of the action; and

(iii)    want of Jurisdiction.

4.02    Furthermore, we shall be urging the Honourable Court to expunge and/or strike-out the Depositions contained in Paragraphs 10(a) & (c) of the Affidavit of Kabir Akingbolu sworn on 28th January, 2010 in support of the Applicants’ Application in that those Depositions violate the provisions of Section 87 of the Evidence Act in that they are tantamount to Legal Argument and/or Conclusion. See: BAMAIYI VS. THE STATE (2001) 4 S.C. (Pt.I) 18 @ 32-33 Paragraphs 25-15.

4.03    ISSUE 1:

Whether having regard to the manifest disobedience of the Orders of this Court and continuing disregard for its processes, the Defendants/Applicants ought to be indulged by hearing of its Application without first demonstrating its readiness to obey and respect Court’s Processes;

The Applicants have submitted that the positive Interim Orders of this Court issued on 15/12/09 and renewed on 21/12/09 has lapsed. They deposed rather boldly in Paragraphs 6(iii), (iv) and (v) of their Affidavit in support of their Application all their acts of disobedience to the said Court Order. This is because as manifest from the Records of the Honourable Court, all those activities mentioned in those Paragraphs were carried out and still being carried out either during the pendency of a Suit and/or in the life of the ex-parte Order they alleged is now spent. These Depositions taken along with Respondent’s positive Deposition in its Counter-Affidavit to the effect that the Applicants have refused to obey the positive Order of this Honourable Court; the question is whether such conduct is conscionable.

4.04    It is respectfully submitted that in so far as no Court of competent Jurisdiction has pronounced the Interim Orders of this Honourable Court made on 15/12/09 and renewed on 21/12/09 and duly served on the Defendants on 21/12/09 invalid or otherwise incompetent the Applicants were duly bound to comply with same irrespective of their opinion regarding the said Order as to its validity. It is therefore a gross and manifest act of disrespect to the Orders and authority of this Honourable Court for the Defendants/Applicants to ignore the said Orders while it lasted only for them to turn round and claim that in any event the Order has lapsed and thereby proceed to seek the aid of the Court – See: MADAM MARGARET EZEOKAFOR (1999) 6 S.C. 1 @ 15 Paragraph 25-35. See further A.G. ANAMBRA VS. A. G. FEDERATION & ORS. (2005) 5 S.C. (PT.I) 73 @ 83 Para. 15-25 per Katsina-Alu, JSC; (now CJN); where it was held:

 “It is now settled that the plain and unqualified obligation of every person against, or in respect of whom an Order is made by a Court of Competent Jurisdiction is to obey it unless and until that Order is discharged. It is so even in cases where the person affected by the Order believes it to be irregular or even void…….”

See also EZEKIEL-HART VS. EZEKIEL-HART (1990) 2 S.C. 1 @ 30-31 Para. 30-20-

“It is sad to observe that there is nothing on record to show that the Appellant has obeyed any of the above Orders of Court. I would like to state that obedience to Orders of Court is fundamental to the good Order, peace and stability of the Nigerian Nation. The ugly alternative is a painful recrudescence of triumph of brute force or anarchy – a resort to our old system of settlement by means of bows and arrows, matchetes and guns or, now, even more sophisticated weapons of war. Disobedience to an Order of Court should, therefore, be seen as an offence directed not against the personality of the Judge who made the Order, but as a calculated act of subversion of peace, law, and Order in the Nigerian society. Obedience to every Order of Court is therefore a duty which every citizen who believes in peace and stability of the Nigerian State owes to the Naion. This Court has made it abundantly clear that it will not lend its machinery in aid of a person who is, and continues, to be in contempt of an Order of Court by ordering a stay while the person is still in contempt.”

4.05    It is submitted further that the purpose of serving the Ex parte Order along with the Motion on Notice as provided for by the Rules of this Honourable Court is to keep the res intact pending the determination of Motion on Notice and not otherwise. – See MILITARY GOVERNOR OF LAGOS STATE & ORS VS. CHIEF EMEKA ODUMEGWU OJUKWU & ANOR (1986) 1 NWLR (PT.18) 66@ 636-638 per Obaseki, JSC; (as he then was).

4.06    It will be an untenable argument to canvass as done by the Applicants’ Counsel that a party upon whom an Ex parte Order was served along with the Motion on Notice would be at libtery to deal with the Subject matter of the Suit as it pleases even during the life of said order only to return to Court under the guise that the Ex parte Order has lapsed, abated or spent. This sort of argument as put forward by the Applicant’s runs against and violates all known principles of Adjudication and same is tantamount to encouraging resort to self-help; an act which is sternly frowned at by our Courts.

4.07    It is submitted that all the activities of the Applicants herein since the hostilities between them and the Respondents began have been to taunt the Court and to anticipate the Order of the Court.

4.08    It is submitted with respect that, a Law abiding and prudent Defendant will restrain himself even if he only has Notice of the pendency of a Suit against him and without the Sanction of any Order of the Honourable Court.

In the American case of J. EDWARDS JONES VS. SECURITIES and EXCHANGE COMMISSION 80 L.Ed 1015 298 US1.3 which was adopted by the Supreme Court in OJUKWU’S CASE supra, it was held that:

“After a Defendant have been notified of the pendecy of a Suit seeking an Injunction against him, even though a temporary Injunction be not granted, he acts at his peril and subject to the power of the Court to restore the status wholly irrespective of the merits as may be ultimately decided.”

4.09    In summary, it is submitted that the Honourable Court will be right to decline hearing the Defendants/Applicants until it demonstrates a willingness to abide with the Orders of Court. Furthermore, the Honourable Court has unfettered powers to command the obedience of its Order and respect for its process before it can listen to the Applicants.

The Honourable Court, it is also submitted, has the power to direct the Applicants to undo all those things they have done since the pendency of this Suit in order for the Applicants to enjoy its discretion. On this, see: THE REGISTERED TRUSTEES OF THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH VS. MRS EMMANUELA  OLOWOLENI (1990) 6 NWLR (PT.158) @ 537-538 per Nnaemeka-Agu, JSC; (as he then was).

4.10    ISSUE II:

Whether having regard to the Rules of this Honourable Court, the Defendants/Applicant’s Application is competent.

The Defendants/Applicants up and until now are yet to file their Defence and have by their Application contrary to the provisions of Order 22 High Court of Lagos State (Civil Procedure) Rules 2004 raised an Application with is clearly in the Nature of Demurrer.

4.10    It is respectfully submitted that on the authority of LASISI FADARE & ORS. VS. A.G. OYO STATE (1982) 4 S.C. 1 (where a similar provision was considered), the Defendants/Applicants’ Application ought to be dismissed/struck out being incompetent.
4.11    ISSUE III:

Whether on the whole and having regard to the circumstances of this Application, same ought not be dismissed or struck out having being brought malafide.

    It is submitted that having regard to the Records of the Court, the Respondents cannot be said to be guilty of the suppression of any material facts upon their Application for Injunction. On the issue of want of service of the Court Processes, it is instructive that the Applicants appears to be approbating and reprobating when on one hand they alleged in the Affidavit Evidence that both Defendants were not served and on the other that only the 1st Defendant was not served.

4.12    It is submitted with respect that the proof of service filed before the Honourable Court by the Court Bailiff should be conclusive of this matter and we urge the Honourable Court to rely on same – See OKESUJI VS. LAWAL (1999) 2 S.C. 25 @ 46 on purpose of Affidavit of Service. It will be stretching the demand of the Law to the point of absurdity to allege want of service in this instance, in which the Honourable Court has Photographic Evidence of Service on the Defendants at the property in dispute and which property the Applicants claim to be in occupation and WORKING. Besides the 2nd Defendant/Applicant is the alter ego of 1st Defendant. Indeed the two previous Applications filed by the Applicant and sought to be withdrawn gives a lie to this assertion. – See further PANACHE COMMUNICATIONS LTD. VS. AIKHOMU (1994) 2 NWLR (PT.327) 430 @ 431.

4.13    The Applicants have submitted that the Claimant’s Suit constitute an abuse of the process. The simple answer to this is provided by the case of CHRISTIAN OUTREACH MINISTRIES INC. & 2 ORS VS. COBHAM & ANOR. (2006) 15 NWLR (PT.1002) 283 wherein the Court of Appeal held that:

“It is not the Law that once a party files another Suit before another Court on the same subject matter, there is an abuse of Court process. An act can give rise to different Suits. A subject-matter may verily well give rise to different rights. In other words, different Suits can emanate from the same subject-matter, but with different rights and reliefs;”  and further that:

“It is not an abuse of Court Process for a Defendant who conceives that he has reliefs which are different from those claimed against him by the Plaintiff, to initiate separate proceedings in Court, seeking those reliefs even though his claims and those of the Plaintiff arise from the same facts and the same subject matter. In the instant case, the Appellants’ Suit was best describes as a cross-action in a different Court. It was not a case of two actions, which one party had sued the same Defendant.”

In any event issues, such as this ought to have being raised in the pleadings.

4.14    It is further submitted that in any event, having regard to the subject matter and the claims of the Claimants the Court vested with Jurisdiction is this Honourable Court – See: DR. OKOROMA VS. CHIEF CHRISTIAN UBA (1999) 1 NWLR (PT.587) 359 and AKAAER JOY VS. KUTUN DOM (1999) 7 S.C. (PT.II) 1.

    The Affidavit Evidence before the Honourable Court shows conclusively that the Claimants have no other pending Claim before any other Court on the subject matter of this Suit and that the parties in the Claim before the Court and that of the Applicants before the Federal High Court are not the same.

4.15    It is further submitted on the question of non joinder as alleged by the Applicant that Order 13 Rule 16(1) of the Rules of this Honourable Court provides a clear answer to that submission. The Order provides:

“No proceedings shall be defeated by reason of misjoinder or non joinder of parties, and a Judge may deal with the matter in controversy so far as regards the rights and interest of the parties actually before him.” (Underlining supplied)

4.16    Finally it is submitted that having regard to the above, this Application cannot but have been brought malafide as same with respect is groundless in Law.

5.00    CONCLUSION:

    On the whole, the Honourable Court will be urged to decline hearing the Application or otherwise dismiss/strike of the Defendant’s/Applicant’s Application because:

(i)    The Applicants have shown and continue to show complete contempt for the Orders of the Court and its process;

(ii)    By the Rules of this Court, the Application is incompetent, the Defendants having not filed any defence till date wherein any issues of Law as arising from the Application ought to have been lawfully raised;

(iii)    The Applicants have not succeeded in showing that the Respondents abused the process of the Court nor hid facts from the Court;

(iv)    The Law is trite that the Claimant could not have sued a party against whom they make no claims and in any event by the Rules of this Honourable Court non-joinder will not defeat any proceedings such as the Claimants;
(v)    The Court is not bereft of Jurisdiction, because the Claimant’s claims before the Court is proper legally cognisable and the subject matter being Land is within the competence of the Honourable Court;

(vi)    Having regard to the Records of the Honourable Court and the Bailiff’s proof of service, it is too late in the day for the Defendants to deny service.


Dated this…………….day of…………………………………2010.