Gbene Solicitors

Gbene Solicitors This law firm area of practice includes but not limited to corporate practice, environmental law, oi

16/08/2024

It is better to involve a lawyer your transactions from the beginning than to involve him later when a damage occurs. Prevention is better than cure

27/05/2023

AINABEBHOLO vs. AMBROSE ALLI UNIVERSITY WORKERS/ FARMERS MULTI-PURPOSE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. & ORS.(2022)LCN/16122(CA)

ISSUE: LIBEL-Whether the whole contents of a publication alleged to be defamatory must be pleaded and the publication constituting libel tendered in evidence by a plaintiff to establish a case of libel; Whether by the provision of Section 136 (2) of the Evidence Act, 2011, the burden of proof can shift from a plaintiff in a libel case who has not pleaded verbatim the exact libelous words and tender the libelous material in evidence(Issue is mine)

PRINCIPLE:
"In a nutshell, what this Court is called upon to decide in this issue is whether the appellant established or proved libelous publication concerning the appellant by the respondents. The appellant has accused the learned trial Judge of failure to apply the decision in the cases of Guardian Newspapers Ltd. v. Ajeh (2011) 198 LRCN; Okafor v. Ikeanyi & Ors. (1979) 12 NSCC 43. In the submission of counsel for the appellant, he referred to page 121 of the record of appeal, where the learned trial Judge held: "I am in agreement with the defence that this failure of the Claimant to produce this alleged libelous publication made by the 2nd Defendant in (sic) fatal to the head of claim. I am not in doubt that some uncomplimentary information was sent to the Nigerian Law School resulting in it sending Exhibit “C” to the Claimant. It is the place of the Claimant to produce this said publication or writing for the inspection of the Court. In the absence of that, this head of claim must fail and it hereby fails. I therefore resolve issue 3 in favour of the Defendant against the Claimant.”
The submission of counsel is that, there is nothing in the authorities cited that requires that the libelous publication must be produced in Court for inspection. That what those authorities decided is the reproduction of the whole article or the particular passage complained of in the pleadings. The respondents canva

25/05/2023

ADIMEGWU vs. BALA & ANOR.(2022)LCN/16064(CA)

ISSUE: RECOVERY OF PREMISES-Whether failure by a landlord to serve statutory notice on a tenant before approaching the Court to recover premises is capable of collapsing the jurisdiction of the Court to hear the matter(Issue is mine)

PRINCIPLE:
"Now the bone of contention under issue 1 is that from the circumstances of this case, the Respondents did not fulfil the condition precedent in instituting the Counter-Claim and as such the Counter-Claim was incompetent and by extension, the lower Court lacked the jurisdiction to entertain the Counter-Claim.
It is settled law that a Court cannot adjudicate upon a suit or action unless instituted in accordance with due process. A Court cannot entertain a suit or action commenced in violation of the law or the Constitution which created a Court or bestows jurisdiction on it over matters it can adjudicate upon.
Any proceeding conducted without jurisdiction will be rendered null and void ab initio. See:
1. CBN VS. RAHAMAIYYA GLOBAL RESOURCES LTD. (2020) 4 SCM 1 AT 17 B-C per OKORO, JSC, who said: "The law is indeed well settled that the issue of jurisdiction is fundamental in any proceeding and consequently raises the question of competence of the Court to adjudicate in the matter. It follows therefore that where a Court is devoid of jurisdiction to entertain a case, such proceedings becomes a nullity ab inito no matter how well conducted and decided. Jurisdiction is the life wire of adjudication which should be determined at the earliest opportunity. See Madukolu Ors. v. Nkemdilim & Ors. (1962) 2 SCNLR 341; Skenconsult (Nig.) Ltd. v. Ukey (1981) 1 SC 6; Goldmark (Nig.) Ltd. v. Ibafon Co. Ltd. (2012) 10 NWLR (Pt.1308) page 291, (2012) 5 SCIM 113; Nigerian Union of Road Transport Workers Anor. v. Road Transport Employers Association of Nigeria Ors. (2012) 10 NWLR (Pt.1307) 170.”
2. MR. A. ARUEZE & ORS. V. CHIEF M. A. NWAUKONI (2019) 5 NWLR (PART 1666) 469 AT 480 B-D per BAGE, JSC, wh

14/04/2023

YAKUBU vs. SHUAIBU(2021)LCN/15899(CA)

ISSUE: VISIT TO LOCUS IN QUO-Whether a visit to locus in quo automatically settle issues as to ownership of title to land

PRINCIPLE:
"The law is well settled that in order for a Court to grant a party’s relief for declaration of title over land, such a party must properly establish and prove his entitlement to the declaration by cogent evidence.
The Supreme Court in the case of ONOVO & ORS. v. MBA & ORS. (2014) LPELR-23035 (SC), (P. 27, Paras. A-E) per OGUNBIYI, JSC, reiterated the foregoing thus: "The law is also settled that, in a claim for declaration of title to land, the onus lies on the plaintiffs/appellants to establish their claim on the strength of their own case and not rely on the weakness of the defendants/respondents. Therefore, the plaintiffs must satisfy the Court that based on their pleadings and evidence, they are entitled to the declaration sought. See Odunukwe v. Ofomata (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt.1225) 404 at 445. Also, the case of Ekanem v. Akpan (1991) 8 NWLR (Pt.211) 616 at 631 where it was held by this Court that: “In an action for declaration of title to land it is trite law that the plaintiff must prove title or at least prove to have been in exclusive possession as approved in the case of Ekpo v. Ita II NLR 68 and held further in the case of Idundun v. Okumagba (1976) NMLR 200. Further, he must on the strength of his case and not on the weakness of the defence.”
See: Section 137(1) of the Evidence Act; KOPEK CONSTRUCTION LTD. V. EKISOLA (2010) LPELR-1703 (SC); OLATOMIDE & ANOR. v. IKUMUYILO & ORS. (2019) LPELR-48374 (CA) and OLATUNJI & ORS. v. AYENI (2019) LPELR-48495 (CA).
The methods by which a Plaintiff can prove his ownership of land has been repeatedly reiterated by the Courts to include: traditional history; documents of title or; various acts of ownership, numerous and positive and extending over a length of time as to warrant the inference of ownership or; acts of long enjoyment and possession of the

12/04/2023

WOPARA & ORS. vs. OWHONDA-WOPARA(2021)LCN/15880(CA)

ISSUE: DEED OF CONVEYANCE-Whether where a deed of conveyance is disputed a party relying on it is required in law to call credible evidence to testify to the effect of establishing the authenticity of the grant(Issue is mine)

PRINCIPLE:
"The learned trial Judge in his judgment reflected at page 138 of the record had this to say:
“Exhibit “A” was made under the Native Law and Custom of the Ikwerre people as applicable in Rumuobiakani. In it Chief Isreal Jonah Owhonda is said to have shared his properties to his wives and children under their custom. Such sharing under customary law is known as partitioning.”
​There is no dispute as to the facts by both parties that their late father had shared some of his properties to his wives and children. The crux of this appeal is whether the Deed of Grant was made under English law as contended by the Appellants. It will not be out of place to re-produce paragraph 7 of the Deed of Grant which is the relevant paragraph to the submission of the appellants’ counsel. Paragraph 7 reads:
“This Deed of Grant is subject to no amendment by virtue of my position and as the owner/head of my family and in accordance with Ikwerre Native Law and Custom as applicable to Rumuobiakani people which my family forms part of.
I WITNESS WHEREOF – I hereby have hereunto set my hands, seal and sign the day, month and year first above written.
Chief Isreal Jonah
Owhonda Wopara
(Grantor) 21-6-81”
From what was re-produced above the intention of the executor has been clearly reflected therein that the grant was made in accordance with the Ikwerre Native Law and Custom, moreso the grantor indicated that the grant is without any amendment. In order to prove the transfer of land under customary law, certain facts must be established. It must be pleaded and proved that the grant was made in the presence of witnesses who saw the actual handing over of the property. The names of the person who witnessed the

02/04/2023

UZOHO & ORS. vs. NATIONAL COUNCIL OF PRIVATIZATION & ANOR.(2022)LCN/5170(SC)

ISSUE: COURT PROCEEDINGS-Whether making reference to pleadings by a Court to resolve the issue of jurisdiction amounts to prejudging a substantive suit at an interlocutory stage; Whether the right to fair hearing is deprived where a Court suo motu declines jurisdiction to hear an academic suit(Issue is mine)

PRINCIPLE:
"Now, at pages 33-34 of the record, the learned trial Judge held thus:
"The plaintiffs in their originating summons are seeking interpretation of the Rules of Professional Conduct binding or applicable on Legal Practitioners in Nigeria vis-a-vis the publication annexed as Exh. A to the affidavit in support of the originating summons. The plaintiffs who are legal practitioners are alleging that the condition for practicing in the exercise violates provisions of the Rules of Professional Conduct binding on them as lawyers. That because their interest to participate cannot be realized due to these conditions, their civil rights have been infringed thus foisting them with locus to challenge same.
I have read over several times the questions for determination and the reliefs sought. It may be true that it is Exh. A that has triggered this action and the interpretation given to it by the plaintiffs but at the end of it. I find no live issue at hand. The reliefs sought have a blanket implication to them. The whole suit appears academic and the Court does not do academic exercises. If this were a live issue and the Court were to assume jurisdiction over it. I would statutory easily come to the conclusion that the fear of the plaintiffs is misplaced. That Exh. A does not in any way imply what they have concluded and does not in any way violate the Rules of Professional Conduct. But as I have said, this is an academic exercise and the Court would not use its limited time in that."
My Lords, I am unable to agree that, from the above passage, the learned trial Judge had pre-judged the

07/07/2022

*NORTHWEST PETROLEUM & GAS CO. LTD & ANOR v. ILOH & ORS*

(2021) LPELR-55509(CA)

*Issue*
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - PRELIMINARY OBJECTION -

*Ratio*

*_Whether a preliminary objection can be raised against a motion/application_*

*Principles*

"A party cannot object to hearing of a motion by filing another motion. He can only file a counter affidavit against the motion, or object on points of law. See Eyitayo Vs Kazeem (2020) LPELR - 50360 CA; Dowell Schlumberger Nig. Ltd & Ors Vs Noah Aniekan & Anor (2018) LPELR - 44811 CA." Per ITA GEORGE MBABA, JCA (Pp 15 - 16 Paras E - A)

07/07/2022

*"Therefore a written complaint to the police alleging the commission of a crime cannot amount to libel. There is a constitutional right and civic duty for a citizen of this country to report crime and statutorily a duty on the police to receive such complaint and take necessary steps to investigate. There cannot be a liability for doing so. The claim for libel by the 1st Respondent and the Police fails."* See *per NIMPAR, JCA, in UDOFIA & ANOR. vs. OKON & ORS. (2018) LPELR-46154 (CA) @ P. 34.* See also the decision of the Supreme Court in *FAJEMIROKUN vs. COMMERCIAL BANK NIG. LTD. (2009) 2 MJSC (PT. 11) 114 per OGEBE, JSC, (rtd).*
*KEYSTONE BANK LTD. vs. OFFICE DEVICES LTD. & ANOR.(2020)LCN/14003(CA)*

*ISSUE: PETITION TO LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY-*
Whether a petition written to a law enforcement agency with allegation(s) of criminal offence(s) can amount to defamation(Issue is mine)

*PRINCIPLE:*
"The basis of this action in the lower Court are letters written to EFCC; Economic and Financial Crime Commission and Central bank which the Respondents claims tarnished their good image, lowered their estimation in the minds of ordinary members in the society, subjected them to odium and ridicule and they have suffered loss.
The issue; whether the lower Court was right in holding the Appellant liable in damages for defamation based on the content of the Appellant’s petitions to the EFCC and the CRMS (Credit Risk Management Systems Report) to the CBN, before going into this issue it is important to establish whether there was a defamation on the path of the Appellant.
In *FAYAN v. UBA (2013) LPELR–20540 (SC),* the apex Court held thus: "Defamation” is defined at page 448 infra thus: 1. “The act of harming the reputation of another by making a false statement to a third person…. 2. A false written or oral statement that damages another’s reputation.” It goes further: “Defamation is the publication of a statement which tends to lower a person in the estimation of right-thinki

13/12/2021

"...a Court or tribunal should never act on the evidence of a witness who gave evidence in chief but was unable to present himself for cross examination...in such a case the totality of his evidence including any exhibit tendered through him will be expunged from the records of the Court." vide *SHOFOLAHAN vs. THE STATE(2013)17 NWLR PT.1383,281.*

*UMUKORO vs. THE STATE(2018)LPELR-46159(CA)*

*Strictly Legal Precedents*

12/10/2021

"...upon the enactment of the ACJA, and with particular reference to the provision of Section 162 thereof, the Court no longer enjoy the discretionary privilege to refuse or grant bail to an accused person other than as provided by that section."
OGEDE vs. FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA(2018)LPELR-46816(CA)

ISSUE: BAIL-Position of the law where an application for bail in non-capital offence is being considered and the provision of Administration of Criminal Justice Act is applicable

PRINCIPLE:
"It seems clear to me and it is the common position that bail is the setting at liberty of an
accused person subject to certain conditions, particularly directed to ensure that the accused who is being set free from custody
will appear at a certain place and time. It is quite interesting that the counsel herein are ad idem that it is the provision of Section
162 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA), 2015 that is applicable herein. The section reads:
"A defendant charged with an offence punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding three years SHALL on application to the
Court, be released on bail except in any of the following circumstances:
(a) where there is reasonable ground to believe that the defendant will, where released on bail, commit another offence;
(b) attempt to evade his trial;
(c) attempt to influence, interfere with, intimidate witnesses, and or interfere in the investigation of the case;
(d) attempt to conceal or destroy evidence;
(e) prejudice the proper investigation of the offence; or
(f) undermine or jeopardize the objectives or the purpose or the functioning of the criminal justice administration, including the bail
system."
It is obvious that the above provision was framed in mandatory language to the effect that the trial Court has no discretion when
considering an application for bail when the accused person was charged with an offence punishable with imprisonment for a term
exceeding three years. Unless it is shown that the circumst

Address

No. 1 Hanetu Street , Off/Oriekwu Street, Ogbunabali
Port Harcourt

Opening Hours

Monday 08:00 - 17:00
Tuesday 08:00 - 17:00
Wednesday 08:00 - 17:15
Thursday 08:00 - 16:30
Friday 08:00 - 16:00

Telephone

+2348078516227

Website

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when Gbene Solicitors posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Contact The Business

Send a message to Gbene Solicitors:

Shortcuts

Share

Category