NADABO ENERGY LIMITED & ANOR THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA - Legalpedia | The Complete Lawyer - Research | Productivity | Health

NADABO ENERGY LIMITED & ANOR THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA

ABDULKADIR NTIEM V FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA
April 11, 2025
SULAIMON OLALEKAN V THE STATE OF LAGOS
April 11, 2025
ABDULKADIR NTIEM V FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA
April 11, 2025
SULAIMON OLALEKAN V THE STATE OF LAGOS
April 11, 2025
Show all

NADABO ENERGY LIMITED & ANOR THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA

Legalpedia Citation: (2018) Legalpedia (CA) 19660

In the Court of Appeal

HOLDEN AT LAGOS

Sun Feb 25, 2018

Suit Number: CA/L/1408C/2016

CORAM


OYEBISI FOLAYEMI OMOLEYE JUSTICE OF THE COURT OF APPEAL


PARTIES


NADABO ENERGY LIMITED ABUBAKAR ALI PETERS APPELLANTS


THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA RESPONDENTS


AREA(S) OF LAW



SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Appellants were arraigned at the High Court of Justice, Lagos State, on sundry counts of false pretences, conspiracy and forgery under the Advance Fee Fraud and Other Fraud Related Offences Act, 2006, with respect to a sum of N1,464,961,978.24, the Appellants allegedly defrauded the Respondent of over the Petroleum Support Fund Scheme (P.S.F.S.), in which the Appellants falsely claimed they had supplied 19,488,922 litres of Premium Motor Spirit (PMS), product and on the alleged pretext collected N1,464,961,978.24 from the Respondent. Although the charge sheet was filed in 2012, the trial of the case commenced in 2015. Four witnesses were taken on the Respondent’s side. The 5th witness was in the witness-box when the Appellant filed a motion on notice on requesting for a recall of PW1 – PW4 who had given evidence and had been discharged from the witness-box for further cross-examination. The motion also requested for an order directing the Respondent to produce subpoenaed documents and to, also, produce or file supplementary information in support of the charge and further for an order directing the Respondent to transfer the case file or prosecution of the case to the Attorney-General of the Federation. The motion was moved but the court adjourned ruling on the contested motion, and continued with the hearing of the case. It then adjourned the case for continuation and ruling on the motion on 12-12-2016. Upon failure of the court to deliver the ruling on the motion, the Appellant filed the instant appeal.


HELD


Appeal Struck Out


ISSUES


Whether or not the circumstances surrounding the failure to rule on the application dated 22nd February, 2016 amounts to denial of fair hearing. Whether or not the circumstances, surrounding the failure to rule on the application dated 22nd February, 2016 determined the application”.


RATIONES DECIDENDI


APPELLATE POWERS OF COURT – CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION ON THE EXERCISE OF THE APPELLATE POWERS OF COURT


“The appellate powers of the court over decisions from the court below are stated in sections 240, 241, 242, and 243 of the 1999 Constitution. The said powers are to be exercised or activated when an appealable decision is taken by the court below.
Section 318(1) of the 1999 Constitution defines decision to mean, in relation to a court, any determination of that court and includes judgment, decree, order, conviction, sentence or recommendation.


“DETERMINATION” – MEANING OF THE PHRASE “DETERMINATION”


“The phrase determination means a final decision by a court with respect to the dispute brought before it vide Black’s Law Dictionary (Eighth Edition) 480.”


POWER OF THE COURT OF APPEAL – WHETHER THE POWERS OF THE COURT OF APPEAL ON THE TRANSFER OF CASES CAN BE EXERCISED OVER INCOMPETENT APPEALS


The general powers of the Court under section 15 of the Court of Appeal Act 2004, as amended, to make consequential orders such as transfer of an action from a learned Judge of the court below to another learned Judge of that court are exercised only where the Court is properly seised of an appeal. It cannot be exercised over an incompetent or invalid appeal.
In addition, it was held in the case of Nigerian Airport Authority v. Adewale (1985) 3 NWLR (pt.13) 474 ,that a party demanding transfer of a case from one learned Judge to another learned Judge must show strong and cogent reasons. It is not automatic or for the asking; nor is it granted as a matter of course or routine.” –


DELIVERY OF JUDGMENT- STATUTORY TIME FRAME FOR DELIVERY OF JUDGMENT


“The time-frame for rendering any decision by the court below is 90 days from the date the matter was heard and final addresses taken vide section 294(1) of the 1999 Constitution.”


CASES CITED


Not Available


STATUTES REFERRED TO


Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999,|


CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT

Comments are closed.