MAJOR-GENERAL ZAMANI LEKWOT (RTD) & ORS VS JUDICIAL TRIBUNAL ON CIVIL AND COMMUNAL DISTURBANCES IN KADUNA STATE - Legalpedia | The Complete Lawyer - Research | Productivity | Health

MAJOR-GENERAL ZAMANI LEKWOT (RTD) & ORS VS JUDICIAL TRIBUNAL ON CIVIL AND COMMUNAL DISTURBANCES IN KADUNA STATE

GODWIN EKIYOR & ANOR VS CHIEF FRUKAMAR BOMOR
July 2, 2025
CITY ENGINEERING NIGERIA LTD VS FEDERAL HOUSING AUTHORITY
July 2, 2025
GODWIN EKIYOR & ANOR VS CHIEF FRUKAMAR BOMOR
July 2, 2025
CITY ENGINEERING NIGERIA LTD VS FEDERAL HOUSING AUTHORITY
July 2, 2025
Show all

MAJOR-GENERAL ZAMANI LEKWOT (RTD) & ORS VS JUDICIAL TRIBUNAL ON CIVIL AND COMMUNAL DISTURBANCES IN KADUNA STATE

Legalpedia Citation: (1997) Legalpedia (SC) 41111

In the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Thu Jul 17, 1997

Suit Number: SC. 230/1992

CORAM


MUHAMMADU LAWAL UWAIS CHIEF JUSTICE OF NIGERIA (Presided)

SALIHU MODIBBO ALFA BELGORE JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

BELLO, CHIEF JUSTICE OF NIGERIA

MICHAEL EKUNDAYO OGUNDARE JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

ANTHONY IKECHUKWU IGUH JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT


PARTIES


1. MAJOR-GENERAL ZAMANI LEKWOT (RTD)2 JURI B. AYOK3. MAJOR ATOMIC KUDE (RTD)4. YUNANA KARAU KIBORI5. MARKUS MAMMAN6.YAHAYA DUNIYA7. JULIUS SARKI ZAMAN DABO APPELLANTS


RESPONDENTS


AREA(S) OF LAW



SUMMARY OF FACTS

The applicant filed in the Supreme Court a Motion Ex-Parte and a Motion on Notice for an order granting a Stay of Proceedings in a suit  which was pending before the 1st Respondent. the Tribunal delivered judgment in the said  suit  in which it convicted the lst and the 3rd-7th Appellants/Applicants of culpable homicides punishable with death.    ?


HELD


On these grounds I have without hesitation come to the conclusion that this application is not properly before us. The circumstances are such that it is only just that the application should be struck-out as incompetent. And it is hereby struck-out. The respondents are awarded costs of one hundred (N 100.00) naira only.   ?


ISSUES


The issue is simply about the jurisdiction of the High Court regarding the ex-parte application made at the High Court by the appellants themselves.  ?


RATIONES DECIDENDI


APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY TO RECEIVE THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL AND CONFIRM, REJECT OR MODIFY IT


Only the Confirming Authority can receive the decision of the Tribunal and confirm, reject or modify it. The Decree No. 55 of 1992 clearly H ousts the jurisdiction of any other court except the Confirming Authority. I wonder, therefore, why the learned counsel should overlook this very vital provision in the Decree and come here. PER BELGORE, JSC


CASES CITED


KIGO (NIGERIA) LTD. v. HOLMAN BROS. (NIGERIA) LTD. (1980) 5- 0 7 SC. 60;OGUNREMI v. DADA (1962) 1 All NLR 663VASWANl v. SAVALAKH (1972) 1 ALL NLR 4R3SHODEINDE & ORS. v. AHMADlYYA MOVEMENT-IN-ISLAM (1980) 1-2 SC. 163?


STATUTES REFERRED TO


NONE


CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT 

Comments are closed.