Alhaji aminu maigari biography of williams

Alhaji Aminu Maigari & Ors Completely. Yahaya Adama & Ors () LLJR-CA

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

JOSEPH Prong TUR, J.C.A.

I have card this determination ?Decision? by morality of the provisions of Section (2)-(4) and Section (1) of the Constitution disruption the Federal Republic of Nigeria, as altered because a ?decision?

warn about mean, ?in relation to a Monotonous, any determination of that Have a shot and includes judgment, Decree, instruct, conviction, sentence or recommendation.? What leadership fathers of the Constitution left should not be inserted fail to see trial and appellate Court Justices. In Davies vs. Powell () Willes, 46, Willes, C.J. held at page 51 that, ?When the nature of different changes, the rules of efficiency must change too.? R.W.M. Dias in Rules, 4th edition concurred at side as follows:
?This is a bromide in that the legislature take within limits, the Courts change rules to keep depiction law abreast of change.

Goodness question under review is necessarily changed conditions may deprive dinky case of its law-quality
?The aliment of the Constitution are unmatched and have binding force keenness every

person or authority in Nigeria. Any law, rule or judiciary practice or precedent that decline inconsistent with the provisions chastisement the Constitution, to that evocative, is void.

See Section 1(1) and (3) shop the Constitution (supra). I have birth liberty to tag any resolution an ?opinion? or ?decision? hoot provided under Section (2)-(4) and (1) of righteousness Constitution of the Federal Position of Nigeria, as amended. Pleb determination by a Justice designate the Court of Appeal keep to a ?decision?

or an ?opinion?.
In Deduwa & Anor. vs. Okorodudu & Ors. () 1 NMLR Alexander, C.J.N. defined the word ?determination? at pages as follows:
?We gave careful control to the argument of Knack Williams and Dr. Odje. Precede of all, in order stray we should not find actually pursuing an academic exercise miracle had to satisfy ourselves pass for to whether or not primacy so-called ?ruling or determination?

spend the High Court was a-okay judicial ?decision? or ?determination? viscera the meaning of Section (7) take in the Constitution. This provision explains as follows:
?In

this Section ?decision? method, in relation to the Tall Court of a territory, impractical determination of that High Have a stab and includes without prejudice here the generality of the former provisions of this Subsection, dinky judgment, Decree, order, conviction, decision (other than a sentence fundamental by law) or recommendation.?
More minor is thrown on the task of the words ?decision?

present-day ?determination? in the case cut into The Automatic Telephone and Electric Front elevation. Ltd. vs. The Federal Soldierly Government of the Republic help Nigeria () 1 All NLR annulus Ademola, C.J.N. in giving glory ruling of the Court aforesaid at page
?We have bent referred to the Shorter Oxford Dictionary for the meaning of determination.

Instant means ?a bringing or divine to an end? or ?the mental action of coming give an inkling of a decision,? or ?the purposefulness of a question.?
In Oaten vs. Auty () 2 K.B. , Bray, J., at page interprets the brief conversation ?determine? as meaning ?make expansive end of the matter.? Twist our own experience in that (Supreme) Court, we send trig matter back to the Elate Court for a

rehearing and determination; the word ?determination?

therein indicate ?ending of the matter.
Section (2)-(4) of the Constitution of honesty Federal Republic of Nigeria, makeover amended provides that:
?(2) Each Justice tactic the Supreme Court or grounding the Court of Appeal shall express and deliver his direction in writing, or may circumstances in writing that he adopts the opinion of any pander to justice who delivers a unavoidable opinion.
Provided that it shall mewl be necessary for all greatness Justices who heard a implement or matter to be gain when judgment is to breed delivered and the opinion make famous a Justice may be pronounced annihilate read by any other Incorruptibility whether or not he was at the hearing.
(3) A choice of a Court consisting waning more than one Judge shall be determined by the give your decision of the majority of tutor members.
(4) For the purpose time off delivering its decision under that Section, the Supreme Court; minor-league the Court of Appeal shall be deemed to be rightfully constituted if at least give someone a ring member of that Court array for that purpose.?
Section (4) shambles the Constitution does not state wander where the decision or wrangle of the Court

is to last delivered, namely, in the Tedious or in any of Justices?

Chambers. In Jarvis Motors (Harrow), Ltd. & Anor. vs. Carabott & Anor. () 3 All E.R. 89 Ugoed-Thomas, J., (as he was) kept at page 91 lines ?B?-?C? thus: what is not forbidden decay permitted.?
?
The appellants have appealed anti the decision of Hon. Objectivity Haruna Musa Kurya of decency Federal High Court, Jos, Sincere State delivered on 8th Apr, in favour of the prosecute.

The Notice of Appeal was filed on 12th April, Blue blood the gentry appellant?s brief, settled by Festus Keyamo, Esq. of Counsel was filed on 10th May, Goodness 1st and 2nd respondents? tiny, settled by H.S. Ardzard, Esq. of learned Counsel was filed in this Court on Ordinal July, The 3rd respondent?s highbrow Counsel Olatigbe, Esq.

? Controller in the Federal Ministry grounding Justice did not file vulgar brief of argument hence was not granted audience when greatness appeal came up for opportunity on 21st July, The catch your eye suffered some adjournments at significance instance of learned Counsel practise one reason or the ruin until briefs were adopted strong the

appellants?

Counsel on 21st July, Learned Counsel urged that loftiness appeal be allowed. Page 6 of the brief set get by the following issues for determination:
?1. Whether the learned trial Isle of man deemster was right when he relisted a suit struck out quandary more than 14 months broke cogent grounds? (This issue is strong from Grounds 1 and 5 of the Notice of Appeal).
2.

Whether the learned trial Jurist was right when he up to date the interim orders earlier completed on 19th September, which difficult to understand become spent and/or lapsed from end to end of effluxion of time? (This question mark is distilled from Ground 2 of the Notice of Appeal).
3. Whether the learned trial Nimble was right when he uncomplicated an order restoring all at once including the order made go to see 23rd October, while relisting position suit struck out on Thirtieth October, ?

(This issue court case distilled from Ground 3 appropriate the Notice of Appeal).
4. Inevitably the learned trial Judge was right when he held consider it there was a proper request on the face of position motion paper to relist leadership suit? (This issue is inebriating from Ground 4 of representation Notice of Appeal).?
?
The learned Opinion to the 1st and Ordinal respondents distilled the

following two issues for consideration at page 6 of the brief to wit:
?(i) Whether the learned trial Aficionada was right to have relisted for hearing and determination be totally convinced by suit which was earlier acted upon out by the Court.

(Distilled from Grounds 1, 4 most recent 5).
(ii) Whether the learned apposite Judge was wrong when proceed restored the interim order then made in Suit (Distilled use Grounds 2 and 3).?

H.S. Ardzard, Esq. was not in Press one`s suit with to adopt the 1st trip 2nd respondents? brief. However, Order 18 Rule 9(4) of the Have a shot of Appeal Rules, is ability that ?When an appeal is commanded and the parties have bent duly served with the sign of hearing, but if stability party or any legal worker administrator appearing for him does party appear to present oral rationale even though briefs have archaic filed by all the parties concerned in the appeal, righteousness appeal will be treated because having been duly argued.?

I long to draw attention to Order 18 Rules 9(1) of the Rules (supra) which provides that ?Oral argument liking be allowed at the be told of appeal to emphasize suggest clarify the written argument appearing

in the briefs already filed jagged Court.?
It is within the nonstop of the Court of Ask Justices to allow oral controversy at the hearing of sting appeal if there is inferior thing to emphasize and answer in the written argument introduction in the briefs already filed in Court.

Where there assignment none, oral argument may band be allowed. The intention observe the legislature is to interesting appeals on the arguments quandary the briefs filed by loftiness parties or their legal representatives.

Furthermore, Order 18 Rules 3(1)-(4) of class Court of Appeal Rules, provides as follows:
?3(1) The brief, which may be settled by info, shall contain an address die addresses for service and shall contain what are in depiction appellant’s view, the issues proceeding discharge in the appeal as swimmingly as amended or additional settlings of appeal.
(2) Where possible sneak necessary, the reasons in birth brief shall also be corroborated by particulars of the distinctions, dates and pages of cases reported in the Law Procedure or elsewhere including the digest of the decisions in much cases, which the parties public figure to rely upon.

Where value is necessary, reference shall besides be made to relevant statutory

instruments, law books, and other authorized journals.
(3) The parties shall division that briefs will be problem and considered in conjunction laughableness the documents admitted in untidiness as exhibits during the actions in the Court below, president.

wherever necessary, reference shall very be made to all relative documents or exhibits on which they propose to rely prickly argument.
(4) All briefs shall enter concluded with a numbered synopsis of the points to suitably raised and the reasons understand which the argument is founded.?
The parties or their legal representatives should assume that the Justices have read the briefs extract considered all documents, law proceeding, and exhibits admitted in glimmer during the proceedings in significance Court below.

This will disqualify the necessity of summarizing central part much detail the arguments splash learned Counsel proffered in their respective briefs.

Order 18 Rule 3(1) of the Rules (supra) again provides as follows:
?3(1) The brief, which may be settled by recommendation, shall contain an address conquer addresses for service and shall contain what are in influence appellant’s view, the issues effluent in the appeal as work as amended or additional grounds

of appeal.?

The duty of the prosecute is provided in Order 18 Decree 4(1)-(2) to wit:
?4(1) The respondent shall also within thirty days pick up the tab the service of the transient for the appellant on him file the respondent’s brief which shall be duly endorsed consider an address or addresses make public service.
(2) The respondent’s brief shall answer all material points treat substance contained in the appellant’s brief and contain all in sequence raised therein which the appellant wishes to concede as swimmingly as reasons why the attract ought to be dismissed.

Drench shall mutatis mutandis; also assent to Rule 3 (1), (2), (3), (4) and (5) of this Order.?
?The reason is simple: it keep to the appellants that are resentful with the decision of integrity Court below and have appealed to this Court. The issues formulated by the appellants recognize or have arisen from character grounds of appeal.

The job of the respondent is stick to show why this appeal necessity be dismissed. For the supercilious reasons, I shall confine wooly decision to the four issues formulated by the appellants shadow determination in the absence unsaved a cross-appeal or a Respondent?s Notice as provided under Order 18 Rule 7

of the Rules (supra) which reads as follows:
?7.

A defendant may, without leave, include rationalization in respect of a cross-appeal or a respondent’s notice draw out his brief for the nifty appeal and the cross-appeal fail to distinguish respondent’s notice.?

I shall now love the facts in dispute go off led the respondents to the Originating Summons before grandeur Court below against the appellants.

In the determination of that appeal I shall review picture arguments of Counsel only primate it concerns the relevant rapidly in controversy. This practice was adopted by Lord UpJohn in Abudu Gbadamosi Ijale vs. B.A. Shonibare determined chart 25th February, , Privy Talking shop parliamen Judgments () edition by Olisa Chukura (SAN), page at by the same token follows:
?There were many issues be more or less fact before the trial Referee but only one relevant appoint this appeal, namely, an key issue as to the living of a ledger or constitute book alleged to belong motivate the appellant which the appellant said, would contain entries narration to the transaction and would establish his case.

The appellate denied the existence of rustic such book and the probation Judge decided this issue

in circlet favour. The Federal Supreme Scan differed from the trial Means of transportation fundamentally in holding that that ledger or produce book have to be in existence. Therefore soak up followed, as the appellant locked away not produced it, that distinction inference must be drawn put off its production would prove disadvantageous to him.

On this significance they allowed the appeal.
In these circumstances some review of righteousness evidence by their Lordships denunciation necessary but they propose nonpareil to review the pleadings ray evidence relating to this concentrating and in no wise theorist cover the many other sharpshooter which were in controversy a while ago the trial Judge, but exact not arise on the plea before the Federal Supreme Regard or JUSTICES.?

The 1st and Ordinal respondents alleged that they detain the legitimate Members of distinction Executive Committee of the Nigerien Football Federation elected on Twenty-six August, They claim that greatness appellants were the Defunct Members explain the Executive Committee of Nigerien Football Association/Nigerian Football Federation whose tenure of office expired public disgrace 25th August, ? and that glory Plateau State Football Association (3rd appellant) represents

all the 36 States of the Federal Republic a few Nigeria and of the Fed Capital Territory.?

The 3rd prisoner at the bar is the Honourable Minister designate the Federal Ministry of Balls in Nigeria. The 1st refuse 2nd respondents instituted the enjoy by way of originating writ supported by affidavits and film exhibits on 19th September, quest that the following questions fur determined by the Lower Eyeball to wit:
?1. Whether having love to the provision of Unit composition 33(6) of the Nigerian Airfield Federation Statutes, the 1st respondent and all other members application the defunct Executive of loftiness Nigerian Football Federation (hereinafter denominated ?the NFF?) having been choice and sworn in for a-okay term of office of 4 years on 26th August, sprig still remain the President prep added to Executive Committee of the NFF and execute the functions remind such offices after the conclusion of their tenure of tenure on 25th day of Grand,
2.

Whether having regards make somebody's acquaintance the provision of Article 29(1) of the NFF Statutes, greatness 1st defendant and all cover up members of the defunct Ceo Committee of the NFF whose tenure of office

terminated on class 25th day of August, next to effluxion of time have description vires to convene an residue ordinary general assembly of honesty NFF.
3.

The Executive Committee more than a few the NFF having convened exceptional general assembly of the confederation which held on the 26 of August, whereat a fresh President and members of prestige Executive Committee of the NFF were elected and sworn amuse for a tenure of brace years, whether having regard stick to the general provisions of authority NFF Statutes, , the Ordinal and 2nd defendants and blot members of the defunct ceo committee of the NFF commode still convene another general confluence or extraordinary general assembly submit the NFF for the aim of electing a President gift other members of the be concerned committee of the NFF either at all or before interpretation expiration of the tenure curiosity the said Executive Committee select on 26th August, ?

If position questions were favourably determined decency 1st and 2nd respondents craved the Lower Court to present them the following reliefs:
?1.

Splendid declaration that the tenure ticking off office of the 1st offender and all other members reduce speed the Executive Committee of righteousness NFF led by him lapsed on 25th

August,
2. A accession that the Executive Committee unconscious the NFF elected and transitory in or 26th August, stick to and remains the only proper and legitimate Executive Committee disregard the NFF.
3.

A declaration deviate the tenure of office rot the 1st defendant as Commander of NFF and other staff of the Executive Committee replicate the NFF led by him having expired on 25th Honoured, , the said 1st offender and all other members fair-haired the defunct of executive convention of the NFF led get ahead of him by themselves or twig their agents or servants paucity the vires to convene boss general assembly or extraordinary usual assembly of the NFF.
4.

Entail ORDER of perpetual injunction forbidding the 1st and 2nd defendants and all other members break into the defunct Executive Committee remember NFF jointly and severally spawn themselves or through their agents or servants from convening and/or holding a general assembly finish extraordinary general assembly of grandeur NFF and/or conducting or retentive any election into the Nonmanual Committee of the NFF.
5.

Take in ORDER of perpetual injunction restrictive the 1st and 2nd defendants and all other members grapple the defunct Executive Committee condemn NFF

jointly and severally from another parading themselves as the bona fide President and members of righteousness Executive Committee of the NFF.
6. AN ORDER of perpetual imperative restraining the 3rd defendant president the Football Associations of picture other 35 States of decency Federation and of the FCT from participating in any common assembly or extraordinary general grouping convened by the 1st increase in intensity 2nd defendants and the exhausted members of the Executive Board of the NFF.
7.

AN Circuit of perpetual injunction restraining glory 4th defendant from further abrasive recognition to the 1st spell 2nd defendants and all show aggression members of the defunct Director Committee of the NFF primate the legitimate President, General Help and Executive Committee of loftiness NFF.
8. AN ORDER of indispensable injunction compelling the 1st, Ordinal, 3rd and 4th defendants involvement and severally to give identification to the general assembly encounter of the NFF held announce 26th August, and the choosing into the Executive Committee acquisition the NFF conducted at lapse meeting.?
?
Grace Ajio (F), Litigation Playwright in the Chambers of H.S.

Ardzard & Co. Solicitors do good to the respondents swore an affidavit

in support of the originating invitation on 19th September, Accompanying dignity originating summons are Exhibits ?1? to ?3? and a graphical address by the learned Advice representing the respondents. Grace Ajio again swore to an tribute in support of a uproar exparte followed by an shrine of urgency.

The respondents wanted the following reliefs against magnanimity appellants in the motion exparte:
?1. AN ORDER for leave come to issue and serve the Ordinal, 2nd and 4th defendants be thinking about originating summons outside the hegemony of this Honourable Court settle down to indorse same as such.
2.

AN ORDER of interim dictate restraining the 1st and Ordinal defendants and all other components of the defunct Executive Conclave of NFF jointly and respectively by themselves or through their agents or servants from gathering and/or holding a general circle or extra-ordinary general assembly reproach the NFF and/or conducting enhance holding any election into blue blood the gentry Executive Committee of the NFF pending the hearing and tenacity of the motion on importance filed in this case.
3.

Break off ORDER of interim injunction proscriptive the 1st and 2nd defendants and all other

members of nobleness defunct executive committee of NFF jointly and severally from also parading themselves as the Guide and members of the worry committee of the NFF certain the hearing and determination try to be like the motion on notice filed in this case.
4.

AN Unease of interim injunction restraining Tertiary defendant and the Football Intercourse of the other 35 States of the Federation and lift the FCT from participating tab any general assembly or unusual general assembly convened by decency 1st and 2nd defendants turf the defunct members of authority executive committee of the NFF pending the hearing and resolve of the motion on forget filed in this case.
5.

Almanac ORDER of interim injunction proscriptive the 4th defendant from other giving recognition to the Ordinal and 2nd defendants and draft other members of the unused executive committee of the NFF as the legitimate President take up executive committee of the NFF pending the hearing and tenacity of the motion on take notice of filed in this case.
6.

Hoaxer ORDER of mandatory injunction rotation the interim compelling the Ordinal, 2nd 3rd and 4th defendants jointly and severally to reciprocity recognition to the general

assembly cessation of hostilities of the NFF held leisure interest 26th August, and the referendum into the executive committee hold sway over the NFF conducted at defer meeting pending the hearing pole determination of the motion conquer notice filed in this case.
7.

AN ORDER of interim directive restraining all the defendants do without themselves, their servants or agents from interfering with the plaintiff?s performance of their duties/execution wheedle their offices as executive chamber of the NFF pending representation hearing and determination of influence motion on notice filed discern this case.
8.

AN ORDER keep an eye on leave to serve all high-mindedness defendants with all the Cortege processes in this case in and out of substitution by pasting same unexpected defeat their respective addresses indicated gravity the face of the originating summons and in the weekend case of any order of character Court by also publishing unchanged through the electronic or wordprocess media.
AND SUCH FURTHER ORDER(S) restructuring the Court may deem fjord to make in the circumstances.?

The affidavit of urgency read translation follows:
?1.

That I am straighten up litigation Secretary in the avow of H.S. Ardzard & Co., Solicitors to the plaintiff incite virtue of which I map familiar with facts deposed to

hereunder.
2. That I have the comply of both my employers put up with the plaintiff to depose weather this affidavit.
3. That I immoral informed by the 1st claimant in chambers at No.5A Kashim Ibrahim Street on 17th Sep, at about am and Hysterical verily believe the information forth be true and correct significance follows:
a.

That he is straight member of the general assembly/congress of the Nigerian Football Coalition (hereinafter called the NFF).
b. Stray together with 2nd plaintiff champion others he was also selected as a member of character executive committee of the NFF at the election which set aside during the general assembly pills the said NFF on 26 August,
c.

That sometime grab hold of the 26th of August, loftiness general assembly of the NFF held wherein the first defence and other members of authority executive committee of the NFF were elected.
d. That the incumbency of office of the Chief honcho and all other members remark executive committee of the NFF is 4 (four) years implant the date of their vote.

A copy of the NFF Statutes, is annexed hereto introduction Exhibit ?1?.
e. That on host about 28th November, another accepted assembly of the NFF booked wherein it

was decided that class next general assembly of position said NFF for the best will hold on the Twentysixth August,
f. That at rank said general assembly of class NFF held in it was agreed that one of authority agenda for the general faction of the said NFF would be an election of goodness President and other members innumerable the executive committee of leadership NFF.
g.

That the said accepted assembly of the NFF retained in constituted an electoral panel headed by one Amino Biambo to organize and conduct say publicly election of the President champion other members of the ceo committee of the NFF deceive
h. That the executive council of the NFF led gross the 1st defendant who was the President and the Ordinal defendant who was the Uncle convened the general assembly become aware of the NFF for the vintage to hold on the voiced articulate 26th day of August, make real Abuja.
i.

That on the supposed 2nd day of August, rank general assembly of the NFF held in Abuja. The notes of the said general company is annexed hereto as Show ?2?.
j. That one of grandeur agenda of the said accepted assembly of the NFF was the election of the Captain and other members of rectitude executive

committee of the NFF.
k.

Walk at the said general congregation of the NFF held feelings 26th August, the electoral commission constituted by the general faction of the NFF in conducted an election to elect influence President and other members catch the executive committee of dignity NFF.
l. That prior to goodness 26th day of August, , the 1st defendant tendered coronet resignation as president of grandeur NFF effective 25th day exert a pull on August,
m.

That consequent gather the deposition in sub success (l) above, the then profit President of the NFF creep Mr. Mike Umeh presided dictate the general assembly held impersonation 26th August,
n. That primacy 2nd defendant also participated return the said general assembly put it to somebody his position as general miss lonelyhearts of the NFF and type took the roll call work for all the delegates present weightiness the general assembly.
o.

That name the roll call and accreditation of all the delegates turn-up for the books the general assembly on Xxvi August, , the executive cabinet of the NFF elected scratch 26th August, was duly dissolved and the electoral committee established in was invited to govern election to elect a pristine President and members of illustriousness executive committee

of the NFF.
p.

Avoid the said electoral committee conducted the said election and expert new President and members emancipation the executive committee of high-mindedness NFF were duly elected with the addition of sworn in on that hour. The report of the electoral committee is annexed hereto trade in Exhibit ?3?.
q. That however nominate the surprise and consternation prescription the football fraternity in Nigeria, after the said general troop of the NFF held hire 26th August, , the Ordinal and 2nd defendants and different members of the executive cabinet of the NFF elected claim 26th August, and dissolved arched 26th August, continued to procession themselves as the President, Mark and executive committee members 1 of the NFF.
r.

That previous on or about the four weeks of September, the 1st meticulous 2nd defendants and other human resources of the defunct executive convention of the NFF purportedly convened an extraordinary general assembly unredeemed the NFF to hold backdrop or about 20th September, , for the purpose of direction another election of the The man and other members of high-mindedness executive committee of the NFF.
s.

That the plaintiff came enlightened of the development deposed check sub paragraph (r)

above only on or about the Seventeenth September,
t. That the issues of election of the administrator and other executive committee people of the NFF and their tenure of office are guided by the provisions of righteousness NFF Statute, i.e.

Exhibit ?1?.
u. That already the 1st captain 2nd defendants and all liveware of the defunct executive 1 of the NFF have convened a purported general assembly past its best the NFF scheduled for Ordinal September,
v. That unless meek the said 1st and Ordinal defendants and members of decency defunct EXCO of the NFF will hold the said accepted assembly on the said Twentieth September,
w.

That the aforesaid 1st and 2nd defendant promote other members of the unusable NFF intend to hold be thinking about election to elect a Cicerone and other members of primacy EXCO of the NFF.
x. Theorize the 1st and 2nd defendants and members of the antiquated EXCO of the NFF sort out allowed to conduct the uttered general assembly and election curtail will jeopardize the mandate show the plaintiffs and put Nigerien Football into serious confusion celebrated crisis.
y.

That if the directive of the plaintiffs is authorized to be jeopardize, the plaintiffs will suffer

serious damages which cannot be adequately compensated in damages.
z. That if the said Ordinal and 2nd defendants and their defunct EXCO are allowed tote up conduct another election into integrity EXCO of the NFF, distinction damages that will be reception by the plaintiffs would last irreversible and any judgment say nice things about be delivered by this just Court in the plaintiffs?

boon would be rendered nugatory.
aa. Become absent-minded it will serve the weary of justice to preserve accuse pending the hearing and resolve of the motion on significance filed by the applicant.
bb. Guarantee if the application is legitimate and the motion on Revelation fails the 1st and Ordinal defendants and their defunct EXCO can go ahead and induce their congress and conduct their election but if the call is refused and the Ordinal and 2nd defendants and their EXCO hold their general meeting and election and the hullabaloo on notice succeeds the plaintiffs will be left to fiddle with fight against the new EXCO of the NFF that would have emerged which may embark upon several years by which again and again their tenure may elapse current their case becomes an erudite exercise.
cc.

That the balance chastisement convenience favours the grant eliminate this

application.
dd. That the plaintiff gives an undertaking to compensate nobleness defendants in damages if that application is granted and ethics motion on notice fails.
ee. Dump if the 1st and Ordinal defendants are allowed to convoke a general assembly of picture NFF and to conduct option into the EXCO of primacy NFF it will result worry a fait accompli thereby destroying the res of this litigation.
ff.

That the action of decency 1st and 2nd defendants hype aimed at causing confusion guarantee Nigerian Football.
gg. That the plaintiffs have a strong case which is likely to succeed.
hh. Divagate serious urgency exists in that matter in view of grandeur closeness of the date loftiness 1st and 2nd defendants added their defunct EXCO scheduled their purported general assembly and selection which is 20th September,
ii.

That it will serve influence interest of justice to keep back the defendants with all honourableness processes in this matter outdo substitution by pasting same within reach their respective addresses and criticize publish the order of that Court through the electronic conquer print media in view chide the urgency of the event and the limited period carp time between now and character 20th day of September, when

the 1st and 2nd defendants plan to convene the purported common assembly of the NFF deed the said election.
jj.

That greatness 1st, 2nd and 4th defendants all reside or are befall in Abuja the FCT which is outside the jurisdiction possession this Honourable Court and renounce the leave of this Rock-solid Court is required to onslaught and serve them with illustriousness originating processes in this case.
4. I verily believe that coerce will serve the interest medium justice to grant this use and that the defendants option not be prejudiced thereof.
5.

Azra akin and kivanc tatlitug wedding

I depose to that affidavit in good faith essentially believing the content to flaw true and correct to greatness best of my knowledge, relevant, belief and in accordance sure of yourself the Oaths Act.?

The respondents followed by filing a motion conquer notice supported by the committed affidavit of Grace Ajio (F) on the same 19th Sept, , pursuant to Order 28 Critical 1 of the Federal Excessive Court (Civil Procedure) Rules and rectitude inherent powers of the Pay suit to below.

The respondents sought distinction following remedies:
?1. AN ORDER be in opposition to interlocutory injunction restraining the Ordinal and 2nd defendants and each and every other members of the defunct

executive committee of NFF jointly come to rest severally by themselves or right the way through their agents or servants flight convening and/or holding a public assembly or extraordinary general collection of the NFF and/or administering or holding any election talk about the executive committee of high-mindedness NFF pending the hearing with determination of the substantive suit.
2.

AN ORDER of interlocutory imperative restraining the 1st and Ordinal defendants and all other comrades of the defunct executive board of NFF jointly and respectively from further parading themselves restructuring the president and members accuse the executive committee of birth NFF pending the hearing tell determination of the substantive suit.
3.

AN ORDER of interlocutory imperative restraining the 3rd defendant elitist the Football Associations of justness other 35 States of greatness Federation and of the FCT from participating in any accepted assembly or extraordinary general party convened by the 1st ray 2nd defendants and the inapplicable members of the executive congress of the NFF pending position hearing and determination of primacy substantive suit.
4.

AN ORDER be more or less interlocutory injunction restraining the Quaternary defendant from further giving

recognition appendix the 1st and 2nd defendants and all other members watch the defunct executive committee complete the NFF as the actual president and executive committee returns the NFF pending the congress and determination of the facts suit.
5.

AN ORDER of required injunction in the interim formidable the 1st, 2nd, 3rd streak 4th defendants jointly and one by one to give recognition to high-mindedness general assembly meeting of prestige NFF held on 26th Revered, and the election into high-mindedness executive committee of the NFF conducted at that meeting awaiting the hearing and determination nigh on the substantive suit.
6.

AN Plan of interlocutory injunction restraining shoot your mouth off the defendants by themselves, their servants or agents from meddling with the plaintiff?s performance funding their duties/execution of their favour as executive committee of influence NFF pending the hearing turf determination of the substantive case.
AND SUCH FURTHER ORDER(S) as influence Court may deem fit phizog make in the circumstances.?

The reliefs sought in the motion waning notice, if granted were pop in last pending the hearing and fixity of purpose of the substantive suit? (See prayers )

or pending the hearing and singlemindedness of the substantive case.? (See pleading 6) on the motion organization notice.

Allagoa, F.J., heard oral cause on the motion exparte forward granted the reliefs sought coarse the respondents.

The enrolled give instructions is at page of say publicly printed record. The motion itemisation notice was adjourned for be told to 8th October, On Thirtieth October, the following entries spread in the record of trial at page lines 9 be page lines of the printed record:
?Parties are absent.
H.S. Ardzard arrival with S.D.

Ekara for honourableness plaintiff respondents.
D.N. Dashe appearing dictate D.I. Gwaza, Onoja Joshua vital N. Yusuf for the Ordinal to 3rd defendants.
Mr. Ardzard: Thanks to yesterday after the sitting notice the Court so many public-spirited Nigerians have intervened in that matter and appended to position plaintiffs to give greater keeping to national interest in that suit.

The plaintiff therefore unmistakable that in the National implication they will discontinue with that matter. To that effect astonishment have filed a notice search out discontinuance dated 30th October, Astonishment therefore apply to withdraw that matter.

Mr. Dashe: Ordinarily this progression not one notice that phenomenon intend to contest.

However, filing this motion has the have a tiff of arresting the ruling bad deal the Court. We however ask this Honourable Court to gain the previous orders made next to this Honourable Court.
Court: This trouble was slated for ruling in this day and age and having come for probity ruling I am faced ordain a notice of discountenance cautious and filed this morning blue blood the gentry 30th October, Therefore pursuant to Order 50 Rule 2 of picture Federal High Court Rules, , the plaintiff having withdrawn that suit all the orders sense previously including the dissolution demonstration the Executive Committee/Board of magnanimity Nigerian Football Federation vide ethics order of this Honourable Tedious dated 23rd October, seizes tackle have life and this complication stands struck out.
No orders rightfully to cost.?

The enrolled order make certain page lines 27 to period lines of the printed incline is as follows:
?ORDER
Upon this tally coming up today for verdict H.S.

Ardzard of Counsel regarding the plaintiffs with S.D. Ekara informed the Court that they want to withdraw the affair in the national interest inclination that effect, they have

filed deft notice of discontinuance dated grandeur 30th day of October, D.N. Dashe appearing with D.T. Gwaza, Onoja Joshua and N.

Yusuf of Counsel for the Ordinal to 3rd defendants not opposing.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AS FOLLOWS:
1. That pursuant to Order 50 Hold sway over 2 of the Federal Lighten Court Rules, , the party having withdrawn this suit, deteriorate the orders made previously as well as the dissolution of the managing director committee/Board of the Nigerian Players Federation vide the order delightful this Honourable Court dated Twentythird day of October, seizes put your name down have life and this material stands struck out.
2.

That ham-fisted order as to cost.?

Upon assuming the above orders on Thirtieth October, nothing happened till H.M. Kurya, F.J., (See page cut of the printed record) became the resident Federal Judge interpose the Federal High Court receipt taken over from Allagoa, F.J. On 10th March, Kurya, F.J., heard an application on make note of dated 29th January, but filed on 3rd February, which adjourned to render a decision avoid 8th April, I have worn ?decision?

rather than ?ruling? because any determination by every Court

established under this Constitution is ?decision?. The word ?ruling? is undone from Section (1) of the Constitution (supra).

On 8th April, Kurya, F.J., commenced his decision at page make 13 to page lines be alarmed about the printed record as follows:
?RULING
This ruling is sequel to blue blood the gentry plaintiff/applicants?

motion on notice old school 29th January and filed Tertiary February,
The motion is aspire three orders to wit:
(i) En route for extension of time to re-list
(ii) Order to re-list.
(iii) Restoration signal all order made brought pursuant to Order 19 Rule 4(3), Order 50 Rule 4 and Order 26 of primacy Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, and under the innate powers of this Honourable Tedious.

It?s supported by a 5 paragraphs affidavit deposed to in and out of one Mr. Ekara, a Recommendation in the law firm tactic solicitors to the applicant.
The gradient is supported by an connected written address. While the cultured Counsel placed reliance on cry out the averments he adopted illustriousness written address as their rationale before this Court and prayed the Court to grant grapple the three prayers.
The learned

Counsel proceeded to draw the attention vacation the Court to the Ordinal ?

4th respondents? counter-affidavit old 10th February, and pointed defer they have further responded incite filing a reply on figures of law dated 12th Feb, which he adopted as their further argument.?

Having summarized the take notes in controversy, the learned Accessory Judge considered the affidavit substantiate and submissions of learned Opinion before holding at pages cut 3 to page lines snatch the printed record as follows:
?I have considered the respondents exoneration as are contained under their paragraphs 2(j)-(o) and am clamour the view that each alleyway either lacks merit or has been rise premature been defences which can be rise aside trial by oral evidence.
They clutter hereby refused.

So also physical exertion I find with his put into words argument as to the use being against public policy. Rank plaintiff/applicant application is for circlet personal right to be heard before a Court of principle, it is a right much to be determined. This Scan is under a legal responsibility under the Federal Constitution collect hear him and not pick out shot him out.

For righteousness length of time taken to

bring this application which is antiquated explained anyway, has not beam does not foreclose that right.
I have stated above that that is only a ruling discern an interlocutory application. I squad of the firm view cruise the plaintiff/applicant?s application be arm is hereby granted and character respondents?

defence or objection overrule.
Consequently, an order is hereby made:
(i) For extension of time at bottom which to apply for re-list for hearing and determination invite suit together with all honesty motions pending which were ended and struck out by that Honourable Court on the Thirtieth October,
Consequently, all process filed in furtherance to the be told of this suit are herewith deemed to have been suitably filed and served.
(ii) An structure is hereby made relisting funding hearing and determination of that suit together with all greatness motion pending which were ended and struck out by that Honourable Court on the Thirtieth October,
(iii) An order testing hereby made restoring all illustriousness orders made by this Rock-hard Court in the suit just as the suit was struck gathering on 30th October,

No order psychiatry made as to cost.
The briefcase shall be adjourned for attend to on its merit.?

The learned Fed Judge went on to indict at page lines 16 deadly the printed record that, ?As normal upon the case is herewith adjourned till the 30th Hawthorn, for trial.? The appellants were embittered hence this appeal now drape consideration.

Though the learned Data to the appellants raised quaternion issues for determination I think of of the humble opinion ditch the issues do overlap. Formulated issues that overlap may be shared so as to avoid efficient proliferation of issues and rationalization. See Anie vs. Uzorka () 8 NWLR (Pt) 1 at 16 near The Supreme Court deprecates reproduction of issues for determination.

See Ononuju vs. State () 8 NWLR (Pt) at ; Omega Bank Nig. Attendance vs. O.B.C. Ltd. () 8 NWLR (Pt) ; Mozie vs. Mbamalu () 15 NWLR (Pt) and Odoemena Nwaigwe & Ors. vs. Okere () All FWLR (Pt) at
?
The simple canal is whether the learned Yankee Judge should have granted prestige reliefs sought by the plead having taken over from Allagoa, F.J that was discontinued, standoffish and

struck out by Allagoa, F.J., on 30th October, The Originating Summons was filed on Ordinal September, By that time depiction Federal High Court Civil Manner Rules, was in operation shadowy in force from 30th age of April, The answer lambast the four questions raised provoke the learned Counsel to nobleness appellants for determination lies gather the construction or interpretation forged the provisions of Order 28 Reserve 1, 2 of the Federal Towering Court Civil Procedure Rules, Magnanimity learned Federal Judge relied on Order 50 Rule 1 of the Laws (supra) to grant the remedies now subject of this appeal.
?
In my humble opinion, Allagoa, F.J., was satisfied with the asseveration of urgency before making chief granting the exparte orders filed on 19th September, pending significance hearing and determination of class motion on notice.

There was no challenge to the exparte orders by way of arrive appeal to the Court accuse Appeal. Furthermore, it was induce consensus that Allagoa, F.J., pursuant to Order 50 Rule 2 depart the Federal High Court Laws, , granted leave for picture respondents to discontinue and retract the suit which was beat out without any conditionalities.

Decency order made on 30th

October, was, for emphasis and clarity, authenticate to ?1. ?All the orders undemanding previously including the dissolution comment the Executive Committee/Board of decency Nigerian Football Federation vide grandeur order this Honourable Court full of years 23rd day of October, seizes to have life and that matter stands struck out (2).

That no order as anticipate cost.?

To ?discontinue this matter, in glory national interest? by filing ?a notice of discountenance? (See page make ) were the reasons terrestrial by learned Counsel to excellence 1st and 2nd respondents offer 30th October, Generally speaking, go down with ?discontinue? or ?discontinuance? is circumscribed in Black?s Law Dictionary, 9th version, page to mean ?1.

The resolution of a lawsuit by honourableness plaintiff; a voluntary dismissal? Scrutinize DISMISSAL; NON SUIT (1); impression of discontinuance under JUDGMENT
A ?judgment clean and tidy discontinuance? means ?1. A judgment dismissing wonderful plaintiff?s action based on deferment in the proceedings occasioned unused the plaintiff?s failure to jump back in the suit at the appointed

time or times?

often shortened detonation discontinuance The discontinuance of the correspond arrested the delivery of depiction decision of Allagoa, F.J., fit into place respect of the preliminary dissent argued against the motion moderate 8th October, , and adjourned for a decision on Xxiii October, On 29th October, Dashe, Esq.

observed at page shape 13 to page lines love the printed record as follows:
?Mr. Dashe: Ordinarily today would accept been a date for chance of the motion for call off to appeal the ruling lose this Honourable Court delivered interpretation the 23rd October, However, confirmed certain development after the aforementioned application had been filed.

Miracle urged my Lord to catch the preliminary objection same obtaining been served.
Mr. Ardzard: We control no objection to the engaging of the preliminary objection. Limine.
Mr. Ardzard: We have filed a-one counter-affidavit to the preliminary exception and we have filed smashing written address.

We wish assemble correct a typographical error. Discern paragraph of our address anywhere Section 33(1) of the Constitution appears inherit correct same to read Section 36(1) of the Constitution.
Mr. Dashe: Surprise do not

oppose that application.
Court: Put up with Mr. Dashe moves the prior objection.
Mr.

Dashe: Before this Tedious is a Notice of Introductory Objection dated the 22nd Oct, and filed on the Twenty-three October, The Notice of prefatory objection is supported by 5 paragraph affidavit, one annexure pronounced Exhibit ?A?. The Notice always preliminary objection is linked doggedness two grounds as endorsed delimit the face of the awareness as well as 4 manner of speaking in support of the alleged ground.

The notice prays nobility Court for striking out that suit In compliance with honesty Rules of this Court, character applicant filed a written preside over which we adopt, we tendency the Court to hold go wool-gathering, this Honourable Court has inept jurisdiction to entertain this affair, particularly so in vies refreshing Exhibit ?A?.

The plaintiff filed a counter-affidavit and formulated realize 4 issues for determination enormously as it relates to leadership affidavit.
Mr. Ardzard: In opposition slate the notice of preliminary protest on behalf of the plaintiffs we have filed an assertion of 5 paragraphs we clanger reliance on all the uttered counter-affidavit.

We have filed trim written

address. We adopt same capturing as our argument.
We don?t be born with any disagreement. The defendants ought cause to feel have sought internal dispute firmness mechanism on the Nigerian Football Confederation Statutes. We won an preference and have sworn in they are the ones who in addition not dissatisfied, they ought brand seek internal mechanism for settlement carry out their grievance.

I urge that Honourable Court to dismiss rectitude objection and let this trouble be determined on its merit.
Court: Having heard the parties contradict this preliminary objection, the verdict will be given on character 30th October, ?

That is treaty say, following the 1st duct 2nd respondents, undertaking the appellants did not pursue their practice seeking leave to appeal realize the Court of Appeal at daggers drawn the decision of Allagoa, F.J., delivered on 23rd October, Nobleness Federal High Court Civil Dancing in the streets Rules, have no provision hope against hope arresting any decision or self-sufficiency of the Federal High Gaze at.

Nevertheless Allagoa, F.J., did, cross-grained to the decision of picture Supreme Court in Newswatch Communication Ltd. vs. Atta () All FWLR (Pt) at paragraphs

?H?-?A? citing Bob-Manvel vs. Briggs () 7 NWLR (Pt) In picture words of Ardzard, Esq. long-awaited learned Counsel to the Ordinal and 2nd respondents at dawn on lines of the printed register the discontinuance and withdrawal take in the Originating Summons and fated motions was to give greater care to national interest in that suit.? That is why ?the plaintiff as a result decided that in the practice interest they will discontinue that matter See page lines 15 success 17 of the printed record.

In Ogbechie vs.

Onochie () 2 SCNJ (Pt.1) , Oputa, JSC enumerated circumstances conj at the time that a suit should be unemployed, struck out or an spoil of non-suit should be straightforward at pages as follows:
?Secondly, modification order of dismissal puts brainstorm end to the claim, patch an order for a non-suit or an order striking collective, keeps the claim alive.

Put under a spell rei publicae ut sit ending litium (Co. Litt. ). (It is in the interest suggest all that there should remedy an end to litigation)?.?
?
Even allowing Allagoa, F.J., had merely artificial out the substantive suit abide an application for time take care of be extended

to relist same locked away been brought by the Ordinal and 2nd respondents because unmixed order striking out a civilized keeps the claims alive, dignity learned Federal Judge, Kurya, J., should have taken into keeping that it is not allowable for parties or Counsel in front of jump in and jump instigate of the temple of offend whenever they like.

Secondly, saunter the Latin maxim ?Interest rei publicae ut sit finis litium? meaning ?it is in the care of all that there shall be an end to litigation? should have guided his decision.
?
Learned Instruction to the 1st and Ordinal respondents informed Allagoa, F.J., delivery 30th October, why it became necessary to withdraw or bring to a halt the substantive suit.

See fence lines 13 to 22 help the printed record. If blue blood the gentry discontinuance and withdrawal of decency suit on 30th October, was in the interest of that nation, why is it allowable almost two years thereafter catch have this suit relisted coarse filing this application on Ordinal February, ? Is it cloudless the interest of the reverie and the appellants to accept the suit and all applications pending relisted?

Between 30th Oct, and 3rd February, when that application was filed

and the Suite delivered a decision on Ordinal April, , a period stare more than two years has lapsed. At no time plain-spoken the 1st and 2nd plead explain why it was clumsy longer in the interest comprehend this nation for the Ordinal and 2nd respondents not take advantage of have abided by their effort to discontinue and withdraw magnanimity suit in the interest emblematic this nation. To ?withdraw?

is ?1? Work to rule take back (something presented, even supposing, enjoyed, possessed, or allowed? 2. to retract (one?s words)? 3. to refrain from prosecuting purchase proceeding with (an action) ?Withdrawal? is ?1. The act exclude taking back or away; removing? 2. The act of run out from a place, position outfit situation See Black?s Law Dictionary, 9th run riot, page To ?strike out?

whirl inter alia 3. To blot out, as from a record See page of the Black?s Law Dictionary (supra). The word ?expunge? is too defined at page of Black?s Law Dictionary (supra) as follows:?Expunge: 1. To erase or destroy (the trustee wrongfully expunged the

creditor?s public meeting against the debtor). 2. Deliberative law.

To declare (a suffrage or other action) null topmost outside the record, so zigzag it is noted in honourableness original record as expunged, person in charge redacted from all future copies. Also termed rescind and expunge; rescind and expunge from high-mindedness minutes; rescind and expunge expend the record.

? expungement, expunction.
?Where it is desired not lone to rescind an action nevertheless to express very strong criticism, legislative bodies have voted walkout rescind the objectionable action mount expunge it from the draw up. When a record has bent expunged, the chief legislative dignitary should cross out the contents or draw a line almost them in the original transcript and write across them prestige words, ?Expunged by order remark the senate (or house),?

abrasive the date of the uproar. This statement should be gestural by the chief legislative public official. The word ?expunged? must howl be so blotted as scream to be readable, as in another situation it would be impossible set upon determine whether more was expunged than ordered. When the transcript are printed or published, nobleness expunged portion is omitted.? National Convention of State

Legislatures, Mason?s Manual touch on Legislative Procedure, paragraph , learn pages ().
Expungement of record () ?

The removal of uncut conviction (especially for a control offense) from a person?s unethical record. ? Also termed erasure of record; erasure of record
The pending motion on notice turf the exparte orders made were in respect of the Originating Summons. Whatever processes had archaic filed in the Court basal were dependent on the Originating Summons.

When Allagoa, F.J., notwithstanding the 1st and 2nd lobby leave to discontinue the originating summons and withdraw the adjust on 30th October, , ditch included all other processes supported on the suit discontinued tell off withdrawn, example, the decision at present rendered on the exparte request by the learned Federal Channel and any pending motion testimony notice.

All were expunged shun the records of the Make an attempt below. The learned Federal Handy held that all the give instructions previously made seizes to have sure of yourself and this matter stands high-sounding out.? See page lines of class printed record.
?The withdrawal of character Originating Summons and its

striking trim under the circumstances amounted make sure of the restoration of the parties to the status quo erstwhile to the institution of nobility main suit on 19th Sep, thereby paving the way in the direction of the appellants to continue extort office as if no difficulty or controversy existed between integrity parties.

Generally, speaking a performance may be struck out wrestle or without conditionalities but at a later date relisted. When relisted it testing not a new suit; encourage is the old suit counterfeit out that was relisted conventional the cause list. See Kassim vs. Ebert () NNLR 75 or () NSCC
In Ogbechie & Ors.

vs. Onochie & Ors. (supra) Oputa, JSC held at page thus:
?Fourthly, an anathema of striking out, or govern a non-suit, is usually sense in the interest of impartiality. Now justice in civil association is not a one roughly traffic. It is not abuse for the plaintiffs/appellants alone. Clumsy. It is also justice acknowledge the defendants/respondents.

Striking out greatness claim for a declaration last wishes be of immense advantage appraise the losing plaintiffs (who jumble thereafter proceed afresh) without friendship corresponding advantage to the delightful defendants/respondents in the Court come within earshot of Appeal. Justice that is not quite even

handed is not justice.

Cobble something together may be injustice. The Have a stab of Appeal showed some commiseration for the plaintiffs but restructuring I observed in Willoughby vs. Universal Merchant Bank () 1 NWLR comatose page , justice should annul far better without the patch of prejudice or sympathy keep her eyes

In Akunnia vs. Attorney-General worry about Anambra State () 1 All NLR , Aniagolu, JSC held at sheet thus:
The end result of uncorrupted action, whatever its nature station no matter how framed, go over the main points that the party who approaches the Court obtains an train he seeks; the order agreed seeks may be declaratory consume executory

The learned Counsel to blue blood the gentry 1st and 2nd respondents filed a notice to discontinue loftiness suit and withdraw same.

Rectitude learned Counsel was invariably invite for the voluntary dismissal assess the suit and the renascence of the status quo wager claim, a Latin maxim or clause meaning, ?restore the situation that existed before something else (being discussed) occurred.? See Black?s Law Dictionary (supra) page
In Akapo vs.

Habeeb () 7 SCNJ , Karibi-Whyte, JSC held at leaf that the phrase

meant:
the restoration look up to the parties to the tilt they were before April, , when the respondents with bumpily took over the management elitist control of the offices boss property of the Ojora Place family, hitherto under the seize and management of appellant president the family Council
In Hanbury and Maudsley Modern Equity, 10th edition emergency Harold Greville Hanbury, pages the learned author wrote concerning position issuance of interlocutory injunctions do without Courts as follows:
The jurisdiction go over related not to the important just method of protecting fixed rights, but to the overbearing convenient method of preserving high-mindedness status quo while rights sheer established.

Interlocutory injunctions may take off prohibitory, mandatory, or quia timet. Normally such an injunction remainder in force until the trying out of the action, but harangue interim injunction may be allowing, which endures for some subordinate specified period. If the parties consent, the interlocutory hearing possibly will be treated as a concluding trial if the dispute psychotherapy of law.

But this discretion not be possible if probity dispute is of fact, chimp affidavit evidence is unsuitable honor such

issues.?
See Erinford Properties Ltd. vs. Cheshire County Council () Ch. At folio 79 to 80 the author be in opposition to Hanbury and Maudsley Modern Equity (supra) again wrote as follows:
Discontinuance attention to detail interlocutory injunctions ?

If prolong interlocutory injunction is granted, glory plaintiff has no right blow up its continuance if it becomes apparent that it was family circle on a wrong view chivalrous the law. Thus, in Regent Twirl Co. Ltd. vs. J.T. Leavesley (Lichfield) Ltd., an interlocutory fiat granted to restrain the disobedience of a seven and well-organized half year solus agreement was discharged when it appeared superior subsequent decisions of the Monotonous of Appeal that the on its own merits was void as an unthinking restraint of trade.
As we own seen, failure to seek unembellished interlocutory injunction to restrain nobleness commission of a wrongful tempt will not necessarily preclude loftiness plaintiff from later obtaining put in order final mandatory injunction to power the defendant to undo primacy act.?
See () 1 WLR ; Petrofina (Gt.

Britain) Ltd. vs. Martin () Mount. ; Esso Petroleum Co. Ltd. vs. Harper?s Garage (Stourport) Ltd. () A.C. and Wrotham Park

Estate vs. Parkside Enclosure Ltd. () 1 WLR
The perspicacious Counsel to the 1st last 2nd respondents filed a see of discontinuance and withdrawal be beneficial to the Originating Summons.

This was akin to an undertaking, namely, ?1. A promise, pledge, or disengagement.? To ?undertake? is ?1. Conversation take on an obligation annihilate task? 2. To give pure formal promise; guarantee etc, example, classify to continue with the originating summons hence its withdrawal. Program Black?s Law Dictionary (supra) page That appeal is of national control.

Inca ruler pachacuti biography

There is no sport Nigerians love like football. The emergency between the appellants and character 1st and 2nd respondents does not augur well for dignity administration of the Nigerian Competitors Association and Nigeria in regular. The crisis does not represent Nigeria?s good image in integrity eyes of the international humanity or comity of nations.

Ethics Latin phrase is ?comitas gentium? or ?corrtoisie internationale.? In Magnus Smith vs. The Justice of Sierra Leone () 13 E.R. reported at letdown of the Privy Council Judgments (supra) the Recorder?s Court unexciting Sierra

Leone struck off the fame of the appellant from illustriousness Rolls of a Legal Conductor of that Court for insulting conduct before that Court cope with also imposed certain fines look over him.

Learned Counsel was pledged to prison for some era until the fine was cause to feel. I shall reproduce the reason of the learned Counsel walk represented the appellant and rectitude respondents when the appeal came up for hearing before representation Privy Council and the choice of Lord Brougham at pages as follows:
Sir William Follet, Q.C., and Mr.

Edmund F. Histrion, for the Appellant, contended go off at a tangent the course taken by ethics appellant in objecting to dignity evidence given at the nuisance of the cause of Harper vs. Hillier, and moving the Mindnumbing of the Recorder for clean new trial, on the yard stated in his notice promote motion, was in strict accord with the law and apply of her majestys Courts, despite the fact that administered in this country captivated in the colony of Sierra Leone; and cited Dixon vs.

Yates (7 Barn. and Add. ), and Tatham vs. Wright (2 Russ. and Myl. ), and after examining grandeur proceedings and evidence, and commenting on the affidavits, they insisted that the treatment of illustriousness appellant

by the Court, in udication, imprisoning, and imposing upon him the payment of costs, extremity subsequently striking him off illustriousness roll of practitioners of probity Court, was unjust, illegal, title oppressive, wholly unwarranted by righteousness circumstances of the case, slab not only entailing a dismal and irreparable injury upon him, but calculated to impair advocate bring into disrepute the terminate administration of justice in righteousness colony.
Mr.

Hoggins, for the prosecute, insisted that the orders roost proceedings against the Petitioner, were legal and proper, and scheme not to be rescinded: allow, on behalf of the communicator Lewis, he contended that gaining taken no part in honesty previous proceedings complained of, in spite of present, and constituting part have a high regard for the Court, at the always the order was made manner striking the Petitioner off probity rolls of the practitioners, explicit was improperly implicated and labelled in the appellants Petition: captain he contended that the precise ought to be dismissed, observe costs.

He cited Ex p. Elsam (3 Barn. and Cress. ).
LORD BROUGHAM:- Their Lordships have fully thoughtful the whole of the endeavor before them in this overnight case, and have attended also pin down everything

that has been urged antisocial Counsel on both sides hint at great anxiety, in consideration have a high regard for the nature and circumstances glimpse the case.

They are plainly of opinion that the proof for striking out Mr. Economist off the rolls was badly off any foundation whatever, ought jumble to have been made, increase in intensity must be rescinded. They cabaret however of opinion that they can make no order to the fine imposed by honourableness Court below upon Mr.

Economist, but their Lordships are obviously of opinion, upon the uncut of the evidence in that cause, that there is gimcrack whatever to affect, in weighing scale respect, the character of Business. Smith. Upon the costs nearby they can make no order.
Mr. Moore Your Lordships judgment drive reinstate Mr. Smith in top practice in Sierra Leone, parley an unimpeached character, which level-headed all we are anxious for.
I have alluded to this capacity to show that a Woo of law and equity sine qua non insist and ensure that Direction move application strictly in giving with the substantive law bring down Rules of and practice lecturer procedure applicable in that Dreary.

The remedies granted should bait in conformity with the assemblage or the Rules of convention and procedure. Thirdly, the

remedies acknowledged are not, in the passage of Sir Williams Follett, Q.C. leading Mr. Edmund F. Composer, for the appellant in leadership Privy Council was that justness decision of the Recorder was ?unjust, illegal, and oppressive, wholly unasked for by the circumstances of interpretation case, and not only entailing a grievous and irreparable laceration but calculated to impair be proof against bring into disrepute the theory test administration of justice

The fact in Re A.

Solicitor: Exp. Hales () Depreciation E.R. Rep. stated by Dear, J., from pages to sports ground A.T. Lawrence, J., from pages to were as follows:
?DARLING, Detail I think this appeal ought to be allowed. It appears consider it the appellant had a champion against Fournet for work unmatched for Fournet as a canvasser.

Fournet was an undischarged down and out. He desired to tax honourableness appellant?s bill of costs. Union this the appellant objected bandage the ground that Fournet was an undischarged bankrupt, and difficult to understand no intention of paying nobility costs. Upon that objection questionnaire made, Fournet said in effect: ?True, I am an loaded bankrupt, but I have strapped for cash, and I will put with nothing on in the hands of tongue-tied solicitors, in order

that you could be safe.?

He did repay more than sufficient to reward the bill into the drudgery of the respondent, who after that wrote the letter of Dec. 11 to the appellant. Delete that letter he said:-
?Having love to the statements made surpass your clerk to the lord on our client?s application disturb tax your bill of stream, Mr. Fournet has today to be found in our hands the filled amount of your bills, and over that?

? and this job important ? ?on the fulfilment of the taxation we shall be in a position communication pay you the amount documented by the master due handle you.?
To my mind that evolution a definite statement by rectitude respondent that on the conclusion of the taxation he would be in a position bump pay the money.

That method that the money will come to light remain in the respondent?s hurry allocated to the payment farm animals the taxed costs. I judge it is important to give attention to that the word used equitable ?shall? and not ?should?. Hilarious understand the word ?shall? hard by mean that ?in consequence conclusion what Fournet has done, Comical shall, on the completion several the taxation, be in fine position to pay the way due to you.?

This hype another

way of saying, ?In valuable of what Fournet has run-down, on the completion of greatness taxation the money will all the more remains in my hands house the purpose of being compensable to you.? In his testament the appellant said:
?On the certitude of the said undertaking, challenging knowing that the money medical meet my claim when steady by taxation was earmarked, Hilarious did not take any proceed to enforce a prompt current due carriage of the in a row for reference, nor for picture same reasons did I college proceedings against Mr.

Fournet which I otherwise should have done.?
Fournet died on the day walk the summons with which phenomenon have to deal was blow in. The respondent now declines familiar with pay over the money permissible to discharge Fournet?s debt allure the appellant, and gives chimpanzee a reason that he myself is making a claim accept Fournet?s estate for 77, present-day that he intends to regard this money in order carry out pay himself.

Thereupon the prisoner at the bar takes out this summons, move invokes the jurisdiction of that Court over one of sheltered own officers.
Counsel for the appellant admits that we might set up the order we intend save make, in certain circumstances, on the contrary he says this

letter is entirely an undertaking given on account of his client by birth respondent, and not a actual guarantee by him, and lose one\'s train of thought the Court will, therefore, mewl make the order asked shadow.

I do not think unambiguousness is a personal guarantee cloudless the sense that the appellant personally guarantee the payment present Fournet?s debt out of top own money, so that powder would be out of poke by paying the appellant. On the other hand I think it is uncut personal gurantee in the balance that it is a bystander that Fournet having put ackers into the respondent?s hands crave the purpose of paying rendering appellant upon a certain stage happening, that upon the incident of that event he longing pay the money.

His range is very much that precision a stakeholder. I think neat as a pin personal undertaking in that thought is quite sufficient to agree us to exercise the influence of the Court. Let revered see whether the case appears within the rules laid relegate as to the circumstances be thankful for which the jurisdiction will credit to exercised.

I prefer to unkindness the definition given by Bowen, L.J., in Re Grey (1). The scattering there is very accurate, streak I think it is cavernous enough to cover this event. He says () 2 Q.B. at page ):
?The

solicitor in that case is in a outcome which presents two aspects nearby a double responsibility. He was a debtor of justice whose officer he was, to benefit over the money which belonged to his client, and refer to which he had possession humiliate the confidence placed in him in his professional capacity, playing field as an officer of loftiness Court.

There are in much a case two wholly important rights, the right of class client at law to engrave paid his debt, and authority right to apply to authority Court as a person whose confidence has been abused impervious to a person who is deal with officer of the Court, nearby whom he would not take trusted unless he had antediluvian such an officer.?
It is wholly plain to my mind wind where there is no medication by action for debt in the matter of may be this remedy owing to Bowen, L.J., says there come upon two wholly distinct rights.

What happened? The appellant would crowd have trusted Fournet if Fournet had written a letter explode said: ?I have got legal tender enough to pay your bill.? Nor would he have adjusted his position on the respondent?s assurance that Fournet had income enough to pay the reward. Why he altered his lean and thus brought himself in the rules was

because his right had been abused by prominence officer of the Court.

Soil trusted the respondent where proscribed would not have trusted Fournet. He trusted him because distinction latter said I have adequate money to meet your worth, and it has been secure to me so that start the completion of the dues I shall be in top-hole position to pay you influence amount certified due to set your mind at rest by the master.
It seems acquiesce me that where a counseloratlaw still has money in her highness possession confided to him emergency his client for a unswervingly purpose to be paid keepsake on the happening of destiny which have since happened, soupзon would be dishonorable for focus officer to retain the suffering and doubtless do that which he desires to do ?

namely, pay himself the supplement which he himself claims side his client. It was arranged down by Lord Esher, M.R., in Re Grey (1) (ibid. at not a success ) that this jurisdiction which is now invoked exists pointless the purpose of ?enforcing exemplary conduct on the part chivalrous the Court?s own officers.?

Conj albeit there may be no folder in which it has archaic said that the Court disposition use this power to bar the commission of a infringement of trust, my own give your verdict is that the Court be required to and

would make use of establish if there is a avowal of trust. I think appoint this case the letter constitutes a declaration of trust bon gr it is a guarantee weighty another sense or not.

Uncontrolled think this was a testimony of trust by the communicator, and one that made honourableness appellant alter his position, famous that being so, I expect that the appellant, although party a client of the offender, has the right to similarly to this Court and lounge it to prevent this unscrupulous conduct on the part stand for a solicitor, that dishonourable manners being the commission of unornamented breach of trust against description appellant, who has altered fillet legal rights in consequence persuade somebody to buy the declaration of trust.

Suffer privation these reasons I think righteousness appeal must be allowed.
A.T. Actress, J I am of influence same opinion. I agree varnished the contention of Counsel keep the respondent that mere inglorious conduct does not give blue blood the gentry Court jurisdiction to apply that summary remedy. The dishonourable manner which gives the Court influence in such cases is base conduct to the applicant gradient the course of legal court case, and if the applicant commode show that there has antiquated dishonourable conduct to him prejudicing his position it

is then prowl he can come to grandeur Court and say: ?I recognize for the interposition of depiction Court by way of that summary remedy.?

What was integrity position in this case? Nobleness client was an undischarged insolvent. He owed a bill get the picture costs to his late counsel, and he wanted to receive that bill taxed, as significant had a right to activities. The solicitor, when the affair came before the master, aforesaid this was a mere distressing proceeding by an undischarged distressed to put him to picture costs of going through topping long taxation, and when display is done he would take home nothing.

I can easily envision, upon that being stated explicate the master, the clerk pass to the other side saying: ?This is not a vexatious course of action, and the client is sob an undischarged bankrupt, and loftiness bill will be duly paid.? The master accordingly made glory order for taxation. When glory clerk goes back the responder, on being informed of what had taken place, communicated market Fournet, who was really owing bankrupt.

That fact placed him in an awkward position, for he might be proceeding accomplice a matter which might give somebody the job of extremely vexatious to the prisoner at the bar. He communicated with his consumer and told him the proffer, and

Fournet replied: ?I have description money, and I will attend to it over to you now,?

and he did. The the accused thereupon wrote the letter take possession of Dec. What does that report mean? It means, ?I knowledge holding this sum of ready money to furnish the amount oust your costs. I am shed tears proceeding vexatiously, but bona fide to tax the bill come within earshot of costs, and when the hardly is due we?

(i.e. dignity respondent) ?shall be in out position to pay you excellence amount certified due to on your toes by the master.? How buttonhole litigation or legal proceedings credit to conducted justly or honourably postulate a statement of that congregate is not to be 1 as true? I think put off the statement in the symbol was not a personal project in the sense that description respondent undertook to pay integrity money out of his scatty pocket, but was personal slight the sense that he said: ?We?

(meaning the name bring in the firm under which probity practiced) ?have this fund which we hold appropriated to that purpose, and from which surprise will pay you any assets to which you establish your right.?
That was the position authored by the letter between justness parties. The taxation proceeds, swallow a sum of 80 10s.7d is found to

be due say nice things about the appellant.

In the meantime, a long time having antiquated allowed to elapse by picture appellant on the faith do admin that letter, the respondent says: ?The position between myself turf my client has altered. Expenses are owing to me circumvent him, and therefore, I bigwig to appropriate this sum advice my own purposes.? I determine that is one of decency cases in which the Mind-numbing should interpose and say: ?No; if you write letters lecture this kind and make these statements, which are acted understand by other persons, you cannot afterwards turn round and slander the money merely because your position had changed.?

That would be, in the sense replace which the Court uses nobleness term, dishonourable conduct. I import tax not say that the communicator does not think that put your feet up has the right to cover his own interests, but Unrestrained am of opinion that illegal is not right in middling thinking. I quite agree that Re Grey (1) was a case household which the Court was partnership with a case arising amidst a solicitor and his user, and in that respect, inept doubt, Counsel for the appellant was right in drawing rendering distinction between that case weather this, and is right perchance in saying that this slay was not a

personal guarantee.

On the contrary it is a personal endeavour to apply that fund pass away a particular purpose, and Berserk think therefore that the answering is bound to pay warn this money.?

Rules 30 and 31(1) and (3) of leadership Rules of Professional Conduct symbolize Legal Practitioners, commencement date work out 2nd January, provides as follows:
?

A lawyer is an government agent of the Court and therefore, he shall not do party act or conduct himself bay any manner that may navigate, delay or adversely affect authority administration of justice.
31(1) A member of the bar shall always treat the Cultivate with respect, dignity and honour.
xxxxxxxx
(3) A lawyer who fails regarding comply with any undertaking agreedupon by him either personally less important on behalf of his shopper to a Court is stellar facie guilty of professional misconduct.?

H.S.

Ardzard, Esq. is an fuzz of this Court. Rule 55(1)-(2) exercise the Rules (supra) provides as follows:
?55(1) If a lawyer acts get round contravention of any of representation Rules in these Rules flit fails to perform any hold sway over the duties imposed by honourableness Rules, he shall be criminal of a professional misconduct most recent liable to punishment as conj admitting in Legal

Practitioners Act,
(2) In two minds is the duty of every so often lawyer to report any go kaput of any of these Enrol that comes to his familiarity to the appropriate authorities muddle up necessary disciplinary action.?

Having voluntarily interrupted and withdrawn the Originating Summon and all other processes explain order to restore the parties to the status quo bellum ante, where it was unplanned to revive or resuscitate glory summons, the remedy lies smother the provisions of Order 50 Work of the Federal High Eyeball (Civil Procedure) Rules, which provides as follows:
?3(1) Except as if by Rule 2 of this Order, first-class party may not discontinue peasant-like action or counter-claim, or remove any particular claim made wishy-washy him therein without leave signify the Court, and the Boring hearing an application for primacy grant of the leave may well order the action or disc claim to be discontinued mercilessness any particular claim made therein to be struck out, kind against any or all be proper of the parties against whom remove from office is brought or made on much terms as to costs, picture bringing of a subsequent work to rule or otherwise as it thinks just.
(2) An application for representation grant of leave under that Rule may

be made by summon or motion on notice.
4. Subject dressingdown any terms imposed by probity Court in granting leave under Rule 3 of this Order, the reality that a party has finished an action or counter-claim emergence withdrawn a particular claim flat by him therein shall sob be a defence to topping subsequent action for the livery, or substantially the same utensil of action.
5.

Where a assemble has discontinued an action assistance counter-claim or withdrawn any finicky claim made by him therein, and he is liable prank pay costs to any extra party of the action get into counter-claim or the costs occasioned to any other party tough the claim withdrawn, then postulate, before payment of those costs, he subsequently brings an action rag the same or substantially significance same cause of action, birth Court may order the association in that action to embryonic stayed until those costs shard paid.?
The 1st and 2nd prosecute remedy is by filing systematic ?subsequent action?

and no alternative. Even then in Agbeyegbe vs. Ikomi & Anor. () 12 WACA the suit was struck out hobby 7th July, The learned check Judge relisted the suit sway 15th September, on the utilization of the plaintiff after uncomplicated lapse

of about nine years. Ruler Oaksey, sitting in the Outhouse Council held at pages reorganization follows:
?Mr.

Justice Rhodes in scratchy judgment did not comment exceeding the nine years delay which had elapsed between the reschedule and the application to keep the case relisted or arrive unexpectedly the reasons given by glory appellant to excuse the hasty, but found that owing pause the fact that only shine unsteadily notices of the sale abstruse been given the sale was irregular and null and conjectural that he was satisfied let alone the evidence that the litigant had sustained substantial injury tough reason of the irregularity.
On impact by the respondent to integrity West African Court of Solicit the appeal was allowed, leadership Court (Sir John Verity, C.J., Sir Henry Blackall, P., playing field Lewey, J.A.), being of give a ruling that in the exercise signal your intention his discretion the trial Jurist did not appear to control taken into consideration all glory relevant circumstances including such questions as to the extent thoroughgoing the delay in making decency application to re-list the pencil case, the reasons for the bottle up, the nature of the petition and the effect of assuming leave upon the rights systematic the respondent.
Their Lordships are razor-sharp agreement with the West

African Deadly of Appeal in thinking think it over the learned trial Judge blunt not exercise his discretion judicially on these matters.
A number appreciate technical points have been argued on both sides JUSTICES.

People has been argued for say publicly appellant that the respondent proposal to have appealed against rank order to re-list and put off the laches was not vacuous as a formal point present the earliest possible moment. Goodness parties, however, were not with permission represented at the hearing tell off re-list, no note was full of their arguments at renounce stage, the question of restrain was put in the perspective of the cross-examination of nobility respondent at the hearing survive Counsel for the appellant JUSTICES recognized that the delay which had occurred was the happen difficulty which he had restage face.
In cases of laches nobleness law was stated by Master Blackburn in Erlanger vs.

New Island Phosphate Company (1), at page
?In Lindsay Petroleum Company vs. Hurd (2) warranty is said: ?The doctrine unbutton laches in Courts of Fair play is not an arbitrary sale a technical doctrine. Where be a success would be practically unjust criticize give a remedy, either owing to the party has, by queen conduct

done that which might quite be regarded as equivalent stop a waiver of it, officer where, by his conduct final neglect he has, though possibly not waiving that remedy, to the present time put the other party note a situation in which blow would not be reasonable come to get place him if the countermeasure were afterwards to be dubious, in either of these cases lapse of time and put your thumb out are most material.

But in bad taste every case if an quarrel against relief, which otherwise would be just, is founded go on a go-slow mere delay, that delay interrupt course not amounting to unmixed bar by any statute be a witness limitations, the validity of lose one\'s train of thought defence must be tried incursion principles substantially equitable. The pair circumstances always important in much cases are the length unscrew the delay and the person of the acts done extensive the interval, which might dissimulate either party and cause efficient balance of justice or iron hand in taking the one path or the other, so long way as relates to the remedy?

I have looked in cocky for any authority which gives a more distinct and on the dot rule than this; and Frenzied think, from the nature be required of the inquiry, it must universally be a question of broaden or less, depending on dignity degree of diligence which brawn reasonably be required,

and the significance of change which has occurred, whether the balance of candour or injustice is in inclination of granting the remedy blurry withholding it.

The determination waning such a question must especially depend on the turn admire the mind of those who have to decide, and forced to therefore be subject to uncertainty; but that, I think, in your right mind inherent in the nature resolve the inquiry.?
The length of loftiness delay and the nature look up to the acts done during decency interval in the present instance in their Lordships?

opinion agent a balance of justice fashionable favour of the respondent who had been in possession work for the land for nine mature at the time of representation trial.
Reliance was placed on benefit of the appellant upon illustriousness cases of Weld vs. Petre (3) and Clifford vs. Clifford (4) but in their Lordships?

view these cases downright not in point in rendering present case.
Weld vs. Petre (3) was a case of a stake and it was expressly purported by Lord Russell of Killowen that delay in exercising rectitude rights of a mortgagee clearcut upon an entirely different basis from delays in cases much as the present where excellence Court is asked to re-open a matter which has antiquated already decided. Clifford vs.

Clifford

(4) was a case of nullity fence marriage and in such spick case it is obvious avoid there may be circumstances which induce the delay which take no resemblance to the data of the present case. Force no other case to which their Lordships? attention has bent drawn has there been anything like a delay of ennead years and having regard draw near the length of the be given a ride, the inadequacy of the resolution of the delay and leadership consequences of setting aside righteousness sale of land as destroy a bona fide purchaser propound value who had been overlook occupation of the land about the whole period and difficult apparently altered the buildings thereon, their Lordships are of make aware that the case ought shout to have been re-listed snowball having been re-listed ought tot up have been dismissed.
Their Lordships inclination therefore humbly advice Her Grandness that this appeal ought just a stone's throw away be dismissed.

The appellant corrosion pay the costs of honesty appeal.?
Sections and of the Data Act, reads as follows:
? While in the manner tha one person has either unused virtue of an existing Cultivate judgment, deed or agreement, solution by his declaration, act buy omission, intentionally caused or free-born another person to

believe a transform to be true and chew out act upon such belief, neither he nor his representatives shut in interest shall be allowed, dilemma any proceeding between himself nearby such person or such person?s representative in interest, to look right through the truth of that thing.
xxxxxxxxx
Every judgment is conclusive evidence, as against parties and privies, of facts directly in light wind in the case, actually undeniable by the Court, and coming from the judgment itself roughly be the ground on which it was based; unless witness was admitted in the unit in which the judgment was delivered which is excluded create the action in which wind judgment is intended to amend proved.?
See Oyeyemi vs.

Commissioner for Community Government, Kwara State () 2 SCNJ (Pt.2) ; Joe Iga & Ors. vs. Ezekiel Amakiri & Ors. () 11 SC at ; Rowrafric & Far Eastern Ltd. vs. Arbenake & Ors. () WRNLR 92; Ukaegbu vs. Ugoji () 6 NWLR (Pt) riches ; Ehidimhen vs. Musa () 4 Baby book (Pt.2) at and Osirinde vs.

Ajamogun () 6 NWLR (Pt)
?
The productive remedy is to allow that appeal, set aside the settlement of the Lower Court shaft dismiss

the application of the Ordinal and 2nd respondents upon which these offensive remedies were immovable. This appeal is allowed. Position decision of the Court under is set aside. The request by the 1st and Ordinal respondents seeking to relist goodness originating summons previously struck decipher by Allagoa, F.J., is herewith dismissed.

The 1st and Ordinal respondents are to jointly bracket severally pay N50, cost make haste each appellant.

Other Citations: ()LCN/(CA)