N40m Suit: Court Admits Car Dealer’s Evidence Against Oil Firm, Others

Justice Chinyere Nwecheonwu of High Court of the Federal Capital Territory sitting in Kuje, on Wednesday, admitted in evidence, documents and letters to the Central Bank of Nigeria, tendered by Tripple C Motors Ltd against Pagmat Oil and Gas Nig. Ltd, Prudential Steps Savings & Loan and a new generation bank. The documents were tendered in evidence through, Dr Adamu Kukuri, the sole witness called by the car dealer in a bid to prove his case against the defendants.  Dr Kukuri, Director Tripple C Motors Ltd who adopted his witness statement on oath as his evidence was led in evidence by his lawyer, Ojonimi Apeh Esq. Some of the documents tendered by Dr Kukuri and admitted by the court were    complaint letters written to CBN, police interim investigation report, etc. Barrister Elvis Utulu, who represented Fidelity bank did not oppose the admissibility of the tendered documents except three letters that were not front loaded. But Apeh explained that though, the letters were not front loaded, “they are pleaded”.  However, Utulu insisted that he has to go through the documents to enable him prepare for his cross examination of the witness. Dr Kukuri urged the court to give judgment in his favour by granting all his prayers.  Meanwhile, the court has adjourned to September 18, for cross examination of the claimant’s witness. Earlier in the proceeding, Apeh had informed Justice Nwecheonwu, that Pagmat Oil and Gas Nig. Ltd; and Prudential Steps Savings & Loan (2nd and 3rd defendants) respectively, have not been appearing in the matter, despite being served with hearing notices. By the suit, Tripple C Motors is claiming against the defendants jointly and severally, the sum of over N40million as compensation for unlawful withholding of its money for a period of 43 months. Consequently, the claimant wants the court to declare that the refusal and failure of the defendants to pay it the sum of ₦86,000,000.00 (Eighty-Six Million Naira Only) for supply of cars it made for, and at the instance of the defendants as at when due resulted in the loss of profits/earnings to the claimant in the sum of at least N4,300,000.00 (Four Million Three Hundred Thousand Naira) only per month for a period of 43 months cumulating loss of at least N34,400,000.00 (Thirty-Four Million, Four Hundred Thousand Naira) only for that period and thereby rendering the defendants liable to the claimant in damages. “An order directing the defendant to pay the claimant the sum of N34,400,000.00 (Thirty-Four Million, Four Hundred Thousand Naira) only as projected returns and/or loss of anticipated profits/earnings. They also want twenty percent interest on the judgment sum per month from the date of judgment until the judgment debt is fully liquidated.   “An order directing the defendants to pay the claimant the sum of ₦6,000,000.00 (Six Million Naira) only as cost of this suit.  “A declaration that the claimant was entitled to payment of the sum of ₦86,000,000.00 (Eighty-Six Million Naira Only) by the defendant within 30 days of the supply of the cars for and at the instance of the defendant being the value of the cars supplied for and at the instance of the defendant by the Plaintiff on 28/12/2018. “A declaration that the refusal and failure of the defendant to pay the Claimant the sum of ₦86,000,000.00 (Eighty-Six Million Naira Only) within 30 banking days from the date of supply of the cars by the claimant for, and at the instance of the defendants is a breach of contract between the claimant and the defendants.  In the alternative, the Plaintiff seeks “A declaration that the refusal and failure of the defendants to pay the Claimant the sum of ₦86,000,000.00 (Eighty-Six Million Naira Only) for supply of cars made by the claimant for, and at the instance of the defendants as at when due renders the defendants liable to payment of compensation to the claimant for wrongly holding onto the money of the claimant in a commercial transaction.  “An order directing the defendant to pay to the plaintiff an amount which is equal to 20% (twenty percent of N86,000,000.00 (Eighty-Six Million Naira Only) per annum from 12/02/2019 when the said sum of N86,000,000.00 (Eighty-Six Million Naira Only) was due but not paid by the defendant until 06/10/2022 when the defendant paid the claimant the principal contract sum of N86,000,000.00 (Eighty-Six Million Naira Only) as compensation for the wrongful withholding of claimant’s money in a commercial transaction for a period of over 43 months without justification. Twenty percent interest on the judgment sum per month from the date of judgment until the judgment debt is fully liquidated.   “An order directing the defendants to pay the claimant the sum of ₦6,000,000.00 (Six Million Naira) only as cost of this suit.  In a statement of claim, the Claimant avers that the vehicles were only delivered based on the fact that the Block Funds/Irrevocable Standing Order, dated 20th December, 2018 was issued by the banks Utako branch Manager and handed to Dr. Adamu Kukuri, the Claimant’s Director. The Claimant averred that upon the expiration of 30 (Thirty) banking days after delivery of the 7 vehicles, no money was paid into her account with Zenith Bank Plc as agreed to and undertaken in the Block Funds/Irrevocable Standing Order. 

Alleged $460,000 Fraud: No evidence of trial, conviction against Tinubu – Tribunal rules

*Says Tinubu ’eminently’ qualified The Presidential Election Petition Court has ruled against allegations of fraud and drug allegations leveled against President Bola Tinubu by the presidential candidate of the Labour Party, Mr Peter Obi. The former governor of Anambra State and his party, claimed Tinubu was made to forfeit the sum of $460,000 to the US over alleged complicity in drug related offences in the early 90s. The Petitioners, were among other things alleged that by virtue of a forfeiture order against Tinubu by a United States District Court, his name ought not to be on the ballot. However, the court in it’s judgment  held that the Petitioners failed to substantiate the above mentioned allegation, consequently, it held that the respondent was eminently qualified to contest the election. Justice Tsunami held that Obi failed to prove that Tinubu was found guilty of any offence involving any act of dishonesty, adding that evidence before the court showed that the forfeiture order against Tinubu was in a civil, an allegation against a bank and not criminal matter. The five-man panel held that Tinubu was neither arraigned nor convicted in the US over any alleged crime to warrant his disqualification. “The Petitioners failed to prove that Tinubu went through any criminal trial, any form of sentences imposed on him. No record of any form of criminal arrest recorded in the USA.  “A general search was conducted and there was no records of any criminal charges against Tinubu. “The result of the search were negative of any criminal charge arrest and conviction.”  The court noted that documents tendered by the respondents confirmed that he was given a clean bill of health after enquiry from Nigeria. Beside, the tribunal held that under Section 269(1&2) such documents must be given under the hand Police official and must be accompanied with a certificate showing that the police officer has powers to sign such documents. Justice Tsunami further held that even if Tinubu were convicted for the alleged offence, for him to be disqualified from the 2023 election, the purported conviction must take place within 10 years to the election. On the Obi’s claim that the  results of the election were not transmitted real time to the INEC’s Results Viewing (IReV) portals,  the court held there is no where in the Electoral Act, that says election must be electronically transmitted for collation. It maintained that Sections 14&18 of the Electoral Act provides for the use of the Bi-modal Verification Accreditation System (BVAS) for the purpose of accreditation of voters, but ” IReV is not a collation system”. Therefore, it dismissed the claim of not compliance with the Electoral Act, 2022. “It should be noted as decided by this court previously, the BVAS is to transmit results to IREV. The IREV is not a collation system/center,” the court held . The court also held that the testimonies of 10 out of 13 witnesses called by Obi and LP were worthless, adding that no witness can give evidence in chief if his statement on oath is not properly before the court . “By combined provisions of section 285 of the Nigeria Constitution as amended and paragraph 14(1) and 14 of the schedule of the Electoral Act, the Petitioner cannot be allowed to file and use witness statement filed outside 21 days”.