Home Blog Page 1156

Breach of Promise of Marriage: A Legal Perspective

“The love that once bound these two people and got frosted. Can be likened to verse xxxv of Shakespeare “Sonnets a sort of Lamentation”. And also verse 1 of “Passionate Pilgrim” Thus we have in this case” so much love.  And then so much pain”. It is the way of the World.”

PATS – ACHOLONU, JSC

INTRODUCTION

Ifeoma (real name withheld), a fair skinned pretty lady who worked as a cook at a busy canteen in a Lagos suburb fell in love with Bobo (real name withheld), a brilliant indigent undergraduate. As their relationship blossomed, Bobo proposed marriage to Ifeoma. However, due to their meagre resources, they decided to hold on in order to enable Bobo to finish his university education and get a job before settling down in marriage. A considerable part of Ifeoma’s meagre monthly salary was invested in Bobo’s education. She had to make do with whatever remained and tips which she sometimes received from customers, which were hardly enough. We all knew her with two sets of cloths that were used interchangeably; a faded Ankara gown and an over worn mismatched skirt and blouse. She sacrificed all and did it with unreserved joy with the hope that one day, her fiancé would graduate from the university, get a good paying job, settle down in marriage with her and all her sufferings would become a thing of the past. Her sonorous voice could be heard miles away from the canteen ringing with the melody “Our Love is here to stay”, a love song by Billie Holiday, most times and this helped her to navigate each day without the thought of the present pain. Bobo finished from the University with a very good grade and immediately after the Youths Service, he got a very lucrative job with an oil servicing company in Lagos. He came to the canteen after securing the good job spotted in his new “Lamborghini Veneno Roadster” sportscar. That same day, he asked Ifeoma’s boss to give free lunch to all customers and it was a happy day. We were all happy for Ifeoma that her sacrifice paid off at last, or so we thought, only to hear few days later that Ifeoma committed suicide leaving behind a suicide note. To say people were shocked was an understatement as no one saw it coming! It was after reading the suicide note that we all got to know that Bobo got married to a lady he served with during his Youths Service and he only came to the canteen that day to say “bye bye” to Ifeoma as he found her too low for his newly acquired status. Ifeoma was buried the same day amidst bitter tears and rain of curses on Bobo and his entire generation.

Akeem was a carpenter, who managed to get his Primary Six Leaving Certificate. He was not so brilliant, as a result of which he learnt the art of carpentry at a very early age and became a successful furniture maker for most people, both home and abroad. He fell in love with Ronke, a fair skinned Yoruba lady in the vicinity who was very brilliant but had to resort to  hawking  bread since she could not afford school fees to further her studies. She already passed her WAEC with flying colours but had totally given up hope of furthering her studies till she met Akeem. Akeem vowed to sponsor her education to the utmost of her ability  with the agreement that both of them would settle down in wedlock immediately after obtaining her university degree. True to his words, he sent Ronke to a university in the UK and was responsible for all expenses including feeding and clothing. In fact, from the pictures seen on social media Ronke lived like a queen while in UK. Not only did Akeem give Ronke full support, he also provided for her impoverished parents back in Nigeria and, based on Yoruba custom, took them as his “ana” already. Little did he know that Ronke in collaboration with her parents had other plans. As a result of Akeem’s full involvement in Ronke’s schooling, he knew that the School’s graduation was fixed for late November of her year of graduation, so he had already fixed their engagement for the first week in December of the same year, believing that Ronke would be back by then. However, he got the shock of his life when Ronke sent a message to him that she would not be coming to Nigeria immediately after her graduation as she was already engaged to a Caucasian  and that she was even in her early stages of pregnancy. Thinking it was a practical joke, he ran to his “ana” only for Ronke’s father to unleash the rude awakening  that he was a fool to have believed that his daughter, with all her education would stoop so low as to marry a stark illiterate like him. Akeem is presently in Police custody standing trial for the murder of Ronke’s father, whose life he snuffed out the day after he received the shocking revelation. He had been consumed by uncontrollable pain and anger and this led him to strangling Ronke’s father to death.

The two stories above are just a few examples of the experiences that some would-be couples go through.  Everyday, people fall in love, fall out of love, get married, do the impossible in the name of love, hearts are broken, tears flow freely, parties propose openly, jilted individuals commit suicide among other occurrences. It is inherent in human nature to desire to love and be loved. Often, such love interests result in marriages. Consequently, it is not far-fetched to suggest that the longing to be in a loving relationship and to not be alone, whether within the framework of a marriage or otherwise, has become a permanent fixture of human existence, especially in Africa.  Studies have shown that many couples feel empty, unaccomplished and unfulfilled until united with each other  in matrimony.  Society itself is not left out of the frenzy  for “lovey-dovey” relationships as it encourages the union of a man and a woman, and singleness is often accorded a negative connotation , especially when approaching a certain age. All these factors probably explain why many people rush into relationships, make  promises of marriage, only for one of the parties to pull out at the eleventh hour for one reason or the other, which may be either be genuine or borne out of selfishness.

A love relationship with marriage in view, comes with lots of investment in terms of emotions, passion, time and resources. It is for these reasons that it becomes extremely painful or impossible to let go when separation is consensual, especially by a party who seemed to have invested more. This paper focuses strictly on the “breach of promise to marry” which shall be considered within the context of Nigeria.

The concept of breach of a promise to marry may be evaluated under the following headings:

  • Marriage as a form of contract
  • Laws governing Marriage in Nigeria
  • Breach of promise to marry
  • Remedies for breach of promise to marry
  • Defenses to breach of promise to marry
  1. MARRIAGE AS FORM OF CONTRACT

marriage is defined as “a legal Union of one man and one woman as husband and wife. Marriage as distinguished from the agreement to marry and from the act of becoming married is the legal status, condition or relation of one man and woman united in law for life, or until divorced, for the discharge to each other and the community of the duties legally incumbent on those whose association is founded on the distinction of sex. A contract, according to the form prescribed by law, by which a man and a woman capable of entering into such contract, mutually engage with each other to live their whole lives (or until divorced) together in a state of union which ought to exist between a husband and wife.”

In Amobi v. Nzegwu[3]the Supreme Court per Ariwoola, JSC defined marriage thus: “Marriage under the Marriage Act generally means the legal union of a couple as spouses.  In other words, it is “the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.”

In the definition above,  a key feature that stands out is that marriage is a contract. Black’s Law Dictionary[4] defines contract, inter alia, as “1. An agreement between two or more parties creating obligations that are enforceable or otherwise recognizable at law…2. The Writing that sets forth such an agreement…3. A promise or set of promises by a party to a transaction, enforceable or otherwise recognizable at law”. It is a voluntary agreement between parties and willingly entered into. However, the freedom enjoyed by parties to contract carries with it the inevitable implication of sanctity of their contracts. Just like any other contract, marriage has its elements.

A careful consideration of the definition of contract stated above will reveal that a contract is a promise. What then is a promise? As defined in Black’s Law Dictionary,[5]  a promise is “the manifestation of an intention to act or refrain from acting in a specified manner conveyed in such a way that another is justified  in understanding that a commitment has been made; a person’s assurance that a person will or will not do something.” The Supreme Court per Onu, JSC in Agoma v. Guiness (Nig) Ltd[6] adopted the definition of promise in Osborn: The Concise Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition (1964) where it was defined as “The expression of an intention to do or forbear from some act.”.

For a better understanding of the discourse, it is necessary to define the word “Breach”. According to the Black’s Law Dictionary,[7] a breach is “a violation or infraction of a law, obligation or agreement …whether by neglect, refusal, resistance or inaction.”  Breach of promise according to Black’s Law Dictionary[8] then is “the violation of one’s word or undertaking, especially a promise to marry. Under English common law, an engagement to marry had the nature of a commercial contract, so if one party broke the engagement without justification, the innocent party was entitled to damages.”

It should be noted that there cannot be a breach of marriage until a contract to marry has been made. In other words, before a party can sue for a breach of promise to marry, discussion between parties must have gone beyond mere speculations, whispering of “sweet nothings” but must have become concrete as an agreement existing between parties. It does not have to be written or spoken; as such, it can be inferred through the conduct of the parties.  In the case of Ezeanah V Atta[9] the Supreme Court per Tobi, JSC held that “while the law may at times require that an agreement to marry should be in writing, the law will be prepared to hold in appropriate cases that the parties intended to marry in the absence of any written agreement. In this respect, the court will take into consideration the institution of marriage as a trade in the relevant society and how persons generally engage themselves in agreement of marriage”. Most times, before either party can allege a breach, the relationship would have passed through certain stages. Generally, with exception of few cases, relationships pass through proposal, courtship, introduction and engagement before marriage. As earlier said, marriage is a contract and at this juncture, we shall look into the features of contract as it relates  to marriage. These features must be present in an agreement before there can be a breach of promise to marry. The following are the contractual features that define a marriage; offer, acceptance, intention to enter into legal relation, consideration, certainty and capacity.

We shall briefly look into each of these features.

  1. OFFER- An offer is like a proposal made by an individual to another person, in this context, from a man to a woman or vice versa. This offer is not made to the whole world but to a particular person. Therefore, an advertisement on Facebook, Twitter or any other social media searching for a spouse is not an offer but a mere invitation to treat. In such a circumstance, the person that accepts such is actually the person making the offer which must be accepted by the other person. In order to constitute an offer, it must be stated in specific terms and must be direct. An offer can be revoked before acceptance should the offeror (man/woman making the proposal) change his or her mind but such revocation must be duly communicated to the other party. The offer should not be conditional or else, it won’t be valid till the fulfillment of that condition. In FGN & Ors. V. Zebra Energy Ltd.[10] it was held per Ayoola, JSC that “Where an offer is subject to condition the formation of the contract is postponed until the happening of the event on which the offer is conditioned. If the condition of the offer is that unless something is done within a stipulated time, the offer is determined, such an offer cannot be valid until after the happening of the event.”
  2. ACCEPTANCE- The other party to whom the offer has been made must accept it. Acceptance need not be immediate but must be within a reasonable time. For instance, if a man makes an offer of marriage to a lady in year 2018 only for the lady to communicate her acceptance in year 2020, such acceptance cannot be seen as valid as it has not been within a reasonable time. Also, the acceptance must be communicated to the offeror. A woman to whom an offer is made and accepts such in her heart without communicating same to the man cannot be seen to have accepted the offer. An acceptance must not be qualified. Where the acceptance is made on certain conditions or on certain new terms different from the terms on which the offer is made, such cannot be seen as acceptance of the offer. If Mr. X proposes to Miss B and the latter accepts only on the ground that Mr. X sends her abroad, such cannot be seen as acceptance. In the case of Bilante Int’L Ltd V. N.D.I.C [11] the Supreme Court per Adekeye, JSC held that “An offer must be unconditionally and unqualifiedly accepted. An offer is impliedly rejected if the offeree instead of accepting the original offer makes a counter offer which varies the terms proposed by the offeror. A counter – offer is a statement by the offeree which has the legal effect of rejecting the offer and of proposing a new offer to the offeror. It puts an end to the previous offer of the initial offeror. The legal effect of a counter – offer is to terminate the original so that it cannot subsequently be accepted by the offeree.” Thus, an offer should be accepted on the very terms it has been made.
  3. INTENTION TO ENTER INTO A LEGAL RELATION- In the case of Sonnar (Nig) Ltd & Anor. V. Partenreed M. S. Nordwind Owners of the Ship M. S. Nordwind & Anor.[12] the Supreme Court per Eso, JSC considered how to determine the intention of parties to enter into a legal relationship and stated that, “Since the decision in the late nineteenth century in the case of Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. (1893) 1 Q.B. 256, the tests applied by the courts in order to determine the intention of parties to a contract have been objective rather than subjective. Would a reasonable man have regarded the offer made to him as one which was intended to create a legal relationship?” In a case of a promise to marry, to establish that parties intended to enter into a legal relationship, in other words that they agreed to marry, it must pass the test of reasonableness. It must be such that a reasonable man would have regarded as a promise of marriage intended to create a legal marital relationship and not mere cohabitation. It must be shown that there was a mutual understanding and meeting of minds between the parties that they agreed to get married.


  4. CAPACITY- In order to constitute a valid contractual agreement to marry, parties must both be capable of getting married. Incapacity of either party will render such agreement void. For instance, an offer or acceptance of marriage by a minor cannot be seen as valid even if ratified in adulthood. Such offer must be made or the acceptance made again when the minor attains maturity or such will not be valid. Again, a party must not suffer from mental incapacity at the time of entering into the agreement. Parties must be of full age (21 years under the Act) and sound mind. In the case of Uwah & Anor. V. Akpabio & Anor.[13], it was held per Muhammad, JSC that “it is trite that persons of full age and sound mind are bound by the agreement lawfully entered into by them…” A mentally imbalanced person cannot make or accept an offer. However, Section 18 of the Marriage Act provides that “If either party to an intended marriage, not being a widower or widow, is under twenty – one years of age, the written consent of the father, or if he be dead or of unsound mind or absent from Nigeria, or of the mother, or if both be dead or of unsound mind or absent from Nigeria, of the guardian of such party before a license can be granted or a certificate issued.”


  5. CERTAINTY AND POSSIBILY- The agreement will stand only if it is certain and possible. Some circumstances like place of domicile, legal documents, etc. can make it uncertain and virtually impossible for parties to marry. Where such situations are so obvious, there cannot be a valid agreement between the two parties. In the case of Alfotrin Ltd V. AG Federation & Anor. [14]it was rightly held that “…if the terms are unsettled, uncertain or vague that they cannot be ascertained with reasonable degree of certainty, there will be no valid contract enforceable at law unless the uncertain part of the contract is unsubstantial and can be separated from the vital parts thereof”.
  6. CONSIDERATION- The apex court defined consideration in the case of BFI Group Corporation V. B.P.E.[15] per Adekeye, JSC. as “some right, interest, profit or benefit accruing to one party or some forbearance, detriment, loss or responsibility given, suffered or undertaken by the other. In law, parties to a contract are free to conclude their bargain on whatever terms are deemed to be appropriate. Once the consideration is of some value in the eyes of the law, the courts have jurisdiction to determine whether it is adequate or inadequate. In principle therefore, no consideration is too small or too much or unfair in the absence of fraud, duress or misrepresentation.” From the cited case, it is very clear that consideration need not be money. Where the offeree suffers or abstains from exercising some of his/ her rights as a result of an offer to marry, such will suffice as consideration. Only that the thing/act given as consideration must be of value.

B.  LAWS GOVERNING MARRIAGES IN NIGERIA

In Nigeria, marriages are governed by legislations including the Marriage Act, the Matrimonial Causes Act, Customary Law, etc. The Marriage Act provides for the celebration of marriages while the Matrimonial Causes Act makes provisions for matrimonial causes.

C. BREACH OF PROMISE TO MARRY

Earlier in this paper, we had stated that marriage between parties is a contract. In the case of a breach, the aggrieved party can sue for damages. It should be borne in mind that either of the parties can bring an action for breach of promise to marry. The right to sue for a breach of promise to marry is not limited to the womenfolk but can also be instituted by a male who is aggrieved.

In order to successfully bring an action for breach of promise to marry, the Plaintiff must be able to prove the following:

  1. That the other Party made a promise of marriage. This kind of promise is different from just hopeful expectations, or casual suggestions.. It must be concrete and there must be a meeting of the minds between the parties. The party making the promise must clearly show his intention (through words, actions or conducts) and the other party the promise is being made to must accept it. The promissee must understand what the promisor is saying and the former must have accepted it. Acceptance need not be instant. It may be later but must be within a reasonable time.
  2. That the other party reneged on the promise. In order to prove a breach of promise to marry, the aggrieved party must be able to show that the other party failed to fulfil his/her promise. Where there is a stipulated time for the fulfillment of the promise to marry, it must be fulfilled within such time, and where no time is stated, it must be fulfilled within a reasonable time. Where the fulfillment of the promise is conditional, then there cannot be a breach until such condition has happened.

These two conditions precedent were clearly stated in the case of Ezeanah V. Atta [16] (where the Supreme Court per Tobi, JSC (as he then was) held that “Two elements are necessary to constitute a breach of agreement or promise of marriage. First, the party jilted must prove to the satisfaction of the court that there was in fact a promise of marriage under the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1990, or under Islamic Law or under Customary Law on the part of the other sex. Second, the party reneging has really and as a matter of fact failed or refused to keep to the agreement of the marriage”.

There are two types of breach of promise to marry. The first one is non – performance while the second one is anticipatory breach. There is non – performance where a date has been fixed for marriage but the other party refuses to honor such or where there is a condition precedent to the marriage taking place and the party who ought to discharge such obligation refuses to. Anticipatory breach on the other hand occurs where a party prior to the date fixed for the wedding cancels it or better still decides to elope with another person leaving the jilted party alone. Such aggrieved party whether a male or female can actually sue for breach of promise to marry. In recent times there have been instances of a groom not showing up on the day of wedding, calling the wedding off after the traditional marriage and other strange occurrences. In such situations, the aggrieved party can institute an action in court and sue for damages.

In some other cases, a lady might forfeit her education or even relocate to another country because of the promise to marry. On the part of a man too, he might invest his resources in the education of a lady, train her by spending a fortune with the understanding and agreement of marriage only for the lady to suddenly realise that  that the man is “too low” for her new found status. All these and more are instances of breach of promise to marry and can be taken up by the aggrieved party and an action instituted against the offending party.

D.  DEFENCES TO BREACH OF PROMISE TO MARRY

In a situation where there is a breach of promise to marry, the party in breach could have some defenses, depending on the circumstances. The Matrimonial Causes Act[17] provides instances where a marriage will be rendered void. In Oghoyone v. Oghoyone,[18] Rhode – Vivour, JCA (as he then was) stated that “A void marriage is a marriage that produces no legal consequences. That is to say it is a marriage that never took place.” In other words, in the eyes of the law, there is no marriage ab initio. The said section provides as follows:

“3.    Void marriages and prohibited degrees of consanguinity  

(1)     Subject to the provisions of this section, a marriage that takes place after the   commencement of this Act is void in any of the following cases but not otherwise, that is   to say, where‐  

(a)     either of the parties is, at the time of the marriage, lawfully married to some  other person;  

(b)     the parties are within the prohibited degrees of consanguinity or, subject to  section 4 of this Act, of affinity;  

 (c)     the marriage is not a valid marriage under the law of the place where the marriage takes place, by reason of a failure to comply with the requirements of the   law of that place with respect to the form of solemnization of marriages;  

(d)      the consent of either of the parties is not a real consent because ‐  

(i)      it was obtained by duress or fraud; or  

(ii)     that party is mistaken as to identity of the other party, or as to the nature of the ceremony performed;  

(iii)    that party is mentally incapable of understanding the nature of the marriage contract;  

(e)      either of the parties is not of marriageable age.

From the provisions of section 3(1)(a) – (e) of the Matrimonial Causes Act reproduced above, it is clear that under those circumstances, even where there is a marriage and not just a promise to marry, such will be rendered void. Also, the grounds for dissolution of marriage are set out in sections 15 and 16 of the Matrimonial Causes Act. It is most respectfully submitted that the grounds stated in the two sections will also avail a Defendant as defences in an action for breach of promise of marriage.  Therefore, where there is a promise of marriage only to discover any of the circumstances listed sections 3, 15 and 16) of the Matrimonial Causes Act, the other party who was not aware of such at the time of agreement or promise could, actually, justifiably, renege on the promise of marriage. He/she cannot be liable for breach of promise to marry even if it was shown that he/she entered into such agreement with prior knowledge of the offending situation. Few other defenses are listed as follows:

  1. DECEIT/MISREPRESENTATION

When a party sets out with the aim of deceiving the other party into a promise to marry, and the other party reneges on this ground, the latter cannot be sued for breach of promise to marry. Nowadays, we have instances of people undergoing surgery that radically changes their appearance, use of excessive make-up to cover a badly scarred face, and lots more. In instances like these, where a promise is based on deceit as a result of which the aggrieved party goes back on his/her promise after discovery, the promisee cannot sue for breach. Again, it is common nowadays to see transgenders who have had to undergo surgeries to change from their original sexes. If the innocent party discovers for instance that the person he/she promised to marry was originally of a different sex, he/she would be justified to renege on his/her promise.

II. INFIDELITY

Where a party, whether a man or a woman, discovers (with proof, not mere speculations) that the other person is not faithful but is busy messing/sleeping around, such party can opt out of the agreement to marry.

III.  ILLNESSES AND DISEASES

Where a party is suffering from diseases that makes it impossible to marry e.g., mental disorder, it can be a defense to breach of promise to marry.

E.  REMEDY FOR BREACH OF PROMISE TO MARRY

In the case of Uso v Iketubosin,[19] the defendant promised to marry the plaintiff in 1947. In 1957, the defendant married another woman in breach of his promise to the plaintiff. The Court held that the defendant’s act constituted a breach for which the plaintiff was entitled to damages. Suffice it to reiterate  that where there is a wrong, there must be a remedy – ubi jus ibi remedium. This principle of law has been applied by our courts in deserving cases. In Bello V. AG, Oyo State [20], Karibi- Whyte, JSC (as he then was) stated as follows:

“…  I think it is erroneous to assume that the maxim ubi jus ibi remedium is only an English Common law principle. It is a principle of justice of universal validity couched in Latin and available to all legal systems involved in the impartial administration of justice. It enjoins the courts to provide a remedy whenever the Plaintiff has established a right. The court obviously cannot do otherwise. …. the court will give a remedy where the facts as disclosed fall within a remedy recognized by law. I think this is a correct principle deducible from Falobi V. Falobl (Supra).”

A wrong in form of breach of promise to marry is not just a moral wrong but also a legal wrong as it is identified under our Laws and provisions as such. Most times, awards for damages are in form of money and properties.  It is very important that an award of damages in this kind of action is at the discretion of the Honorable Court which must be judiciously and judicially exercised upon proof of both promise to marry and breach of same. The Evidence Act, 2011[21] provides that “No Plaintiff in any action for breach of promise of marriage shall be entitled to succeed unless his or her testimony is corroborated by some other material evidence in support of such promise; and the fact that the defendant did not answer letters affirming that he had promised to marry the Plaintiff is not such corroboration.” It therefore follows that in order to prove to be entitled to damages for breach of promise to marry, the testimony of the aggrieved party must be corroborated. According to Black’s Law Dictionary,[22] “Corroboration is a confirmation or support by additional evidence or authority” In Iko v. State,[23] Kalgo, JSC (as he then was) adopted the statement of Lord Morris in D.P.P. v. Hester[24] that “The purpose of corroboration is not to give validity or credence to evidence which is deficient or suspect or incredible but only to confirm and support that which as evidence is sufficient and satisfactory and credible: and corroborative evidence will only fill its role if it itself is completely credible evidence.” It is clear from the provisions of section 197 of the Evidence Act[25] that the form of corroboration required is material evidence such as letters or other documentary evidence.

However, as already stated, there must be proof of promise to marry otherwise it will be seen as a mere love affair without more. In the case of Ezeanah V. Atta[26] the Appellant and the Respondent were lovers. In the course of their relationship, the Respondent lavished gifts as the dominant partner on the Appellant, including sponsorship for further studies in England. What brought the parties to Court was the ownership of Plot 999 Cadastral Zone B6, Mabuchi District, Abuja, which was acquired during their relationship. The Appellant claimed before the Abuja High Court for the ownership of the property by seeking for declaratory, mandatory injunctive  and damages as reliefs. The Appellant claimed that she applied for and completed the application form for the land in her own handwriting and signed it, and that she paid an application fee of ℕ300 and an additional sum of ℕ6,700.00 demanded by the Federal Capital Territory. The certificate of occupancy was issued in the name of the Appellant but the Respondent took possession thereof and refused to give her the Certificate of Occupancy and instead started developing the land. On his part, the Respondent claimed that there was a breach of promise to marry on the part of the Appellant upon which basis he could no longer oblige her the property, the subject matter of the litigation, the consideration having failed. The Trial Court gave judgment in favor of the Appellant but the Court of Appeal overturned the judgment when the Defendant Appealed. On further Appeal, the Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the Court of Appeal and restored the judgment of the Trial Court. In the words of Tobi, JSC “Premarital gifts in order to qualify as gifts in furtherance of an agreement to marry, must be clearly and unequivocally traceable to an agreement on the part of the parties to marry. Where gifts part from any of the parties to the other on love and not on the business of agreement to marry, with all the ingredients of offer, acceptance, consideration, intention to create legal relation and capacity to contract the agreement, the court must not come to the conclusion that parties agreed to get married hence the gifts. That is not the talking of the law.”[27] (emphasis supplied). In his concurring judgment Pats – Acholonu, JSC stated as follows:

“In fact, this is a case that the respondent should have spared himself the agony of going through the court processes. For him, when the going was good he lavished love (I imagined it was reciprocated), money and eventually landed property on the appellant. When the tide turned, he fell back on non-existent agreement to marry and urged the Court to go the extra mile of pronouncing the existence of a resulting trust. I refuse to lend hand to assuage the feelings of a lover whose romance went awry. The love that once bound these two people and now got frosted can be likened to verse xxxv of Shakespeare “Sonnets” a sort of lamentation, and also verse 1 of “Passionate Pilgrim”. Thus we have in this case so much love and then so much pain. It is the way of the world”.[28](emphasis supplied)

Again, it should be noted that in a case of breach of promise to marry, the court cannot order specific performance. The court only makes an order of performance where it is possible. In the case of Help (Nig) Ltd V. Silver Anchor (Nig) Ltd[29] Tobi, JSC held that “This Court can only decree specific performance for a purpose which can be achieved or enforced. It cannot decree specific performance in vain. In other words, this Court cannot decree specific Performance which cannot be achieved or enforced.”



CONCLUSION

Marriage is not only a family, traditional, cultural, moral or religious issue. It is also a legal issue and should never be taken lightly as a breach of promise of marriage is actionable in law. When there is a breach of promise of marriage, an aggrieved party, whether male or female, may institute an action for damages. Such an aggrieved party does not have to suffer in silence, and should never resort to self – help, a remedy which has been condemned in a plethora of decided cases. In Agbai & Ors. v. Okogbue,[30] Nwokedi, JSC stated that self – help “is a primitive remedy capable of causing a breach of the peace … the magnitude of which no one may conjecture …” Where there is a clear breach of promise of marriage, aggrieved persons should therefore avail themselves of the machinery of the law to seek redress. If in the near future, we read less stories of the sort that were told at the outset of this discourse, and a number of persons approach the courts seeking redress for breach of promise of marriage, the purpose of this article would have been well served.

This article was authored by Theophilus Ochonogor and Charity Ayo Olaifa of Alliance Law Firm.

REFERENCES:

[1]              Tenth Edition at page 1117                                                

[2]              Sixth Edition Centennial Edition ( 1981- 1991) at page 972

[3]              (2013) LPELR 21863 (SC) at page 61.

[4]              Supra, note 1 att page 389- 390

[5]              Tenth Edition at page 1406

[6]              (1995) LPELR – 251 (SC) at 29, paras E – F

[7]              Tenth Edition at page 225

[8]              Tenth Edition at page 226

[9]              (2004) LPELR- 1198 (SC) at pages 20 – 21, paras E – C.

[10]             (2002) LPELR-3172 (SC) at pages 42 – 43’ paras F – B

[11]             2011) LPELR – 781(SC) at page 28, paras C – F

[12]             (1987) LPELR – 3494 (SC) at page 26, paras A – C.

[13]             (2014) LPELR-22311(SC) at pages 25 – 26 Par E – B

[14]             (1996) LPELR-414(SC) at pages 29 – 30, Paras B – A,

[15]             (2012) LPELR-9339 (SC) PP. 39-40, Paras E-C)

[16]             (2004) LPELR – 1198 (SC) at pages 19 – 20 Paras F – B

[17]             Section 3(1)(a) – (e)

[18]             (2010) LPELR – 4689 (CA) at page 11D – F.

[19]             [1975] WRNLR 187  

[20]          (1986) 5 NWLR (Pt. 45) 828 at 870 – 871

[21]              Section 197

[22]             Tenth Edition at page 421                                                                             

[23]             (2001) LPELR 1480 (SC) at 13E – F.

[24]             (1973) AC 296 at 315

[25]

[26]             (2004) LPELR – 1198 (SC).

[27]             (2004) LPELR – 1198 (SC) at pages 36A – E

[28]              (2004) LPELR – 1198 (SC) at pages 73B – F.

[29]              (2006) LPELR – 1361(SC) P.21, PARAS. B-C.

[30]              (1991) LPELR – 225 (SC) at page 30C – D.

Court Orders Immediate Reinstatement Of Open University Lecturer Felix Olakulehin

His Lordship, Hon. Justice Sanusi Kado of the Abuja Judicial division of the National Industrial Court has nullified the purported termination of the Mr. Felix Olakulehin from the National Open University of Nigeria, ordered immediate reinstatement to his position as a Research Fellow 1/ Lecturer 1 in the Regional Training and Research Institute for Open and Distance Learning (RETRIDAL), with payment of salaries from June 2015 till date within 30 days.

The court held that the entire procedure adopted by the institution and the governing council in terminating Felix’s appointment is a kangaroo procedure that is alien to the law establishing the University and a clear violation of the principle of natural justice, awarded the sum of Five Hundred Thousand Naira against the school for the cost of action.

From facts, the claimant’s- Mr. Felix Olakulehin had submitted that he got approval to study for a doctoral programme abroad in 2010 – 2013, that after the various request and approval of study leave extension, the University on 9th December 2015 stopped payments of his salary and entitlement.

He submitted further that in 2015 he was served a letter recalling him to report to duty on or before 29/1/2016 and was later summoned to appear before a staff disciplinary committee on 20/6/2016, which he appeared in August 2016 where he was only asked questions but disallowed from presenting any evidence in defence of the allegation of abscondment which was all available at the time of the meeting. That aftermath of the meeting, he was placed on suspension without pay that On 12/1/2018 a letter dated 29/8/2017 was delivered to him to the effect that his appointment had been terminated.

In defence, the University submitted that the felix’s salary was stopped due his refusal to resume work as advised that he had to be recalled due to his failure to conclude his three years PhD programme and resume duty despite several extensions granted to him to enable him conclude and resume duty.

Further maintained that the termination of the claimant’s employment was done in accordance with the rules and regulations governing Felix’s conditions of service that the claimant did not only absconded from duty, but he also came back without the PhD Certificate despite the huge sum of money spent on him urged the court to hold that that the termination of the appointment on the ground of abscondment of duty was rightfully done and to dismiss the case in its entirety.

In opposition, the claimant counsel A. Olujinmi, Esq maintained that the committee’s decision and approval of the Management was a violent breach of the right of the claimant to a fair hearing and a nullity in law urged the court to hold so.

Delivering the Judgement, the presiding Judge, Hon. Justice Sanusi Kado held that the governing council ratification of recommendation for termination of appointment of the claimant without notifying him of the reasons for and giving him opportunity to appear before the governing council to defend himself is a clear violation of the principle of natural justice.

“I must shudder at this juncture to observe that the entire procedure adopted by the defendants in terminating claimant’s appointment is a kangaroo procedure that is alien to the law establishing the University and making procedure to be followed in taking disciplinary action against the claimant.

“It is to be noted that this court does not have the vires to consider whether the claimant absconded from duty or not what this court is to determine is to see that laid down procedure by the law is complied with or not.”

Jeff Bezos Just Became The Latest Big Tech Name To Invest In An African Fintech Startup

Jeff Bezos agreed to back Africa-focused financial technology company, Chipper Cash, making it his first start-up investment on the continent.

The world’s richest man’s personal venture capital fund, Bezos Expeditions, supported the Series B funding led by Ribbit Capital, which raised $30 million for the San Fransisco-based company.

“Jeff Bezo’s backing of Chipper Cash will widen the company’s product suite through inclusion of more business payment solutions, crypto-currency trading options, and investment services,” the company said in an emailed statement.

Chipper Cash enables instant cross-border mobile money transfers in Africa and abroad and will use the funds for expansion into countries it will announce in 2021. The company has 3 million users on its platform across Ghana, Uganda, Kenya, Tanzania, Rwanda, Nigeria and South Africa, and processes an average of 80,000 transactions daily, according to the statement.

“We are responding to the demand from customers on our P2P platform who also have business enterprises,” Chipper Cash Chief Executive Officer Ham Serunjogi said in the statement.

Thenigerialawyer

College honours Bisi Fayemi in recognition of contribution to girl child education

By Rotimi Ojomoyela, Ado-Ekiti Osun State College of Education, Ilesha has conferred on the Wife Ekiti State Governor, Erelu Bisi Fayemi, honourary fellowship of the institution

This, according to the institution was in recognition of Mrs Fayemi’s works in empowering Women and fighting for the Girl Child

The Institution’s authorities conferred the honour on Erelu Fayemi at the 42nd Founder’s Day Anniversary and 27th Convocation ceremony of the college, in Ilesha on Friday. Over 5,000 graduands were also conferred with Nigeria’s Certificate in Education (NCE ) at the ocassion witnessed by Osun State Governor, Alhaji Gboyega Oyetola, his wife, Alhaja Kafayat Oyetola and Ekiti State Governor, Dr Kayode Fayemi.

The Ekiti First Lady in her acceptance speech, thanked the college’s authorities for the recognition and pledged to do more for humanity.

She described the honorary fellowship as a call to serve.

“On behalf of all the awardees, I will like to thank the Governor and the people of Osun for this great priviledge because every recognition or award is a call to serve. It is a call to everyone of us to do more.

“We realise that one of the greatest challenge we face as a nation today is sustaining an enviable education sector. After listening to the needs of the institution, we assure you that we will leverage on our platforms, our network and competency to support this great institution.

” We all need to challenge ourselves as leaders and we need to do more for our nation and our people. This is because to whom much is given, much is expected.

Mrs Fayemi urged well meaning Nigerians to always invest in the country so as to ensure there is lot of opportunities for young people.”

” We must provide an inclusive society where boys are not more important than girls and where men are not more important than women, she noted.

” We would like to live in a society where we all enjoyed dignity and respect. We should continue to do all we can to change the current narrative, from all forms of hopelessness to hope, from doom to a brighter and more promising future. This is a change that all of us here will not take lightly.

Governor Fayemi in his goodwill message, also identified education as bedrock of meaningful development and urged the management of the institution to continue to strive hard in the quest of producing graduates of international standard.

While speaking at the event, Visitor to the school and Osun Governor of State of Osun, Gboyega Oyetola commended the management of the college for being professional in discharging their duties. He promised that the State government would continue to provide needed support for the overall development of the institution.

Vanguard  

Our leaders must hear this.

As recession bites harder, Nigerian continue doing what they know best. Encouraging one another.

Gombe Chief Judge Saga: Group Tasks NJC On Female Judges’ Protection

A civil group, the Centre for Public Accountability (CPA), has called on the National Judicial Council (NJC) to rise up to the defence of female judges from perceived discrimination by some state governments, particularly in the appointment of a Chief Judge.

CPA in a petition to the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN) and Chairman of the NJC, Justice Ibrahim Muhammad, specifically lamented what it described as unconstitutional process in the selection of a substantive Chief Judge for Gombe State.

Executive Director of the group, Mr. Olufemi Lawson, in the said petition, drew the attention of the NJC to the “unconstitutional decision of the Gombe State Government to prevent Justice Beatrice Illiya from assuming the position of the state Chief Judge, in a manner which clearly violates the known conventions and our laws.”

The group alleged that the continued refusal of the Gombe State Government to make Justice Illiya the substantive Chief Judge is premised on her religion, gender and her Tangale-Waja ethnic background.

“The action of the Governor of Gombe State, Alhaji Inuwa Yahaya, is just one of his numerous attempts at desperately seeking to control the judiciary. This desperation has been taken further with the appointment of Justice Mua’zu Pindiga as a replacement, in clear violation of Section 271 subsection 4 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended).

“For the purpose of clarity, Justice Pindiga is by far a junior officer to Justice Beatrice Illiya, and we sincerely believe his nomination deserves being thrown out by your noble council. We firmly believe as Nigerians, that the judiciary, being the last hope of the common man, should not be manipulated by politicians, as the case of Gombe State judiciary is an attempt to impose a burden of credibility on the NJC.

“It is worrisome that Justice Pindiga’s appointment as acting Chief Judge of the state has been renewed for the fourth time, despite his visible lackluster performance as a judicial officer, coupled with the several corruption allegations surrounding his office.

“It is also sad that the Gombe State Government has continued to delay the August 11, 2020, directive of your noble council directing the state Judicial Service Commission to re-submit names of nominees for appointment as substantive Chief Judge of Gombe State, by doing the right thing to include the name of the most senior judge of the state High Court of Justice.

“While we strongly believe in the commitment of the NJC towards protecting the sanctity of the judiciary and by extension, our democracy, we are disturbed by the worrying tendency of some state governments to truncate the seniority hierarchy in the appointment of Chief Judges.

“The recent cases of Kebbi State involving Justice Elizabeth Karatu and that of the Cross River State, where the governor arbitrarily prevented the appointment of Justice Akon Ikpeme, before the intervention of your great council, are just a few that we wish to remind you of.

“We believe that the NJC will in the present situation stand firm to be seen as being fair to all, and reject the impression that it is leaving our women judges to be vulnerable to political manipulations and machinations of these state executives” the petition read in part.

Why Akeredolu Sacked His Attorney General And Justice Commissioner

Details have emerged on why Ondo State Attorney-General and Commissioner for Justice, Kolawole Olawoye, was on Monday morning sacked by Governor Oluwarotimi Akeredolu.

Olawoye was replaced with Sir Charles Titiloye, a human rights lawyer.

Chief Press Secretary to Governor Akeredolu, Segun Ajiboye, in a press statement said Titiloye was a former Secretary of the Nigerian Bar of Association (NBA), Akure Branch.

Ajiboye said Titiloye’s name would be forwarded to the State House of Assembly for confirmation.

It was gathered that Kolawole fell out of favour with the administration of Akeredolu over many factors especially the handling of the issues that led to the protest by lawyers employed by the state government.

The lawyers embarked on work to rule strike over lack of operational vehicles, poor welfare package and infrastructural deficit in the judicial sector.

A top government official said Governor Akeredolu was embarrassed that lawyers could embark on public protest without his being aware of the issues.

The official stated that there was no time Olawoye brought the issues that led to the protest to the knowledge of the Governor.

He was also seen as the arrow head of the rumour about the issue of alleged fake certificate scandal of the Deputy Governor elected; Lucky Aiyedatiwa

It was also learnt that the sacked Attorney General has been having a cold war with the governor since 2018.

According to the source, “I think the Governor has even tolerated him for too long; no governor could have absorbed what the man was doing to Akeredolu simply because they are from dame town, Owo and close friends.

“The whole thing started just about two years into the administration when Olawoye complained about favouritism for some persons from Owo against him, and these are young guys with energy who have been very influential.

“But what was his contribution. He had blackmailed the Governor anywhere he found himself and the worst came about a week ago when he took certain unilateral decisions without the knowledge of the Governor and that caused some embarrassments to the Governor.

“The most important of all is his inability to build consensus among top lawyers in the state. The ministry has been reduced to nothing and we lawyers have so much respect for the Ministry and we think it the right decision to take.

“The most painful thing that happened was last year when the man without the knowledge of the governor, connived with someone from the South senatorial district to sabotage the appointment of the current deputy Governor elect, Lucky Aiyedatiwa from becoming the MD of NDDC. Even when that failed, Aiyedatiwa could not be considered for the position of State rep until the president stopped that process.”

Thenigerialawyer

Any List for Gombe Chief Judge excluding Justice Beatrice Illiya’s name is in contravention of NJC Strict directive – NBA President Reacts

The President of the Nigerian Bar Association, Olumide Akpata has declared that any List of Judges for Gombe Chief Judge excluding the most Senior Judge from the State, Justice Beatrice Iliya’s name is in contravention of NJC’s Strict directive.

https://googleads.g.doubleclick.net/pagead/ads?guci=2.2.0.0.2.2.0.0&client=ca-pub-3051400091379015&output=html&h=90&twa=1&slotname=7795807810&adk=2743881911&adf=1301690249&pi=t.ma~as.7795807810&w=720&fwrn=4&fwrnh=100&lmt=1606153660&psa=1&format=720×90&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.barristerng.com%2Fany-list-for-gombe-chief-judge-excluding-justice-beatrice-illiyas-name-is-in-contravention-of-njc-strict-directive-nba-president-reacts%2F&flash=0&fwr=0&rh=90&rw=720&wgl=1&adsid=ChAIgNjt_QUQhN3hnunE-LQKEj0A5Zgp82oTH8RFnTklUpJXJMVXWZpW4V02wgC9XI4fsIOS60Bng1f-fKKTWJ13BGQwHQCbZr3qbCX3fnlS&tt_state=W3siaXNzdWVyT3JpZ2luIjoiaHR0cHM6Ly9hZHNlcnZpY2UuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbSIsInN0YXRlIjowfSx7Imlzc3Vlck9yaWdpbiI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXR0ZXN0YXRpb24uYW5kcm9pZC5jb20iLCJzdGF0ZSI6MH1d&dt=1606153658561&bpp=17&bdt=3839&idt=2318&shv=r20201112&cbv=r20190131&ptt=9&saldr=aa&abxe=1&cookie=ID%3D2b9337da74110a2f-221a825663a600d2%3AT%3D1604416837%3ART%3D1604416837%3AS%3DALNI_MZnaIOjagf7AD40AyD8eoBA4jIKEw&prev_fmts=0x0%2C728x90%2C728x90%2C640x139&nras=1&correlator=2119873383762&frm=20&pv=1&ga_vid=1727301795.1604416837&ga_sid=1606153659&ga_hid=1559183060&ga_fc=0&iag=0&icsg=3002365427838988&dssz=72&mdo=0&mso=0&u_tz=60&u_his=1&u_java=0&u_h=1280&u_w=800&u_ah=1280&u_aw=800&u_cd=24&u_nplug=0&u_nmime=0&adx=80&ady=3224&biw=800&bih=1160&scr_x=0&scr_y=0&eid=42530671%2C21066819%2C21066973&oid=3&pvsid=2518539698265454&pem=192&rx=0&eae=0&fc=1920&brdim=0%2C0%2C0%2C0%2C800%2C0%2C800%2C1160%2C800%2C1160&vis=1&rsz=o%7C%7CeEbr%7C&abl=CS&pfx=0&fu=8192&bc=31&ifi=4&uci=a!4&btvi=1&fsb=1&xpc=rRU6zc1hhN&p=https%3A//www.barristerng.com&dtd=2366

Akpata made the declaration in a telephone Chat with BarristerNG.com on Sunday.https://googleads.g.doubleclick.net/pagead/ads?guci=2.2.0.0.2.2.0.0&client=ca-pub-3051400091379015&output=html&h=160&slotname=8070359739&adk=2530515694&adf=4137381635&pi=t.ma~as.8070359739&w=640&fwrn=4&lmt=1606153661&rafmt=11&psa=1&format=640×160&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.barristerng.com%2Fany-list-for-gombe-chief-judge-excluding-justice-beatrice-illiyas-name-is-in-contravention-of-njc-strict-directive-nba-president-reacts%2F&flash=0&wgl=1&adsid=ChAIgNjt_QUQhN3hnunE-LQKEkwA5Zgp80t9ggKrdyjjDWI3vS4KODm2P6EzezFKDv2wMrXklBWhBYcAKYQn0gwzgVQy3QE3veiQ8i5k6xsX5wiV98sSYB9_YTnxkdxY&tt_state=W3siaXNzdWVyT3JpZ2luIjoiaHR0cHM6Ly9hZHNlcnZpY2UuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbSIsInN0YXRlIjowfSx7Imlzc3Vlck9yaWdpbiI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXR0ZXN0YXRpb24uYW5kcm9pZC5jb20iLCJzdGF0ZSI6MH1d&dt=1606153658578&bpp=19&bdt=3856&idt=2629&shv=r20201112&cbv=r20190131&ptt=9&saldr=aa&abxe=1&cookie=ID%3D2b9337da74110a2f-221a825663a600d2%3AT%3D1604416837%3ART%3D1604416837%3AS%3DALNI_MZnaIOjagf7AD40AyD8eoBA4jIKEw&prev_fmts=0x0%2C728x90%2C728x90%2C640x139%2C720x90&nras=1&correlator=2119873383762&frm=20&pv=1&ga_vid=1727301795.1604416837&ga_sid=1606153659&ga_hid=1559183060&ga_fc=0&iag=0&icsg=3002365427838988&dssz=72&mdo=0&mso=0&rplot=4&u_tz=60&u_his=1&u_java=0&u_h=1280&u_w=800&u_ah=1280&u_aw=800&u_cd=24&u_nplug=0&u_nmime=0&adx=80&ady=3398&biw=800&bih=1160&scr_x=0&scr_y=0&eid=42530671%2C21066819%2C21066973&oid=3&pvsid=2518539698265454&pem=192&rx=0&eae=0&fc=1924&brdim=0%2C0%2C0%2C0%2C800%2C0%2C800%2C1160%2C800%2C1160&vis=1&rsz=o%7C%7CeEbr%7C&abl=CS&pfx=0&fu=8320&bc=31&jar=2020-11-23-12&ifi=5&uci=a!5&btvi=2&fsb=1&xpc=oCuAig8SrE&p=https%3A//www.barristerng.com&dtd=2664

Akpata was reacting to news reports that the Gombe State Government had excluded the name of Justice Beatrice Illiya from the list of names forwarded to the NJC for consideration as appointment for Chief Judge.

Justice Illiya herself had written a petition to the NJC to complain about this exclusion and had copied the NBA in the petition.https://googleads.g.doubleclick.net/pagead/ads?guci=2.2.0.0.2.2.0.0&client=ca-pub-3051400091379015&output=html&h=160&slotname=8070359739&adk=2530515694&adf=3965643408&pi=t.ma~as.8070359739&w=640&fwrn=4&lmt=1606153661&rafmt=11&psa=1&format=640×160&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.barristerng.com%2Fany-list-for-gombe-chief-judge-excluding-justice-beatrice-illiyas-name-is-in-contravention-of-njc-strict-directive-nba-president-reacts%2F&flash=0&wgl=1&adsid=ChAIgNjt_QUQhN3hnunE-LQKEkwA5Zgp80t9ggKrdyjjDWI3vS4KODm2P6EzezFKDv2wMrXklBWhBYcAKYQn0gwzgVQy3QE3veiQ8i5k6xsX5wiV98sSYB9_YTnxkdxY&tt_state=W3siaXNzdWVyT3JpZ2luIjoiaHR0cHM6Ly9hZHNlcnZpY2UuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbSIsInN0YXRlIjowfSx7Imlzc3Vlck9yaWdpbiI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXR0ZXN0YXRpb24uYW5kcm9pZC5jb20iLCJzdGF0ZSI6MH1d&dt=1606153658598&bpp=11&bdt=3876&idt=2931&shv=r20201112&cbv=r20190131&ptt=9&saldr=aa&abxe=1&cookie=ID%3D2b9337da74110a2f-221a825663a600d2%3AT%3D1604416837%3ART%3D1604416837%3AS%3DALNI_MZnaIOjagf7AD40AyD8eoBA4jIKEw&prev_fmts=0x0%2C728x90%2C728x90%2C640x139%2C720x90%2C640x160&nras=1&correlator=2119873383762&frm=20&pv=1&ga_vid=1727301795.1604416837&ga_sid=1606153659&ga_hid=1559183060&ga_fc=0&iag=0&icsg=3002262456614962&dssz=75&mdo=0&mso=0&rplot=4&u_tz=60&u_his=1&u_java=0&u_h=1280&u_w=800&u_ah=1280&u_aw=800&u_cd=24&u_nplug=0&u_nmime=0&adx=80&ady=3745&biw=800&bih=1160&scr_x=0&scr_y=0&eid=42530671%2C21066819%2C21066973&oid=3&pvsid=2518539698265454&pem=192&rx=0&eae=0&fc=1924&brdim=0%2C0%2C0%2C0%2C800%2C0%2C800%2C1160%2C800%2C1160&vis=1&rsz=o%7C%7CeEbr%7C&abl=CS&pfx=0&fu=8320&bc=31&jar=2020-11-23-12&ifi=6&uci=a!6&btvi=3&fsb=1&xpc=MtgHCuvhHC&p=https%3A//www.barristerng.com&dtd=3024

In her petition, the most senior judge said that after the retirement of Hon Justice Hakila Herman, she was appointed as the Acting Chief Judge of Gombe State but after the mandatory 3 months provided by the constitution, Governor Inuwa Yahaya refused to extend her tenure.

Instead, another judge of the State, Justice Muazu Pindiga was appointed and his three months tenure as acting Chief Judge has been renewed for the fourth time because the executive has refused to do the right thing.

In August 2020, when the NJC directed the Gombe State Judicial Service Commission (JSC) to re-submit the names of the nominees for appointment as substantive Chief Judge of Gombe State by doing the right thing and including the name of the most senior judge, Justice Beatrice Illiya, the State JSC defied the directive, arguing that seniority is not a factor to be considered in the appointment of a Chief Judge of a State.

Justice Beatrice Illiya says she is being discriminated against because she is female and Christian.

The NBA President who was copied in the petition stated that he is very concerned about the development but is however hopeful that the NJC at its meeting on Monday would do the right thing and insist on the appointment of the most senior judge of the state.

The NBA President also stated that he has reached out to the Chairman of the NJC interview panel, Hon Justice Bode Rhodes-Vivour JSC and confirmed that the panel is in receipt of Justice Illiya’s Petition. (Barristerng)

10 Million libel!The Litigation Lawyers Who Saved Me By Mike Awoyinfa

I cannot forget my first day in court, facing a libel suit of ten million naira, in an era when the naira was somehow close to and not too distant from the “almighty dollar” as it is today.  In today’s Nigeria, the ten million naira libel suit will be something in the neighbourhood of 3.8 billion naira according to my Google calculation.

I was the young editor of Weekend Concord, the trailblazing newspaper that changed the face of Nigerian journalism in 1989, making Saturday a day Nigerians looked forward to.  We created this avant-garde, in-your-face newspaper rich in human angle stories.  What brought me to the High Court in Ilorin was a front-page story in the Weekend Concord about a professor in plagiarism scandal.  Plagiarism is the crime of taking someone’s work and claiming it as yours.  My reporter, the unstoppable Omololu Kassim had brought this story, backed with solid evidence showing how a University of Ilorin professor plagiarized the work of an American professor. The professor was being represented by Chief Wole Olanipekun, then one of the finest young law lawyers in Nigeria, a hardcore litigator who is today a highly respected Senior Advocate of Nigeria.  On its part, the Weekend Concord was represented by Chief Adegboyega Awomolo, another star lawyer who is today a Senior Advocate of Nigeria and incidentally a friend of Olanipekun.  Chief Awomolo was supported by his junior, Yusuf O. Ali who is today a Senior Advocate among the four Senior Advocates of Nigeria from the stable of Chief Awomolo.  Happily for us, Chief Awomolo and Yusuf Ali won the case, saving us the burden of paying a king’s ransom.

Chief Adegboyega Awomolo

Thirty years after this courtroom triumph, I was meeting Yusuf Ali for the first time, interviewing him via ZOOM for my forthcoming book: “COURTROOM AND LAW FIRM STRATEGIES—Senior Advocates of Nigeria Share Their Stories.”  Characteristically, Ali displayed the erudition I have always known him for.  I could see the evidence of a more mature, more experienced, more knowledgeable lawyer than thirty years ago.   We talked on different aspects of law: the things they don’t teach you at law school.  Here, he harped on the importance of pupillage as key to success in law.  He described his pupil master Chief Awomolo as the best teacher a young lawyer can pray for: “an advocate par excellence from whom I picked a few tricks.”

So, what qualities make a good advocate?  He replied: “An advocate must be somebody who is hard-working in the real sense of the word.  Number two, you must know more than law.  You must know a bit of psychology, economics, mathematics, engineering, medicine, even a bit of journalism.  Because you will come across these categories of professionals in your practice.  Either they would be giving evidence for you or they would be giving evidence against your position.  So, if you don’t have some knowledge of what they do, you will be totally at sea.

“I want to recall the plagiarism libel case the Weekend Concord then edited by you Mike Awoyinfa had against one professor at the University of Ilorin.  To the glory of God, we won the case because of our knowledge of the practice of journalism.  That professor was claiming ten million naira from Weekend Concord for libel because the paper carried a story about plagiarism allegation against him in the university.

“Number three, you must be humble.  No matter how well rated you are as a professional, you must be humble.  And then of course, you must be the epitome of honesty, transparency and integrity.  These are qualities that you must never leave behind anywhere.  People must be able to trust you.  When you say right, people must be able to trust you are going right.  And to be a great advocate at all times, you must explain the position of the law to your client to the best of your ability without cutting corners because you want a case at all costs.  If there is no merit in a matter brought to you, you should be honest enough to say: ‘Look, hands off this case, because you are not going to make it.’  That level of professional honesty and fidelity is very important.

“Of course, you must be patient, if you want to be a good advocate.  And you must be able to think while standing.  Because your opponent may raise a novel point, so you must at all times be ‘Mr. Ever-ready.’  Ever ready to take challenges either new or old. You must love books. You must continue to read until God-knows-when.  Never allow your brain to lie low or to be idle at any point.  More than any other thing, you must abide by the rules of professional ethics.  Don’t do anything contrary to the rules.  Because that is what would make people see you as a reliable person. You must have a lawyer’s instinct.  You must be able to see what other people would never see.  When you are given a 500-page document for example, what are the relevant issues you must look for there?

“I recall the election petition we did in 2004 in Maiduguri, where the allegation was that the particular person who was the governor did not attend a particular school in England.  Somebody then came from the British Council and said he had the list of all the universities and the accredited institution in England.  A very bulky book running to almost a thousand pages.  He tendered it without any objection from me.  I am sure the tribunal was surprised when I said I was not going to object to it being tendered because immediately he wanted to tender it, he gave the book to me, I flipped through immediately and I saw a conclusion which was contrary to the position he held.  The conclusion in that book was: ‘We have tried to be very comprehensive and detailed in this work.  However, we are not claiming that we have been able to list all existing institutions in the United Kingdom.’  I saw that and immediately, I said: ‘My Lord, I am not going to object.’  So when I started asking the witness questions, I said to him: ‘Will you be surprised to know that even this book does not contain the list of all the universities and institutions in the United Kingdom?’”

“It’s not possible,” he replied.  “Because this is the Bible and Koran of all schools in England.”

Yusuf Ali SAN

Yusuf Ali then collected the book, went straight to the place where it was explained that the book is not all inclusive.  He asked him to read it out.  The witness started stammering.  Ali insisted: “Please, read it!”

When he read it, Ali, then said: “Does that correspond with the position you have held earlier on that there is no school in England that is not in this book?”

“Well, I didn’t know this one existed in this book,” the witness replied.

“OK, fine,” Ali said.

That was the clincher for him.  An example of what it takes to have a lawyer’s instinct, particularly in cross-examination—an art which Ali learnt and mastered from his old boss Chief Awomolo.  “In simple language, cross-examination is an adversarial system of justice where you try to ask your opponent questions aimed at discrediting his testimony, discrediting his person, showing to the court that what he was saying is not the truth, testing his own veracity,” Ali concludes.

From the young lawyer serving his pupillage under Chief Awomolo, Yusuf Ali has grown big into a master and a leader in litigation with his own lawyers, pupils, partners, followers and clientele.  He has two offices—one in Ilorin his base and another in Abuja.

Nigerian army admits to having live rounds at Lekki Toll Gate protests, despite previous denials

CNN investigation sheds new light on anti-brutality protest 06:06

(CNN)The Nigerian army admitted on Saturday that soldiers were given both live and blank bullets when they were deployed to protests at Lekki toll gate on October 20. The admission seems to confirm a key finding of a CNN investigation into the shooting.”The soldiers they were both given both live and blank bullets. In this particular case, we saw that these protests had been infiltrated by some hoodlums,” Brig. Gen. Ahmed Taiwo said in his testimony to the Lagos Judicial panel of inquiry into the incident.Brig. Gen. Ahmed Taiwo attends a judicial panel  investigating the shooting of protesters in Lagos, Nigeria, on November 14, 2020.Brig. Gen. Ahmed Taiwo attends a judicial panel investigating the shooting of protesters in Lagos, Nigeria, on November 14, 2020.”You had peaceful protesters no doubt. But there were also hoodlums who sought to take advantage. That is why they were armed (with) blank bullets in addition to the live (bullets) they were carrying.”This is the first time the Nigerian army has admitted having live rounds at the Lekki toll gate. The army statement also contradicts previous statements about the incident including from Taiwo himself who told the judicial panel previously that the soldiers were firing in the air and firing blank ammunition.In the aftermath of the shooting, the army denied any involvement, describing reports of the incident as “fake news,” before backtracking and saying that soldiers were present but fired their weapons in the air and used blanks, not live rounds.The CNN investigation included evidence that bullet casings from the scene matched those used by the Nigerian army when shooting live rounds, according to current and former Nigerian military officials.Two ballistics experts also confirmed with CNN that the shape of the bullet casings indicate they used live rounds, which contradicts the army’s previous claim they fired blanks.CNN’s report was based on testimony from dozens of witnesses, and photos and video obtained and geolocated by CNN. The Nigerian army did not respond to numerous requests for comment prior to the broadcast and publication of CNN’s story.Verified video footage — using timestamps and data from the video files — shows soldiers who appear to be shooting in the direction of protesters. And accounts from eyewitnesses establish that after the army withdrew, a second round of shooting happened later in the evening, by police, according to witnesses who spoke to CNN.The police would not comment to CNN, but did deny ever shooting at protesters in a tweet.It painted a picture of how members of the Nigerian army and the police shot at the crowd, killing at least one person and wounding dozens more.

Read and watch CNN's full investigation

Read and watch CNN’s full investigation

Saturday’s admission by Nigeria that live rounds were deployed is yet another in a series of constantly changing narratives as to what happened on October 20 at Lekki toll gate, where protesters had gathered to demonstrate against police brutality.On Thursday, Minister for Information and Culture Lai Mohammed said that the military “fired blank ammunition in the air.” He also dismissed the CNN investigation as “fake news” and “misinformation.”A US State Department spokesperson told CNN on Saturday, that they were “closely following the Government of Nigeria’s response” to the events at Lekki Toll Gate and said, “We urge that the investigation be thorough, impartial, and appropriately transparent and that perpetrators be held accountable.” (CNN)

TIPS