Scribd
Upload
32 views18 pages

Untitled

Uploaded by

saharaReporters headlines
Copyright
© All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF or read online on Scribd
32 views18 pages

Untitled

Uploaded by

saharaReporters headlines
Copyright
© All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF or read online on Scribd
File No. AR- 1360/X/F/Vol. 12 of 7/12/90. CR. 444/90 Com of Police. Vs, ay Q) (3) (4) (6) Vs. Dr Olubukola Saraki, Mr Tokunbo Salami Mr Jude Huyomade Charges That you (1) Dr Olubukola Saraki (2) Mr Tokunbo Salami (3) Mr Jude Huyomade (4) Miss Gbemi Saraki (5) Mr Moh Basir Abdu Kadiri on or about 28/8/90 at Lagos in the Lagos. Magistratial District did unlawfully Conspire together to commit felony to wit: forgeries and thereby committed an offence punishable under Sec 516 Of Criminal code Cap 31 Vol II Laws of Lagos State 1973. That you 1) Dr Olubukola Saraki (2) Mr Tokunbo Salami (3) Mr Jude Huyomade (4) Miss Gbemi Saraki (5) Mr Moh Basir Abdu Kadiri on or about 28/8/90. at Lagos in the Lagos. Magistratial. District did unlawfully with intent to defraud did forge one SGBN Inter branch Voucher No. LA 005016053-7 for N510,000.00 in favour of Trademore International Ltd knowing same to be false and thereby committed an offence punishable under Sec 516 of Criminal code Cap 31 Vol II Laws of Lagos State 1973. ‘That you (1) Dr Olubukola Saraki (2) Mr Tokunbo Salami (3) Mr Jude Huyomade (4) Miss Gbemi Saraki (5) Mr Moh Basir Abdu Kadiri on or about 28/8/90 at Lagos in the Lagos. Magistratial, District did unlawfully did conspire together to commit felony to wit: sleating and thereby committed an offence under Sec 516 Criminal code Cap 31 Vol Il Laws of Lagos State 1973. That you (1) Dr Olubukola Saraki (2) Mr Tokunbo Salami (3) Mr Jude Muyomade (4) Miss Gbemi Saraki (5) Mr Moh Basir Abdu _ Kadiri on on or about 28/8/90 at Lagos in the Lagos. Magistratial. District did unlawfully commit felony to wit stealing N510,000.00 Property of the SGBN Bank contrary to Sec 388 of Criminal code Cap 31 Vol II Laws of Lagos State 1973. That you Mr Moh Basir Abdu Kadiri on or about 28/8/90 at Lagos in the Lagos. Magistratial. District did unlawfully did commit felony to wit stealing N510,000.00 property of the Bank contrary to Sec 388 of Criminal code Cap 31 Vol Il Laws of Lagos State 1973 _ naphle Address rPoL, LAGes. Tei phone No. 634001 In reply please quote FORCE UEADQUARTERS, {KAM SELEM_ HOUSE’, ‘THE NIGERIA POLICE, MOLONEY § ari LAGOS. CR.3000/1GP, SEC/’ ite, 238¢ Augusts 19.20 The-thspector-General of Polices FderakNnvestigation & Intell. Bureau, 7 chlagbon Ose ae Soa ie “piedse find attached, copy of complaint letter in \ eh r@pect of unauthorised withdrawal of Targe suus of money \. ~~ ron the Societe Generale Bank (Wig.) Ltd. The FIIB is already dealing with an earlier ¢ of the bank. Q ot t this fresh complaint _¢ despatch and the report in Rs against some officials ; 3. It is the [GP's directive tha : be investigated with of the earlier case be submitted without much delays \ (c welt ODUBELA) DCP.: PRINCIPAL STAFF OFFICER TO INSPECTOR-GEN. OF POLICE. ta reply please quate tof. DR: 13GO/8/B/VoL 12 7h the Managing Director, Societe Generale Bank (Nig) Ltd., jarah House, Lagos. cR.444/90 INVESTIGATION ACTTVI'L PERACY ,PORGERY AND S'TEALIIG N COMMISSIONER OF FOLTCE + VBS (1) Dr. Olubukola Sarak: (2) Mr. Tokunbo Salami * (3) Mr. Jude Tluyomade (4) Miss Gbemi Sara Mr. Mohammed By % (5) ® 2 Please be informed that investigatyn into tha - 2 ? 4 2 above mentioned case has been completed. You are 4 aa therefore requested to produce the above mentioned a “ = suspects at the FIIB, premises at O8u0brs that8 am E on 10/12/90, unfailingly. é 2. whey are to be arraigned before Un Maylslrare Gourt on the said date, please. ( sant % Shep mati, i oH Foor Pile er Deputy of FGI EL 7 DECK arse Gl VemuMrinh EHUB COPY Our ref: CU/PAI/AB/198/90 August 18, 1990 the Inspector General of Police, Police Neadquarters, OPALENDR, LAGOS. bear Sir, Te has just been brought to my-notice that a new device is being employed hy certain Officers of fociele Generale hank (Wig Limited whose names are given in this Report as being involved tn lifting large sums of money from the ‘treasmy at the Mank Jerequiarly and without specifying the purposes Cor which such monies are withdrawn. vYhe information which originates from the source ef the bank gave a supporting copy of a voucher No. 3053 of August 6, 1990 (al Cached ag Exhibit 'AY for the sum of N510,000.00 allogadiy withdraun recent ly. this is forwarded to facilitate investigation inte the ever increasing jarge seale of alleged stealing [Link] from tho pank ‘ information reveals that more of such vouchers could be recovered hy the Police during investigation provided that opportunity is not given to the suspects to destroy vital documents if they are free to do so. Zam informed that the vouchers usually originate from the Head Office (as indicated on the right-hand side ef the voucher), Payable in respect of undisclosed purpose or beneficiary other than a RESPECT OF CASH (YREASURY DEPARTMENT)" and gigned hy a= Bt signature ~ MR. J.-B. ILUYOMADE (Dealer) and an = "At gignaiure. ~ wR eats Ue BALAML (Treasurer), both of the “Original ing Hranch™ (the Head office), and countersigned by paying Officers of the (Responding Branch", with 'B! signature - HR. A. GRANERO and ‘A" signature - NR. A. P. OBAHOR, as in FACE 'A’ of the vouchor, sas te Ledge, 6 Sls Sduahin Sect Yabo, Lagos, Nigeria. he ex ens ee deal Og of Police, JDALENDE = LAGO: Miss GREMI ¢ Hiss Ghemi Generale hank (Migor take place. RAKE ~ Si N20.00 and HLOLO0 Yotal Ling You will recall that and some members the Police carly thi of HB.5 million out account of the Bank also that when the 1 High Court case involving pr. to the Po meet, thai there ts now unconce: Peesen suspects to heiny argued the theft at will, smount in this particular case, the daughter of br, Saraki works in the treasury bepartment of ja) Limited where tho alleged therts eonstant ly AS IN PACH the collection of the cash De. Olusola s tng ie Board of Directors wore offered brit by 5 year on a presided by Justice a. Olusola Sara. e@ about the alleged thort the Honourable dustice dmot 1 in which she clearly approved a Muling is here attached as Exhibtt vled desire on the part Niduidate the bank where (ehich with be decided in vustice Omotosho, cont inues without 4 once more appeal for Police investigation into S August 18, &dgo 510,000.00 was cashed by Olusola Saraki ovieke ‘BY of the Voucher, Miss Saraki in the following analysis: signed for - 210,000.00 - H300,000.00 = 510, 000.00 rakiy some of the Rank Bxecutives pending case of alleged stealing fo M10.00 million ittegally withdrawn feo the Ko Burehase a house at tkoyi. You wilt recall piice intervention was mentioned inva Jagos Omo Loos i, Lo the effect No who was hearing another that the report tantamommt ‘contempt ho there and then gavel a Police Action. — A copy of 2, of the’ past ana the court injunction September 1990) before panee they remain at large Lo perpetuate coverd to the Police action in process, Unis new Report rear este tea! With the on-going investigation against the ‘culprits on bailt consider a5 expeditiously as pos or pbank from untold Liquidation aya of ‘both workers and shareholders, the interdiction of the suspects ible in order to save instabiltty and insecurity 1 thought the Potice may if not kept in custoay ef the Police before investigat iow are concluded, Yours faitheuliy, P-ADG LANE kepresenting Societe holders of 40% equity eiele Generale Bank Generale Paris, in (Wigs) Lea.) ML INS_NEEH COURT OF LA HOLDEM AY LAGOS _JUDICIA {THURSDAY THE ATH Dax or / 1. KRSINGTON) JUDGE. SULT NO» L0/1936/90 BEFORE! THE HON. ot THREW = SOCKETE GENERAL RANK Tattr DR. OLUROKOLA A. SARAIT seeees PLAINTIEPS « AUDE TEIYOMADE - ) ann Ae ALHAGE ALEYH TmRAHTN wees 22 ALBAST SANRL HOMASHIED j ceeete DEFENDANTS + 22 RERHARD F. OvIRO 5 DEFENDANTS AL OAUHATE ARO ERRANENY 5 partion abaant excepk Ist ond aed Applicant Chef A.C. PARAD CRAM) WLEN MN. ROLAIT. For Fhe Appi icante. NP. Re O- SANYACLI, Director Federal Minkstry OF Jushice for Ink’ and ard Respondents. i LG On Ath of Sepkamber, 1990, the Plaintiffs filed thelr ¥eLt of Simmons Jolntly and severally claiming Agana the Defendants Jointly ond severally: CO) A declaration that the arrest and detention of th Pnd and Ard Phalntiffe by and/or on the inatruckson or Ahvective of the lnty Qnty and ard Defendanta in gat, 1980, te Legal and contrary to the law and 2 * and Constitution of igart (2) 15,000,000 damages by each of the aald 2nd and ard PLAINRLE Fs against the befendants Jointly and saveralty- (2) 95,000,000 dameqas against the pafendents Jointly and severally for using untaufil means to Interfere WIEN the bustness operstion of the mald Plaintier. Accompanying the antl writ of Summons da an applieation Ry-parke of the name datas In support of the said Sa ae sworn te by the and Platnkler pe. olubokola Abubakar Saraki ~ the Reeubive Director of the lat Pladntle® Ranks The colevant paragraphe of the ent’ atfldevte aren P ph, aah, 1990, A Polier Offlear by name Superintendant oytbe Ckhe 3ed Defendant) on the PED on cama by the hend office of the Bank and cladmed that he was Inveatlanting » matter of fraud, conspiracy ond theft have Wing 40/00) 33, The anid @uperinkendant oytho assured me Farogral awit the Managing Director of the Ronk (irs Jake HALL) that the Qed PlatAELEe oth) he reteaned the ama day. 1 watked nometine for the ard PlalNELEe te return te tha offfce and when he ALA not retin tT destdad to go there and aee him. on ab about Be 30pm. i Superintendent oyibe fyformed ma that LE was necessary for graph 42 pon reaching Atay ken atakemonk and Tota ao. tn my statements £ pald that tT vas avare of the Intarcbraneh voucher order on Lagos branch of the Bonk for the eum of 4510,000. x Aloo aatd that the managemont of the Rank gave the Ranke m Treasury Department arkhortty te pay the sun as a consti taney fee tno company = ‘frade Moore Internattonal Company. oy Gort dona for the Ink PLeinblers Paroaraph $$ ¢ Cintshed making my statement mt about [Link]. and Lo my ubber amazemenk, Superintendent oythe Ratt he had bo detsin mas to the beak of my knowbedasy Inforpmbion and biter. Supartintandant Othe took khis peklon after conan) ting the 2nd Rerandant herein who fms Dapuby Commlecionar of Police In the Force Intelldgenca Popne tment. Paragraph 61 On the foltouing day ak shout 2.00hm. Superthtentont Oy ihe and Ei other n€efoars of the Nigtria Follee Pores book the ard piainkier and t whth them for a search of ok respackive offices and hounes, after the senrch, 10 wore taken back be G.t.n. Alagbon and finabty released abont 6.00pm, on hall with two sureties and on condition that each of or produces Iie Passport Hhe following day. , Dn 21/9/90, the Appiicant through one Ayokunia Rotial an Agsietent Company Secretary In the tak Plaintlee/ Applicant myarn te another affidavit in apport OFF Raregraph 24 9n 21st of August, 1990, Polles OF flear by name Suparinkanrlant Oylbn cama ko the Head Of Flee te Bree i ing as wal) demend Minutes of the last Animal General ag the namaa and addresaas of the @ank a Shareholderr. He claimed hen Mint he wns Invertigaking = age aph 3 ymont of HAAS mitten given ke nse matker Invelytng a pr Recuritien & tnventmant Company tdmbked (Msg) by the Platntser Bank. Farsaraph At Me ales elatnead that he vag investiantt another complaint nhowt notices of the Laat Anntal General. NiTy @arved, he oxpLadned that hy to false addrorses. Mating belng Grandi Mba, he meant that Mie noklees were aank the Paragraph $1 He nlen Maclosed thnk the complatnant t matkers being dnveatigatad waa Mnaj1 Ado Shrahin (the tet Defendant) whe ts 2 beether (ne the some Father) of the dst Dafondank g ar h G2 In aplhe of tie fack Het he wae informed that the ompany hat nbenady Jedged a formal complaint whkh the Mepestor General of Police by Lekter dated the 30th May of ALENT, T2890, he did not ceawa ale barcasment of Rank + apnewad herewith and marked Off Lelalas The aatd latter Bxbibte ans. Paragraph 72 The art petendank van ateo Informed that nent OF MBS mien ko N.S.8. had baen reported te the Conkesl Rank of tgeria uh Inveattaakad and dSd nok find any evidence nf Franl. Faragraph @ The ei Defendant wae also Informed that alt the noblean referred to tn pal graph A above were senk out ko the addvecses In the eeaiater of the Plalnkife Rank. agraph 91 On the 20H day oF April, 1990, at shout 40% a another'Pelice officar ‘hy 10.208. Superintendent Ie fame HPs Komonthto accompanied hy Ala}. Ado brabim harged Into the beardroom of bhe PLalikLe® Rane. Faragra prooreas, the Police OFeirare fine 102 A meshing of all Branch ananers wae in fed Drs Olubykola Sarak! who uaa chatetng the masking bo the pAliee Station. Raragrapl exerntlue Airector and ketal ho addvess he may Et Mhelt Ade theshim Hhen elatmed he was an Hino. The MNAgeMenk were Khem Coneed te bring the maating te an ny ahropk ene Paragraph 12s agntn on the 2Ath of pgueks 1990) 9 Police erimiist a Office of the Rank and ctatmerd he wae investigating » otter of fraud, conspiracy snd thert (volving #&10,000, hile the fia: TE nf aida Tinyonade, Hhe above deponant confirmed the lak at etday its on 24/9/90 shan the Repke anpLicatton came up fer heorlng, because of the conatentionsl Amportance of thts applimnkiion, toconcerted the sald application inte one of hokice anid ripached eoineal ke kha Applicants to serve copies of the sata appileatton on let + 3d Respondents paraonally Ehrongh the Aitornay Genaral of the Federakton Journal the hearing ko 27/9/90. Despite evidence of servica of the coples the notian An the Federal Atk General, nalther thety Respondents ner shy counsel from the Pedersl iintatey of duakies were dn Court. Agkina on Jan tnkertm hho affidavit around for ar Eupraame ©! VAT Page 10 Paragraph veo". an Intarlocutory Unfunetton Moonly be Sasned ty rantrain a threatened wrong to a Hloht and nat be remteatn the Latil enjoyment of a Legal Flaht, par Ohnseth, ts Tk $s pertinent to noke that the aubmtsatons ef bo Connmel (Chiat FPA. WEL Mame Catt) for the Applicants and Iya Hira. Wona Pat in the Federal tintetry of Auatien for tha Rasponients) conterad around the question earlier posed tn tite Rating. Fy nelther counsel addressed ma on the impLicattona y WA ID ot “tha B From t bf the provisions of saetion a, 4 ihe Ack AR Section 78 Oh) Grtminat pro. Aet/tawe Rayer There shalt he arknblished tn BEGTION 3 Mgerta a Police Force bey he Ino as the Higarta Police Force. Rayas The Pollen ahall be employed for the LON Prevention and detection of erdme, the apprehension of offenders, the praservetton of Law and the prateation of property and the due enforcement of sll inva and reanlattone WLEh which hay are Mirectly charged and ahall perform auch milktary duties withty and withont Wigarta se may ba required of them by or under the authority nf the President. - 6 hone before any Court ulether the knformatton all pros or complaint bo Lafd Ln hie name or nok aut Ents subject bo Sections 160CLE 191 (1) Oh) of the Adan Hali Jama (1948) JAH) Criminal Procadure Ack/Law whichever conatitition. see alse Re va a 1a255. Bay la applicable ~ by saying a parson arrented without a Warrant before the Court upon a charge contained ina Charge shat specifying He Name and accupation of the pereon charged, the charge againet him and the time and place where the offenca ts alleucd to have been committed. The charae sheet shall be staned by the Poles Officer In charae of He case. Movevery I am enjoined ke take and 1 do take Jndictat notice of thase tue Reactions of the mald Ack read confotnkly wlth Becklon 7301) (a) Rwldence acky SRNSON VE- ASHIRU C1987) 1. ADL WansRe LAA NP 188. ADETIPE VS. AnODU (1968) MILE (Pra) 62 OTT Van feG.P. C185) Mae 26 KANADA Var GOVERNOR, AMINA SEATE (1996) 4, MLR. (PT.35) 361 ak 272 Paragraphs T ~ 6. ARONOLARAM Vas OLADPLE (1990) 7. HWLR. (PT.d62) 358 AT AP 368 paragraph » — C. that the Respondents have the conetitubtonal duty te tnvean ho an alleged erime committed and Uf aatlafted mt the ond of thelr Investigation that such a erime lies been committed by a partic eumpect, have the righ! to prosacuke the suapeck(a). Ae ntated In i, KARSET Va. W. 6. PROPER, MUNICIPAL COMMISSICHRR 12 ROM. HEGH COURT RULE J29 "where a publie body da und an Ack Of Parlisment entrusted with pevers and duties for A public purpone, the Conrk wlll alve credit to them aa being the bent Induces of what they uank for, that purposes. Tpam adopting thle etanee In the matton before men Although fhe aciion of the Respondents Jn this case might be erronens uk nnlesn the Intended prosecution fe atac malteloug the High Cont world nok generally restrain the: Respondente or any hey wha has an intereak from prosecuting A suspect for eriminal offence allagad to have been mt bead = GRAVP JURCTLON YATEROORDS Cos Vee HAMPTON URBAN DISTRICT COUNETT, CRIA) 3c. WI. Therafore Le cannot be agserted that the Respondents In this Heklon were/are causing any InJury on thak the Applicants could have any ransonable apprehension of any Injury to thelr riuhksy rather thete - 8. contentions are that the Inteniad prosecution should nok be Powed to precoad stm taneously wlth the substantive etwt sult. Thich as 1 agroe Lat the Appticante have khat right Rok bo he mallckonely prosamuked — that right fis betwen and hetwlek could only he windleaktd at the end of the Intended mere prosecubion te not and cannot he proacenthong however, ae 1 Indleakad eecler, Ut is alae A urangtn) ack malichoun, for it har never heen the pracklee of thie Cauck fo reatraiy men from prossenting @etvetous, Tikgaklona, om Aesperate cosee merely hecaae they are ac or to restrain kK authortby os where a man take person from acting rel Hhou proceedings uk of Comet In the name of a person who har a@iven ne anthor tty bese tte PENNELE Vas Rov 3. PN. RCO. 122. LONDON ® BLACKMAIL RLY Va. CROSS LR. 93 Cy DIV. ATI. No ona can obkin a quia klwe Cand that te whak there Applicants are asking ford order marely hy aayding Melina Unters he avers and proves tha whak $a gotng on or Intended fy entem lated tea Infring, ble elohte NIRACTING DOPAT IDOR (PE) per Lord DUNEDIN. AVY. = BRN. POM DOSTEIOT OF CANARA vae RUTHIE Ce ROSUPPY) Ce (1948) aur Whether or nok the intending eetmtinal proserution of the and and Ard applteants ly the Respondent ta malictous fa nok for this Cot to dectde az there ie ne maans for ma to new since this Court fs incompetent: te order the Respondents te prodvea thelr £1le or foremard the aald file te the Atlornay-General fos Heal, ae ko de ao, thde Court wowld In my view be usneping the powar ef the attorney + General both aplelh of onr constitution and Efe would he again where the doctrine of separation af powarn ia Loudly From what J have ac far gail above, 1 hold that an Anjonekton proceeding pending at thy tiatitublon cf the suit in songht, unlens such resteatn Minar = which the tyjunetion 1 1s necessary to prevent a miLeipLickty of proce: Ze be reakratn any parron from Inatiinkingy oc proseaubing any proceeding $9 9 Conrt oot subordinate to that from whieh the tn pin Jon in sowahke ~ 40 3. he reskratn ony person from applying to any legielative body 4. be restrasn any person from inetituting or prosacuting any proceeding tn a eriminal mater. B. te pravant the broarh of 9 nonteneks the performan Of whbeh contd not he apaelttenlty enforced, 6~ te prevent on tha around of ontmanee, an ack of which At Se not reasonably clear that Lk will be a nuiaance. timienes breach in which the plaintier to prevent ao hae acquiverds han equally effiencton realie€ nan carkainly he ohkalned by any other panel mote of proceeding, except In enae of breach of tenet and 2% When the ceoninek of the PLatntler or hia agents han Dean auch ag ke Als-enkitle Wim ke the assistance of Leask 1 be mtainkerprated, 1 vould here amplify! apha (1) and (4) ahows which are very relevant te the enre an hand. tn paragraphy © 1 have deliberately unad the werd aenerally, showing that although no procandinga pending tn the High Court oe Court Appeal can ba restratned by tnjunehton vide section Ai, Judigature Act 1228 which te ght] apptigable to 1 : fe a Vine sae tien BH Tal tank E tae Oe tages WbaeRy tf Mt is pth) presthin in certain cagne be restrain the Gnstltukion of civil sutk Ip the High Courts Thue an Anjunetion may he qrented to reakratn a person vho elasina to ha» pditer of company trom pragenting a petition te wind Hp the company where the alleged reht ta honacfide Ahaptited and the so-called debtor company da solvent, Ut may also be granted ke rentnatn 9 threntened act on agains ty a Recetvar appointad by the cork in ceapact GP acts done by him In digeharae ef bis of fice. Further, the High Court may restrain a person from prosecuting rtm, venations clit or eciminal procandings in Infartor As pending, aa where Lb te sought lo Lbhg ready beng Wtlgated Maghatrea court Lnsnes vhteh ares An the igh courte RESAHT Yate WOOD C1BT9) 42. cD. 38 aT Gan, Narr Ves HART (1894) 18 CHD. B70~ ROLE Vie RESTAURART Ch TICALLONS Coe Vee LAVERY (4884) 48 OH. ps 558, MAIDSTOUE PALACE OF CARTETERS LD. RE. C1809) 2 cH. 2A3 REL COUTIOLLY mre 5 hm. £4848) 4 on. 70% u - THAMES LAUNCHRS LTD, Ve. TRINTTY HOUSE CORP. (DEPTFORD stRowD), (1962) CH. 197. Like yp circumstaneas where criminal prosecution may be restrained, ragraph (1) above, under paragraph (A) there are these are where the Nagistrate Comt has no Jurisdiction te entertain the case or where a party to a sult before the High Court te threatened with concucent criminal proceedings which procerdinas are nok purely criminal. Thus £n LORD ARCKLARD V8~ WESTMINISTRR DISTRICE BOAD OF WORDS, LR.9 GH. APP. SET — khe Court of Appasl (games and Nellish, LeJJ) restrained the Defendant from taking ouk a summons under Section 75 Petropalikank vanscement Ack, 1862 on the ground the c ca FoR within Section 74 and consequently a magistrake would have no Jurisdiction to del with the So also in NAVOR OF YORK Ve. PILKINGTON 2 ATK. 3026 Lord Hardwick restrained the Plainklef in sult in equity from Andicting the Defendant's agent, holding that although therevas no restraining powers In Courts of equity over criminal prosecttions, yet where a bill 1s brought to quite the PloInki€f prefers dn tne Aictment for Forcible entry, the Courk will stop proceadinga possession and after th: and on the facte of the cose, that Churt has jurtediction to determine the matter, then, the High Court cannot and WILL nok atop the proceadings- KERR Va. PRESTON CORPORATION, L-R. ® CH. DIV, 463 OR 46 IJ. CH. A09- ARETON MEDICA, A GEN, LIFE ASSIRANCR ASSOCIATION 3 soa, MERRICK Va. LIVERPOOH, CORPORAFLON (1940) 2 CH. 4996 cle De ‘Tho petneiple deductible fron”these decistons Ls that though the extreme position cannot be maintained, that there As absolutely no Jurisdiction in the High Court to restrain edings before a matatrate, the Court will nok Interfere unless Snivary spectal clrcumatencas by way criminal proc of Anjunction or declaration of right where the law maker han pointed out a mode of procedure before a magistrate. Above all unless the cases raised and the objects sought are dential, the Court will not prevent a party to a suit before &t from proceeding in a criminal Court against the opposite partys As to vhen such criminal proceedings should beging, Lord Cains, 1-C. in SAULL Wee RROWNE LaRe 10. APP, GA AT GS. atated thine 92 rsuch a Court could pot tiberfere vith criminal proceedings brought hefora the Hnakltntlon of the mit nor after Ler dekerminakfon, UF Een" taken ofther before cr after the suity it is difficult to + such proceedings might he sae why then they shold not pe taken t the same time and wile hers Se no inconsistency tn place ncuErently with th slowing hoth procesdings, 29 nothing which te be evidones in the suit", See SON LTD. Vay RIETCHA (1973) 26 ARR. 19086 J Lhe two authorities chted Leas GARBA Va. AVICE COMITSS TOW (19AB) AS NECC CET.1) 306 st 320 | Halllu Akilu and another. (198M) 4 NuLe (eP.93) 367 by doth Learned counsel, rha as rightly submitted fon the summons car CLE. 51 and Chief Gael Fayehtamt ve. At de my view hat the case of hy counsel ta the Respondents, has no relevance to the Aseue in this appl tents nin that, in that ease Garba was about to be punished administratively because he had taken tha Conmisston to Court for {legal dismissal and vas presmuriand to withdray hia cage, This attitude of the Commission was the very Sasun before the Court yat to be deckded then, hence the Court has the power to reakrain tho Commission. Unlike In the applicatian on hand, these Applicants are nok Fouling the intended prosecution as being illegal, inatead they are only praying the Court not to allow their ovn substantive mit to proceed simi tansously with the intended crintnal prosecution to be indthated by the Respondents. Loam Lubrensed tn this interpretation by the substantive suit om chown in the hody of thelr Writ of Summons where what the Appicants are asking for te a de declaration that thelr detention in. Augwhty-A8eOg ta et iUlegai and cont Nigerins 1h is my vinw that the substantive sult with the y bo the Lay and constitution of Intended criminal prosecution could asver be held to be miltieiplicity of proceadings or one (Lie. the eriminal action) which the Magistrate Court Nas no jurtadietions From the affSdevit ~ evidence and the submissions of thelr enensel, the applicants hawe filed to show that the Intended criminal prosecution complained of would be violation of thelr rights or la at lezat an act 4 carcled Anto effect will necessarily reat in» violation of that rights, In this applicstion, the Applicants made = heavy weather of therelationshic hetwaae ~ oe e nok and could nok be denied but T know of no law whieh maken auch ralationsiip 29 heen Legal and unless they could prove more, thare te the well-settled rule that it Je not the practice of the Covet to interfere with corporate hodhes,.Unless the ove mantrasiiy shueing thalr powers: DUKE OF RENFORD Ya. DANSON, LR. 20 ha. 383 or AA LI. CHa Ay. } AUMEDAPAD HUNTCTPALIIY Vee HANTLAL UDEHATH, ILRe 19 ROM. Therefore 1 held in eupport of the submission of counsel to & cena of Conck te ask for an Infunckion to restrain the Ne Respondent that df would be an abuse of the pre R heir statutory dubles unde jpondantes fron performing tone A ant 48 of the Police Ack. hence the earim eby Atiate th Elon. Sines the both actions ean Anjunetton qrented ty rovoked and ths ie pondents are £ criminal prose proceed sim Lisnsunety « CHEE GANT PAVENINNL Va. COL. Me AKILU ® ANOTHER (SUPRA) PROUDE V4 PRICE, 63 Lad. Qame 61 GMANCHOSE KARA ODURO'TE ORS, Va. ATT. GEN. L/s (A980) 4 = Gy Con. Co. 180 AT 153 LINKS 20 ~ 24. This votion Le hereby alamisaed. ‘the substantive sult ATE @ AUR, ie hereby adjourned to 26/6/31. \ CERTIFIED TRUE COPY;PHOTOSTAR ro Nanaia “Lesa wesiiictn a. a. pupeR \

You might also like