Is The Supreme Court Of Nigeria An Impartial Umpire? (SC./69/2011) Why The Justitia Of Justice Onnoghen (JSC) Was Not Blind-Folded In Sc./69.2011?

Is The Supreme Court Of Nigeria An Impartial Umpire?
(SC./69/2011)
Why The Justitia Of Justice Onnoghen (JSC)
Was Not Blind-Folded In Sc./69.2011?

Contents
1.0 Introduction

2.0 Are The Attributes Of Justitia Inculcated In The Judges Of The Supreme Court Of Nigeria?

3.0 Dispensation Of Justice Based On The Personalities and Public Figures Of Legal Counsels.

4.0 An Extract Of Live Proceeding In The Supreme Court Of Nigeria On 5th Of May, 2014 Between CCNL And Mobil Oil(Sc./69/2011).

5.0 Is Honourable Justice Walter Nkanu Onnoghen (JSC) An Impartial Umpire In The Suit Number Sc./69/2011?
6.0 Conclusion




1.0 Introduction
At the entrance of the Supreme Court of Nigeria on 5th of May, 2014, for the hearing of a fourteen-year-old case of patent right infringement allegation against Mobil Producing Nigeria Unlimited over the continuous use of the patented invention of Comandclem Nigeria limited, RP:13522, I saw a statute called justitia.

This statute depicts a blind-folded lady carrying a scale in her left hand, and a double-edged sword in her right hand.

Court observers, case analysts and court audiences assumed that with the scale, she measures the strength of cases presented before her for adjudication, while the sword which symbolizes the power of reason, and justices that may be wielded either for or against any of the parties found guilty in the face of the law.

A blind-folded justitia connotes objectivity in that justice should be meted out objectively without fear or favour, regardless of identity, money, power or societal status.

2.0 Are The Attributes Of Justitia Inculcated In The Judges Of The Supreme Court Of Nigeria?
The entire attributes of justitia should be reflected in the conducts of Nigerian Judges so as to boost the public confidence in the impartiality, integrity, fairness, and objectivity of the courts.

Those unique attributes of justitia were appreciated by Honourable Justice Aloma (CJN) during the swearing in ceremony of Justice Zainab Bulkachuwa as the President, Court of Appeal in recent times when she said and I quote,
“It is pertinent at this juncture to stress that the discharge of the obligations of this venerated office must be executed with the utmost sense of fair play, impartiality and dedication to duty.”

3.0 Dispensation Of Justice Based On The Personalities and Public Figures Of Legal Counsels.

Once again, a blind-folded status of justitia implies that justice should be done without fear or favour, regardless of identities, personalities, money, power or societal status.

But unfortunately, the justitia status in the case between CCNL and Mobil Oil is not a blind-folded status but an open-eyed status that dispenses justice based on the social status and personalities of legal counsels that represented the litigants.

Court observers and case analysts were not only disappointed by the conducts of Honourable Justice Walter Samuel Nkanu Onneghen (JSC) but also doubted his impartiality in the dispensation of justice in the Supreme Court of Nigeria on 5th of May, 2014 in a case involving Comandclem Nigeria Limited and Mobil Producing Nigeria Unlimited, suit number SC./69/2011

Case followers, court observers, and case analysts were dumbfounded when the presiding judge, Honourable Justice Walter Samuel Nkanu Onneghen (JSC), attacked, intimidated, challenged, and disrespected the religious title of the legal counsel that represented CCNL, Reverend Jesse Daniels Onuigbo Esq. during the introduction of appearances of the legal counsels for their respective litigants.

What would have prompted a judge of the apex court of the land to disrespect the religious title of a legal counsel while commended the professional and traditional titles of other legal counsels?

Why the justitia of Honourable Justice Walter Samuel Nkanu Onneghen (JSC) is an open-eyed status who discriminated between the religious title and traditional titles of the legal counsels that represented litigants?

Below is the blow by blow account of the live proceeding of events that unfolded which led to the gross embarrassment and an outright disrespect of the religious title of the legal counsel that represented CCNL, Reverend Jesse Daniels Onuigbo Esq by Honourable Justice Walter Samuel Nkanu Onneghen (JSC) on 5th of May, 2014 in the Supreme Court of Nigeria. Happy reading.


4.0 An Extract Of Live Proceeding In The Supreme Court Of Nigeria On 5th Of May, 2014 Between CCNL And Mobil Oil.
Sc./69/2011
During The Official Introduction Of The Legal Counsels Of Parties
CCNL lawyer opened the floor and said.
My lords, I announce the appearance for the Appellants.
My name is Reverend Jesse Daniels Onuigbo Esq.

Honourable Justice Walter Nkanu Onnoghen (JSC) replied reluctantly and said
Now, what is your name?
You said you are what?

CCNL Lawyer respectively replied and said
My name is Reverend Jesse Daniels Onuigbo.

Honourable Justice Walter Nkanu Onnoghen (JSC) angrily replied and said
Forget about the Reverend, and talk.

When the legal counsel of Mobil Oil failed to introduce himself to The Honourable Justices of the Supreme Court of Nigeria within a reasonable period time, Honourable Justice Walter Nkanu Onnoghen (JSC) said softly.
We are waiting.

After Some Minutes, Mobil Oil’s Lawyer Replied softly and said.
Appearing for the Defendant/Respondent/Cross Appellant, Doctor Ayimofe Atake. With me, my lords are Chief Mike Ozekhome (SAN), Chief Uko Udom (SAN), Sam Akpabio ,Olubusayo Ibrahim, Chenaye Orghe.

5.0 Is Honourable Justice Walter Nkanu Onnoghen (JSC) An Impartial Umpire In The Suit Number Sc./69/2011?

According to The Code of Conduct for Judicial Officers in Nigeria, Rule Number 1 and I quote,
“A Judicial Officer should respect and comply with the laws of the land and should conduct himself at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the Judiciary.”

From the above code of conduct for judicial officers in Nigeria, court observers and case followers are left with no option than to conclude that Honourable Justice Walter Nkanu Onnoghen (JSC) has failed to exhibit dispositions to boost public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the Supreme Court of Nigerian`s Judges.

Why Honourable Justice Walter Nkanu Onnoghen (JSC) should attacked, intimidated, challenged, and disrespected the religious title of the legal counsel that represented CCNL, Reverend Jesse Daniels Onuigbo Esq. when he said and I quote,
Forget about the Reverend, and talk?

Why Honourable Justice Walter Nkanu Onnoghen (JSC) failed to attack, intimidate, challenge, and disrespect the traditional and professional titles of Chief Mike Ozekhome (SAN), Dr. Eyimofe Ateke (SAN), and Chief Uko Udom (SAN)?

As a case analyst and court observer, public perceptions on the suspicious and unethical conducts of a presiding judge have immeasurable impacts on the impartiality and integrity of the court.

Public confidence and trust in a judicial system of a country are the barometers with which court audiences, case analysts and court observers measure the honesty, integrity, and impartiality of judges.

This view was supported by Honourable Justice Dahiru Musdapher (JSC) when he said and I quote
“We do not have a garrison or army to fight our cause. Our authority rests solely on the public perception of our integrity and absolute impartiality”
Per: Honourable Justice Dahiru Musdapher (JSC)
Public Lecture: How To Restore Public Confidence In Judiciary.
Date: 8th December, 2008.

6.0 Conclusion
The dispensation of justice based on the social status and professional qualifications of the legal counsels that represented the litigants should be discouraged in its entirety in the interest of justice. This will tremendously promote public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the Nigerian courts.

The justitia of the Supreme Court of Nigeria must be a blind-folded status as against the present open-eyed status that discriminated and disrespected the religious title of a legal counsel.


Judges have a duty to control their emotions and should refrain, as much as possible from making scurrilous comments or insinuations on the acts of public officers done in the discharge of their duties.


The impartiality of the judiciary will be impaired if the judges do not restrain themselves in their behavior and language.


The court should as far as possible limit their pronouncements to the issues necessary for the just decision of the cases before them.
Justice should not only be done but seem to be done.

Views: 246

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Patentees Suffer Over 4 Months Adjournment
As Queen Akon Uwemedimo Made Efforts To Destroy The Legacies Of King Professor CJA Uwemedimo



(1.0)Introduction

(2.0) Live Commentary Of Proceedings In
The Supreme Court Of Nigeria.

(3.0) Legacies of King Professor CJA Uwemedimo

(4.0) Conclusion




(1.0)Introduction

(1.1) The fifteen (15) years` old Patent Right Infringement Litigation between Comandclem Nigeria Limited and Mobil Producing Nigeria Unlimited took a new and dramatic dimension on the 2nd of June, 2015 in the Supreme Court of Nigeria when two distinct legal counsels from different legal firms showed their appearances for Comandclem Nigeria Limited before Honourable Justice Walter Nkanu Onnoghen (JSC)


(1.2) The legal firm of Babatunde Aiku & Co, who was duly contacted and briefed by Late King Professor CJA Uwemedimo announced his appearance for Comandclem Nigeria Limited and simultaneously, Professor Bankole Sodipo & Co, who was said to have been employed by Akon Uwemedimo (one of the Wives Of Late King Professor CJA Uwemedimo), also announced his appearance for Comandclem Nigeria Limited in the same suit (SC.69/2011) before the Supreme Court of Nigeria on the 2nd of June, 2015.



(2.0) Live Commentary Of Proceedings In The Supreme Court Of Nigeria.

(2.1) The conversations below exhibited blow by blow account of live proceedings in an appeal involving Comandclem Nigeria Limited and Mobil Producing Nigeria Unlimited in the Supreme Court of Nigeria on the 2nd of June, 2015.

(2.2) Happy reading.

When the Presiding Judge, Honourable Justice Walter Nkanu Onnoghen (JSC), discovered that two Counsels showed their appearances for the Cross Respondent/Applicant (Comandclem Nigeria Limited) in the same suit, Honourable Justice Walter Nkanu Onnoghen (JSC) said and I quote him verbatim.


“Why should we have two of you standing and announcing for the Cross Respondent/Applicant (Comandclem Nigeria limited)?”


Babatunde Aiku (SAN) stood up and replied Honourable Justice Walter Nkanu Onnoghen (JSC) as follows.


“When we appear before your lordships on the 3rd of November, 2014, Professor Bankole Sodipo was announced as my junior.

I have never seen this type of thing in my life.

My lord, when the Chairman of Comandclem Nigeria Limited died on the 18th of July, 2014, the first son now told me that he wanted to bring other counsels in, and I told him that I had no problem with that.


And I announced Professor Bankole Sodipo as a counsel standing with me on that day, and he now went ahead to file applications without consulting me. But I don’t want to get involved but my decision now is to ask for a short adjournment so that counsels can sort out their differences. I am not here to quarrel with anybody.”



After listening to the argument of Dr. Eyimofe Atake (SAN) (Counsel of Mobil Oil) with respect to the short adjournment being requested for by Babatunde Aiku (SAN), Honourable Justice Walter Nkanu Onnoghen (JSC) made the follow statements.



“I think the best thing to do in this circ***tance is to give them the chance, let them come back with one counsel to represent them, then on that day, the court can look into those applications and move in terms.

By sitting down here, we are ready to deal with the matter; at least those applications that are in the case files, not those ones that are just coming in now.

If we don’t do that, they will say we have denied them fair hearing, and there is no other court to appeal except on the internet.

So, Dr. Eyimofe Atake (SAN), we take you down that you reluctantly concede for an adjournment.”




(3.0) Legacies of King Professor CJA Uwemedimo


(3.1) One of the legacies of King Professor CJA Uwemedimo, when he was alive, was to allow Barrister Rev. Barr Jesse Daniels Onuigbo to write applications to the Supreme Court of Nigeria while Babatunde Aiku (SAN) presides over the legal counsels of Comandclem Nigeria Limited in the apex court of the land.


(3.2) Prince Reginould Uwemedimo was said to have debriefed Barrister Rev. Barr Jesse Daniels Onuigbo, while Queen Akon Uwemedimo was said to have debriefed Babatunde Aiku (SAN),there by destroying the legacies of King Professor CJA Uwemedimo.


(3.3) Professor Bankole Sodipo who was said to have been employed by Queen Akon Uwemedimo had absolutely nothing upstairs to defeat the Legal Counsels of Mobil Producing Nigeria Unlimited.


(3.4) Professor Bankole Sodipo exhibited high level of unprofessionalism and poor legal understanding when he filed an application for substitution of the Cross Respondents` Reply Brief with Order 28 Rule (1) of the Supreme Court Rule which never existed.


(3.5) I quote Professor Bankole Sodipo verbatim.
“Motion On Notice Brought Pursuant To Order 28 Rule (1) Of The Supreme Court Rule And Under The Inherent Jurisdiction Of This Honourable Court”


(3.6) Dr. Eyimofe Atake (SAN) replied to the above legal blunder of Professor Bankole Sodipo as follows.


“That the applicant`s motion on notice is brought pursuant to a non-existent order. There is no “order 28 Rule 1” in the Rules of this honourable court.”




(4.0) Conclusion

(4.1) All the good dreams, expectations, and benefit of patentees as formulated by Comandclem Nigeria Limited can only be actualized if Queen Akon Uwemedimo and Prince Reginould Uwemedimo follow the legacies, philosophies and policies of Late King Professor CJA Uwemedimo.


(4.2) From the look of things, Queen Akon Uwemedimo and Prince Reginould Uwemedimo have completely deviated from the legacies, philosophies and policies of Late King Professor CJA Uwemedimo the result of which is injurious to the investments of all the CCNL Patentees.


(4.3) Comandclem Nigeria Limited is not a family affairs but a corporate affair.


(4.3) Be it rainfall or sunshine, the legacies, philosophies, and policies of Late King Professor CJA Uwemedimo must stand so as to protect the investments of hundreds of thousands of innocent patentees.



CCNL Corporate Reporter
Name: Yusuf Nurudeen (B. Sc., AAT, ACA)
Position: CCNL Marketing Manager
4, Ogudu Road,
Ojota,
Lagos.
+234-703-252-2248
Reasons Why Professor Bankole Sodipo Should Be
Call To Order On Suit SC.69/2011
Before The Supreme Court Of Nigeria

A Legal Counsel Represents Two Conflicting Parties
In The Same Suit Before
The Supreme Court Of Nigeria.


(1.0) Introduction
(2.0) Issues Set Aside For Determination
(3.0) Argument On Ethical Ineligibility Of Professor Bankole Sodipo To Represent Comandclem Nigeria Limited In Suit Sc.69/2011
(4.0) Power Of The Supreme Court Of Nigeria To Restrain Professor Bankole Sodipo From Representing Comandclem Nigeria Limited In Suit SC.69/2011
(5.0) Conclusion

(1.0) Introduction
(1.1) History was made in the Open Court of the Supreme Court of Nigeria on the 2nd of June, 2015, when a Professor of Law, Professor Bankole Sodipo, from the legal firm of G.O. Sodipo & Co, announced his appearance for Comandclem Nigeria Limited (Cross Respondents/Applicants) in suit SC.69/2011 despite the fact that another Barrister, Barrister Daniel Ozoma from the same legal firm of G.O. Sodipo & Co had on the 5th of May, 2014, announced his appearance for A Party Sought To Be Joined (Oyewo Muideen Adekunle- An Antagonist of King Professor CJA Uwemedimo and Comandclem Nigeria Limited) in the same suit before the Supreme Court of Nigeria.

(1.2) On the 5th of May, 2014, one Barrister Daniel Ozoma from the legal firm of G.O. Sodipo & Co said before Honourable Justice Walter Samuel Nkanu Onneghen (JSC) and I quote him verbatim.

“My name is D.O. Ozoma; appearing with me is C. Igarubo-Beresibo, for party sought to be joined, we have an application to join the Applicants my lords”

Per: D.O. Ozoma
Legal Firm: G.O. Sodipo & Co
Date: 5th of May, 2014.


(1.3) Surprisingly, on the 2nd of June, 2015, Professor Bankole Sodipo from the legal firm of G.O. Sodipo & Co, said before Honourable Justice Walter Samuel Nkanu Onneghen (JSC) and I quote him verbatim.

‘My name is Professor Bankole Sodipo; with me is my learner friend, Professor Tony Ukam.”

Justice Walter Samuel Nkanu Onneghen (JSC) interrupted him and said to Professor Tony Ukam as follows,

“When they call your name; you get up and take a bow.”

Professor Bankole Sodipo continued the announcement of his appearance, and he said as follows.

“We humbly announce our appearances for the Cross Respondents /Applicants.”

Per: Professor Bankole Sodipo
Legal Firm: G.O. Sodipo & Co
Date: 2nd of June, 2015.


(2.0) Issues Set Aside For Determination

(2.1) The two issues set aside for determination are;

(1) Can a lawyer who represents a party (a party sought to join the appellants) in a legal suit ethically eligible to represent the opposing party (the appellants) in the same suit pending before the Supreme Court of Nigeria in view of Rule 10 (b) of the Legal Practitioners Act, Chapter 207, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria?

(2) Whether the Supreme Court of Nigeria has Inherent Power to restrain a counsel from representing the Appellants/Cross Respondents in a suit where such a counsel had earlier been briefed by the Opponent Party sought to join the Appellants/Cross Respondents?



(3.0) Argument On Ethical Ineligibility Of
Professor Bankole Sodipo To Represent
Comandclem Nigeria Limited In Suit Sc.69/2011

(3.1) Can a lawyer who represents a party (a party sought to join the appellants) in a legal suit ethically eligible to represent the opposing party (the appellants) in the same suit pending before the Supreme Court of Nigeria in view of Rule 10 (b) of the Legal Practitioners Act, Chapter 207, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria?

(3.2) Fundamental Facts Of The Case
(3.2.1) On the 10th day of April, 2014, one Professor Bankole Sodipo, from the legal firm of G.O. Sodipo & Co, filed an application to join one Mr. Oyewo Muideen Adekunle as Appellants/Cross Respondents in an appeal of Rev. Dr. C.J.A. Uwemedimo & Comandclem Nigeria Limited (Appellants/Cross Respondents) versus Mobil Producing Nigeria Unlimited (Respondent/Cross appellant) before the Supreme Court of Nigeria with suit number (SC.69/2011).

(3.2.2) Surprisingly, on the 12th day of June, 2015, the same Professor Bankole Sodipo, from the legal firm of G.O. Sodipo & Co, filed several applications on behalf of Comandclem Nigeria Limited (Applicants/Cross Respondents) in the Supreme Court of Nigeria despite the fact that the Honourable Justices Of The Supreme Court Of Nigeria have not make any categorical pronouncement on the outstanding application to join one Mr. Oyewo Muideen Adekunle as Appellants/Cross Respondents in the appeal he had filed on the 10th of April, 2014.

(3.2.3) The question is

“Can Professor Bankole Sodipo who represents Oyewo Muideen Adekunle in a legal suit ethically eligible to represent the opposing Comandclem Nigeria Limited in the same suit pending before the Supreme Court of Nigeria in view of Rule 10 (b) of the Legal Practitioners Act, Chapter 207, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria?”


(3.2.4) With your due permission, I quote Rule 10 (b) of the Legal Practitioners Act, Chapter 207, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria as follows.

10. Adverse Influences And Conflicting Interests
 
(b) It is unprofessional conduct to represent conflicting interests, except by express consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts. Within the meaning of this rule, a lawyer represents conflicting interests when in respect of one client of whom he presently contends the interests of that client touch or concern confidences of another client to whom the lawyer at the same time, owes a duty of service.


(3.2.5) From the above Legal Practitioners` Act, Professor Bankole Sodipo has violated the codes of conduct for the Legal Profession in Nigeria by representing the interests of two conflicting parties in the same suit pending before the Supreme Court of Nigeria.

(3.2.6) As a result of the above, The Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) and National Judicial Council (NJC) as a matter of necessity and in the interest of the legal profession in Nigeria should call Professor Bankole Sodipo to order so as to respect the prestigious codes of conduct for the legal profession in Nigeria, i.e. Rule 10 (b) of the Legal Practitioners Act, Chapter 207, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria.



(4.0) Power Of The Supreme Court Of Nigeria To Restrain Professor Bankole Sodipo From Representing Comandclem Nigeria Limited In Suit SC.69/2011

(4.1) Whether the Supreme Court of Nigeria has Inherent Power to restrain a counsel from representing the Appellants/Cross Respondents in a suit where such a counsel had earlier been briefed by the Opponent Party sought to join the Appellants/Cross Respondents?


(4.2.0) Fundamental Facts Of The Case

(4.2.1) Having been duly contacted and briefed by Mr. Oyewo Muideen Adekunle (An Antagonist of King Professor CJA Uwemedimo and Comandclem Nigeria Limited), Professor Bankole Sodipo filed an application to join him as an Appellant/Cross Respondent in suit SC.69/2011 on the 10th of April, 2014 in the Supreme Court of Nigeria.

(4.2.2) Surprisingly, the same Professor Bankole Sodipo claimed he was duly contacted and briefed by Comandclem Nigeria Limited which necessitated him to file several applications on behalf of Comandclem Nigeria Limited (Applicants/Cross Respondents) in the Supreme Court of Nigeria on the 12th day of May, 2015.

(4.2.3) The question is

“Whether the Supreme Court of Nigeria has Inherent Power to restrain Professor Bankole Sodipo from representing Comandclem Nigeria Limited in a suit where Professor Bankole Sodipo had earlier been briefed by Mr. Oyewo Muideen Adekunle (An Antagonist of King Professor CJA Uwemedimo and Comandclem Nigeria Limited)?”

(4.2.4) Being the highest court in the land, the Honourable Justices of The Supreme Court of Nigeria have Inherent Powers to restrain Professor Bankole Sodipo from representing Comandclem Nigeria Limited in the Supreme Court of Nigeria in suit SC.69/2011 because Professor Bankole Sodipo had earlier been briefed by an opponent of Comandclem Nigeria Limited.

(4.2.5) The above position of law is supported by the pronouncement of Honourable Justice Uwais (JSC) in the case of Anatogu V. Iweka II (1995) 8 NWLR (Pt.415) 547 where he said and I quote him verbatim.

"Generally, the courts are not to prevent Litigants from employing the services of counsel of their own choice.

However, a person must not be allowed to employ the services of a counsel, nor should a counsel accept a brief where it is clear that the services to be rendered flow out of or are closely connected with the previous services he had rendered to the opposing side.


Clearly the jurisdiction to restrain counsel from acting for the antagonist of his client stems from the principle that a man ought to be restrained from doing any act contrary to the duty that he owes to another, and that the jurisdiction will be exercised at the instance of the former client".

Per :Uwais J.S.C.
Anatogu V. Iweka II (1995) 8 NWLR (Pt.415) 547, at page 582 – 583.


(4.2.6) Furthermore, Honourable Justice Oseji, J.C.A. corroborated the above position of law in the case of Mrs. Mary E. Onyeka & Anor V. Celestine Ogbonna & Ors.when he said and I quote him verbatim.

"In Onyeke V. Harriclem (Nig.) Ltd (1998) 7 NWLR (Pt.556) 64. This court had cause to restrain a counsel Obi Akpudo Esq. or any counsel from his chambers from acting for the respondent (Harriclem (Nig.) Ltd.) against the appellant (Onyeke) in any case involving the subject matter in which he had earlier been briefed and obtained information from the appellant.

In this regard, their lordships per Akpabio, J.C.A. stated at page 72 as follows:-

"Before concluding, I must add by way of emphasis that what is being frowned upon by the court is the idea of a counsel appearing for the party, say the plaintiff, at an early stage of a transaction and their turning around at a later stage of the some transaction to appeal or act for his opponent."

Per:Oseji, J.C.A.(Pp. 24-25, paras. A-F)
Mrs. Mary E. Onyeka & Anor V. Celestine Ogbonna & Ors.
CITATION: (2013) LPELR-20718(CA)
In The Court of Appeal (Makurdi Judicial Division)
On Thursday, the 2nd day of May, 2013
Suit No: CA/MK/22/2011


(5.0) Conclusion

(5.1) Professor Bankole Sodipo has failed totally to uphold and observe the rule of law, promote and foster the cause of justice, maintain a high standard of professional conduct, and has engaged conduct which is unbecoming of a legal practitioner by representing two conflicting parties in the same suit (SC.69/2011) before the Supreme Court of Nigeria.

(5.2) Professor Bankole Sodipo being an officer of the court, he has conducted himself in a manner that has obstructed, delayed, and adversely affected the speedy determination of a fifteen-year-old case between Comandclem Nigeria Limited and Mobil Producing Nigeria Unlimited by causing avoidable adjournment of the appeal to the 19th of October, 2105.

(5.3) In order to respect the code of conducts for the Legal Profession in Nigeria, The National Judicial Council & The Nigerian Bar Association should call Professor Bankole Sodipo to order to refrain from representing two conflicting parties in the same suit SC.69/2011 before the Supreme Court of Nigeria.


CCNL Corporate Reporter
Name: Yusuf Nurudeen (B. Sc., AAT, ACA)
Position: CCNL Marketing Manager
4, Ogudu Road,
Ojota,
Lagos.
+234-703-252-2248
Reasons Why Professor Bankole Sodipo Should Be
Call To Order On Suit SC.69/2011
Before The Supreme Court Of Nigeria

A Legal Counsel Represents Two Conflicting Parties
In The Same Suit Before
The Supreme Court Of Nigeria.


(1.0) Introduction
(2.0) Issues Set Aside For Determination
(3.0) Argument On Ethical Ineligibility Of Professor Bankole Sodipo To Represent Comandclem Nigeria Limited In Suit Sc.69/2011
(4.0) Power Of The Supreme Court Of Nigeria To Restrain Professor Bankole Sodipo From Representing Comandclem Nigeria Limited In Suit SC.69/2011
(5.0) Conclusion

(1.0) Introduction
(1.1) History was made in the Open Court of the Supreme Court of Nigeria on the 2nd of June, 2015, when a Professor of Law, Professor Bankole Sodipo, from the legal firm of G.O. Sodipo & Co, announced his appearance for Comandclem Nigeria Limited (Cross Respondents/Applicants) in suit SC.69/2011 despite the fact that another Barrister, Barrister Daniel Ozoma from the same legal firm of G.O. Sodipo & Co had on the 5th of May, 2014, announced his appearance for A Party Sought To Be Joined (Oyewo Muideen Adekunle- An Antagonist of King Professor CJA Uwemedimo and Comandclem Nigeria Limited) in the same suit before the Supreme Court of Nigeria.

(1.2) On the 5th of May, 2014, one Barrister Daniel Ozoma from the legal firm of G.O. Sodipo & Co said before Honourable Justice Walter Samuel Nkanu Onneghen (JSC) and I quote him verbatim.

“My name is D.O. Ozoma; appearing with me is C. Igarubo-Beresibo, for party sought to be joined, we have an application to join the Applicants my lords”

Per: D.O. Ozoma
Legal Firm: G.O. Sodipo & Co
Date: 5th of May, 2014.


(1.3) Surprisingly, on the 2nd of June, 2015, Professor Bankole Sodipo from the legal firm of G.O. Sodipo & Co, said before Honourable Justice Walter Samuel Nkanu Onneghen (JSC) and I quote him verbatim.

‘My name is Professor Bankole Sodipo; with me is my learner friend, Professor Tony Ukam.”

Justice Walter Samuel Nkanu Onneghen (JSC) interrupted him and said to Professor Tony Ukam as follows,

“When they call your name; you get up and take a bow.”

Professor Bankole Sodipo continued the announcement of his appearance, and he said as follows.

“We humbly announce our appearances for the Cross Respondents /Applicants.”

Per: Professor Bankole Sodipo
Legal Firm: G.O. Sodipo & Co
Date: 2nd of June, 2015.


(2.0) Issues Set Aside For Determination

(2.1) The two issues set aside for determination are;

(1) Can a lawyer who represents a party (a party sought to join the appellants) in a legal suit ethically eligible to represent the opposing party (the appellants) in the same suit pending before the Supreme Court of Nigeria in view of Rule 10 (b) of the Legal Practitioners Act, Chapter 207, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria?

(2) Whether the Supreme Court of Nigeria has Inherent Power to restrain a counsel from representing the Appellants/Cross Respondents in a suit where such a counsel had earlier been briefed by the Opponent Party sought to join the Appellants/Cross Respondents?



(3.0) Argument On Ethical Ineligibility Of
Professor Bankole Sodipo To Represent
Comandclem Nigeria Limited In Suit Sc.69/2011

(3.1) Can a lawyer who represents a party (a party sought to join the appellants) in a legal suit ethically eligible to represent the opposing party (the appellants) in the same suit pending before the Supreme Court of Nigeria in view of Rule 10 (b) of the Legal Practitioners Act, Chapter 207, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria?

(3.2) Fundamental Facts Of The Case
(3.2.1) On the 10th day of April, 2014, one Professor Bankole Sodipo, from the legal firm of G.O. Sodipo & Co, filed an application to join one Mr. Oyewo Muideen Adekunle as Appellants/Cross Respondents in an appeal of Rev. Dr. C.J.A. Uwemedimo & Comandclem Nigeria Limited (Appellants/Cross Respondents) versus Mobil Producing Nigeria Unlimited (Respondent/Cross appellant) before the Supreme Court of Nigeria with suit number (SC.69/2011).

(3.2.2) Surprisingly, on the 12th day of June, 2015, the same Professor Bankole Sodipo, from the legal firm of G.O. Sodipo & Co, filed several applications on behalf of Comandclem Nigeria Limited (Applicants/Cross Respondents) in the Supreme Court of Nigeria despite the fact that the Honourable Justices Of The Supreme Court Of Nigeria have not make any categorical pronouncement on the outstanding application to join one Mr. Oyewo Muideen Adekunle as Appellants/Cross Respondents in the appeal he had filed on the 10th of April, 2014.

(3.2.3) The question is

“Can Professor Bankole Sodipo who represents Oyewo Muideen Adekunle in a legal suit ethically eligible to represent the opposing Comandclem Nigeria Limited in the same suit pending before the Supreme Court of Nigeria in view of Rule 10 (b) of the Legal Practitioners Act, Chapter 207, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria?”


(3.2.4) With your due permission, I quote Rule 10 (b) of the Legal Practitioners Act, Chapter 207, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria as follows.

10. Adverse Influences And Conflicting Interests
 
(b) It is unprofessional conduct to represent conflicting interests, except by express consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts. Within the meaning of this rule, a lawyer represents conflicting interests when in respect of one client of whom he presently contends the interests of that client touch or concern confidences of another client to whom the lawyer at the same time, owes a duty of service.


(3.2.5) From the above Legal Practitioners` Act, Professor Bankole Sodipo has violated the codes of conduct for the Legal Profession in Nigeria by representing the interests of two conflicting parties in the same suit pending before the Supreme Court of Nigeria.

(3.2.6) As a result of the above, The Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) and National Judicial Council (NJC) as a matter of necessity and in the interest of the legal profession in Nigeria should call Professor Bankole Sodipo to order so as to respect the prestigious codes of conduct for the legal profession in Nigeria, i.e. Rule 10 (b) of the Legal Practitioners Act, Chapter 207, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria.



(4.0) Power Of The Supreme Court Of Nigeria To Restrain Professor Bankole Sodipo From Representing Comandclem Nigeria Limited In Suit SC.69/2011

(4.1) Whether the Supreme Court of Nigeria has Inherent Power to restrain a counsel from representing the Appellants/Cross Respondents in a suit where such a counsel had earlier been briefed by the Opponent Party sought to join the Appellants/Cross Respondents?


(4.2.0) Fundamental Facts Of The Case

(4.2.1) Having been duly contacted and briefed by Mr. Oyewo Muideen Adekunle (An Antagonist of King Professor CJA Uwemedimo and Comandclem Nigeria Limited), Professor Bankole Sodipo filed an application to join him as an Appellant/Cross Respondent in suit SC.69/2011 on the 10th of April, 2014 in the Supreme Court of Nigeria.

(4.2.2) Surprisingly, the same Professor Bankole Sodipo claimed he was duly contacted and briefed by Comandclem Nigeria Limited which necessitated him to file several applications on behalf of Comandclem Nigeria Limited (Applicants/Cross Respondents) in the Supreme Court of Nigeria on the 12th day of May, 2015.

(4.2.3) The question is

“Whether the Supreme Court of Nigeria has Inherent Power to restrain Professor Bankole Sodipo from representing Comandclem Nigeria Limited in a suit where Professor Bankole Sodipo had earlier been briefed by Mr. Oyewo Muideen Adekunle (An Antagonist of King Professor CJA Uwemedimo and Comandclem Nigeria Limited)?”

(4.2.4) Being the highest court in the land, the Honourable Justices of The Supreme Court of Nigeria have Inherent Powers to restrain Professor Bankole Sodipo from representing Comandclem Nigeria Limited in the Supreme Court of Nigeria in suit SC.69/2011 because Professor Bankole Sodipo had earlier been briefed by an opponent of Comandclem Nigeria Limited.

(4.2.5) The above position of law is supported by the pronouncement of Honourable Justice Uwais (JSC) in the case of Anatogu V. Iweka II (1995) 8 NWLR (Pt.415) 547 where he said and I quote him verbatim.

"Generally, the courts are not to prevent Litigants from employing the services of counsel of their own choice.

However, a person must not be allowed to employ the services of a counsel, nor should a counsel accept a brief where it is clear that the services to be rendered flow out of or are closely connected with the previous services he had rendered to the opposing side.


Clearly the jurisdiction to restrain counsel from acting for the antagonist of his client stems from the principle that a man ought to be restrained from doing any act contrary to the duty that he owes to another, and that the jurisdiction will be exercised at the instance of the former client".

Per :Uwais J.S.C.
Anatogu V. Iweka II (1995) 8 NWLR (Pt.415) 547, at page 582 – 583.


(4.2.6) Furthermore, Honourable Justice Oseji, J.C.A. corroborated the above position of law in the case of Mrs. Mary E. Onyeka & Anor V. Celestine Ogbonna & Ors.when he said and I quote him verbatim.

"In Onyeke V. Harriclem (Nig.) Ltd (1998) 7 NWLR (Pt.556) 64. This court had cause to restrain a counsel Obi Akpudo Esq. or any counsel from his chambers from acting for the respondent (Harriclem (Nig.) Ltd.) against the appellant (Onyeke) in any case involving the subject matter in which he had earlier been briefed and obtained information from the appellant.

In this regard, their lordships per Akpabio, J.C.A. stated at page 72 as follows:-

"Before concluding, I must add by way of emphasis that what is being frowned upon by the court is the idea of a counsel appearing for the party, say the plaintiff, at an early stage of a transaction and their turning around at a later stage of the some transaction to appeal or act for his opponent."

Per:Oseji, J.C.A.(Pp. 24-25, paras. A-F)
Mrs. Mary E. Onyeka & Anor V. Celestine Ogbonna & Ors.
CITATION: (2013) LPELR-20718(CA)
In The Court of Appeal (Makurdi Judicial Division)
On Thursday, the 2nd day of May, 2013
Suit No: CA/MK/22/2011


(5.0) Conclusion

(5.1) Professor Bankole Sodipo has failed totally to uphold and observe the rule of law, promote and foster the cause of justice, maintain a high standard of professional conduct, and has engaged conduct which is unbecoming of a legal practitioner by representing two conflicting parties in the same suit (SC.69/2011) before the Supreme Court of Nigeria.

(5.2) Professor Bankole Sodipo being an officer of the court, he has conducted himself in a manner that has obstructed, delayed, and adversely affected the speedy determination of a fifteen-year-old case between Comandclem Nigeria Limited and Mobil Producing Nigeria Unlimited by causing avoidable adjournment of the appeal to the 19th of October, 2105.

(5.3) In order to respect the code of conducts for the Legal Profession in Nigeria, The National Judicial Council & The Nigerian Bar Association should call Professor Bankole Sodipo to order to refrain from representing two conflicting parties in the same suit SC.69/2011 before the Supreme Court of Nigeria.


CCNL Corporate Reporter
Name: Yusuf Nurudeen (B. Sc., AAT, ACA)
Position: CCNL Marketing Manager
4, Ogudu Road,
Ojota,
Lagos.
+234-703-252-2248
2015 Annual Judicial Recess:
Supreme Court Resumes On The 11th Of September, 2015,
To Entertain Comandclem`s Appeal 38 Days After Resumption.




(1) Pieces of information made available to Anti-Corrosive Vanguard from a reliable source showed clearly that the Honourable Justices of the Apex Court of The Land shall embark on an Annual Judicial Recess on the 13th day of July, 2015, only to resume on Friday, 11th of September, 2015.


(2) The Annual Judicial Recess is a yearly vacation/holiday enjoy by the Nigerian Judges to carry out in-depth litigation research work, training on case management, and the latest discovery in the global judicial pronouncements which may improve the administration of justice in Nigeria.


(3) In reference to the Supreme Court of Nigeria, the Honourable Justices are expected to enjoy the Annual Judicial Recess between July and September of every year as provided for in The Supreme Court Rules 1985 as amended, Order 6 (Filing of Briefs in Civil And Criminal Proceedings) Rule 5 (7) Practice Direction:


“In giving effect to the provisions of Order 6 Rule 5 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1985, the period of the vacation which is declared between July and September each year shall not be taken into account for the computation of the period of filing briefs by either the appellant or the respondent in an appeal before the Court.”


(4) After resumption on the 11th day of September, 2015, the Honourable Justices of the Supreme Court of Nigeria have only thirty-eight (38) days to make categorical judicial pronouncements on the following outstanding motions with respect to an Appeal between CCNL and Mobil Oil;


- Restoration Application Filed By CCNL

- Party Sought To Be Joined Filed By Oyewo Muideen Adekunle

- Time Extension To File The Cross Appellant Reply Brief Filed By Mobil Producing Nigeria Unlimited



(5) The invalid employment/engagement of Professor Bankole Sodipo to lead the Legal Counsel of CCNL by the wicked Queen Akon Uwemedimo and the selfish Prince Reginould Uwemedimo prevented the Honourable Justices of The Supreme Court of Nigeria to make categorical pronouncements on those outstanding motions on the 2nd of June, 2015.


(6) On the 2nd of June, 2015, Professor Bankole Sodipo disrupted the hearing of those outstanding motions by claiming before the Honourable Justices of the Supreme Court to have been employed by The Wicked Queen Akon Uwemedimo and the Selfish Prince Reginould Uwemedimo; decision which is contrary to the legacies and policies of Late King Professor CJA who duly contacted and briefed Babatunde Aiku (SAN), Barrister Jesse Daniels (ESQ) and Barrister Kunle Faokunla (ESQ) to argue the Appeal of CCNL to victory in the Supreme Court of Nigeria.


(7) The unethical activities of Professor Bankole Sodipo, the wickedness of Queen Akon Uwemedimo, and the selfishness of Prince Reginould Uwemedimo resulted to 5 months and 19 days delay in the final determination of CCNL`s Appeal before the Supreme Court of Nigeria.


(8) In his wisdom, Honourable Justice Walter Nkanu Onnoghen (JSC) adjourned the appeal to 19th of October, 2015 to enable CCNL presents only one leading counsel to represent it in suit SC.69/2015.


(9) The unethical activities of Professor Bankole Sodipo caught the Board of Directors in CCNL unaware on the 2nd of June, 2015, in the Supreme Court of Nigeria.


(10) The ugly situation will never repeat itself on the 19th of October, 2015, because of the fact that the Board of Directors appointed by King CJA Uwemedimo on the 15th day of May, 2013, at its Head Office at No. 23 Aka Idak Eyop Street Uyo is on top of every situation.


(11) Thanks for your support. We shall not labour in vain. Amen

CCNL Corporate Reporter
Name: Yusuf Nurudeen (B. Sc., AAT, ACA)
Position: CCNL Marketing Manager
4, Ogudu Road,
Ojota,
Lagos.
+234-703-252-2248
Breaking News: CCNL Maintains The Status Quo.
Comandclem Hammers Pastor Monday On Monday; Restrains Professor Bankole Sodipo; As Prince Reginould Uwemedimo Reaps The Fruit Of His Forgery.

Content
(1.0) Introduction
(2.0) An Interview With The Plaintiffs` Counsel, Barrister Ifeanyi Idika Esq,
(3.0) Conclusion





(1.0) Introduction


(1.1) The internal crises rocking the administration of Comandclem Nigeria Limited most importantly the conflict over the appearance of a leading legal counsel in an appeal(SC.69/2011) against Mobil Producing Nigeria Unlimited ongoing in the Supreme Court Of Nigeria, and the unreasonable intrusion of Akon uwemedimo, Reginould Uwemedimo, Pastor Monday Obo Akpan not excluding Professor Bankole Sodipo have been finally laid to an everlasting rest following the bold decision and wise step taken by Comandclem Nigeria Limited and two (2) of its directors to institute an interlocutory injunction directing all the BOD Members in the management of CCNL to maintain the status quo as approved by the Late Chairman, King Professor CJA Uwemedimo, in the General Meeting of the Company held on the 15th and 16th day of May, 2013, at its Head Office at No. 23 Aka Idak Eyop Street Uyo.


(2.0) An Interview With The Plaintiffs` Counsel, Barrister Ifeanyi Idika Esq,


(2.1) The interview below exhibited the conversations between the Correspondent of Anti-Corrosive Vanguard, (Yusuf Nurudeen {ACA}) and the Legal Counsel of the Plaintiffs, Barrister Ifeanyi Idika Esq, in the interlocutory injunction suit already filed in the Federal High Court, Uyo Judicial Division with case number, FHC/UYO/CS/2015/2015/1111


(2.3) Happy reading

(2.4) The Correspondent of Anti-Corrosive vanguard asked a question from Barrister Ifeanyi Idika Esq, as follows.


“Of what relevance is this interlocutory injunction suit to innocent patentees of CCNL who have invested for years without any return on their investments?”


(2.5) Barrister Ifeanyi Idika Esq, Replied As Follows.


“The late Chairman of Comandclem Nigeria Limited, King Professor CJA Uwemedimo, had good plans for patentees in his proposed social security scheme but some greedy individuals have decided to hijack the program for their selfish motives.”


“The day to day operation of CCNL activities, most especially various patent right infringement court cases, are being financed by the public funds of Nigerians through registration into either patentees or committee of friends.”


“The bottom line is that, the interests of all the providers of funds (Patentees) to run the activities of CCNL must be protected in-line with the policies and programs of the late chairman, King Professor CJA Uwemedimo.”


“Now to your question, one of the unquantifiable benefits of this interlocutory injunction is that it provides a favourable platform for a successful hearing in an appeal involving Comandclem Nigeria Limited and Mobil Producing Nigeria Unlimited fixed for hearing on the 19th of October, 2015 in the Supreme Court of Nigeria.”


“Technically speaking, this interlocutory injunction will restrain any other legal counsels from announcing his appearance for Comandclem Nigeria Limited on the 19th of October, 2015, except the validly briefed and duly contacted professional lawyers by Late King Professor CJA Uwemedimo during his life time that include, Babatunde Aiku (SAN), Barrister Rev. Jesse-Daniels Onuigbo Esq., Barrister Kunle Faokunla Esq.”


“Furthermore, this interlocutory injunction will restrain Prince Reginuold Uwemedimo from parading himself as the Secretary of Comandclem Nigeria Limited, and stop the dismissed Pastor Monday Obo Akpan from interfering with the operation of Comandclem Nigeria Limited.


In addition to the above, this interlocutory injunction will ensure that the status quo as it relates to the administration of Comandclem Nigeria Limited is maintained as being approved by the Late Chairman, King Professor CJA Uwemedimo, in the General Meeting of the Company held on the 15th and 16th day of May, 2013, at its Head Office at No. 23 Aka Idak Eyop Street Uyo.
Thanks.


(3.0) Conclusion


(3.1) It is on record that the activities of Akon uwemedimo, Reginould Uwemedimo, and the dismissed Pastor Monday Obo Akpan have negatively affected the smooth operation of Comandclem Nigeria Limited as exhibited on the 2nd of June, 2015, in the Supreme Court of Nigeria where Professor Bankole Sodipo disrupted the continuation of the hearing of an appeal against Mobil Producing Nigeria Limited, and caused avoidable case adjournment to 19th of October, 2015.


(3.2) To avoid the re-occurrence of this ugly situation on the 19th of October, 2015, Comandclem Nigeria Limited and two (2) of its directors have instituted this interlocutory injunction, in the interest of the Patentees, directing all the BOD Members in the management of CCNL to maintain the status quo as approved by the Late Chairman, King Professor CJA Uwemedimo, in the General Meeting of the Company held on the 15th and 16th day of May, 2013, at its Head Office at No. 23 Aka Idak Eyop Street Uyo.


(3.3) The orders of the interlocutory injunction are hereby attached.

Name: Yusuf Nurudeen (B. Sc., AAT, ACA)
Correspondent: Anti-Corrosive Vanguard
Position: CCNL Marketing Manager
4, Ogudu Road,
Ojota,
Lagos.








http://comandclemnewsupdate.blogspot.com/2015/07/breaking-news-ccnl...
Breaking News: CCNL Maintains The Status Quo.
Comandclem Hammers Pastor Monday On Monday; Restrains Professor Bankole Sodipo; As Prince Reginould Uwemedimo Reaps The Fruit Of His Forgery.

Content
(1.0) Introduction
(2.0) An Interview With The Plaintiffs` Counsel, Barrister Ifeanyi Idika Esq,
(3.0) Conclusion





(1.0) Introduction


(1.1) The internal crises rocking the administration of Comandclem Nigeria Limited most importantly the conflict over the appearance of a leading legal counsel in an appeal(SC.69/2011) against Mobil Producing Nigeria Unlimited ongoing in the Supreme Court Of Nigeria, and the unreasonable intrusion of Akon uwemedimo, Reginould Uwemedimo, Pastor Monday Obo Akpan not excluding Professor Bankole Sodipo have been finally laid to an everlasting rest following the bold decision and wise step taken by Comandclem Nigeria Limited and two (2) of its directors to institute an interlocutory injunction directing all the BOD Members in the management of CCNL to maintain the status quo as approved by the Late Chairman, King Professor CJA Uwemedimo, in the General Meeting of the Company held on the 15th and 16th day of May, 2013, at its Head Office at No. 23 Aka Idak Eyop Street Uyo.


(2.0) An Interview With The Plaintiffs` Counsel, Barrister Ifeanyi Idika Esq,


(2.1) The interview below exhibited the conversations between the Correspondent of Anti-Corrosive Vanguard, (Yusuf Nurudeen {ACA}) and the Legal Counsel of the Plaintiffs, Barrister Ifeanyi Idika Esq, in the interlocutory injunction suit already filed in the Federal High Court, Uyo Judicial Division with case number, FHC/UYO/CS/2015/2015/1111


(2.3) Happy reading

(2.4) The Correspondent of Anti-Corrosive vanguard asked a question from Barrister Ifeanyi Idika Esq, as follows.


“Of what relevance is this interlocutory injunction suit to innocent patentees of CCNL who have invested for years without any return on their investments?”


(2.5) Barrister Ifeanyi Idika Esq, Replied As Follows.


“The late Chairman of Comandclem Nigeria Limited, King Professor CJA Uwemedimo, had good plans for patentees in his proposed social security scheme but some greedy individuals have decided to hijack the program for their selfish motives.”


“The day to day operation of CCNL activities, most especially various patent right infringement court cases, are being financed by the public funds of Nigerians through registration into either patentees or committee of friends.”


“The bottom line is that, the interests of all the providers of funds (Patentees) to run the activities of CCNL must be protected in-line with the policies and programs of the late chairman, King Professor CJA Uwemedimo.”


“Now to your question, one of the unquantifiable benefits of this interlocutory injunction is that it provides a favourable platform for a successful hearing in an appeal involving Comandclem Nigeria Limited and Mobil Producing Nigeria Unlimited fixed for hearing on the 19th of October, 2015 in the Supreme Court of Nigeria.”


“Technically speaking, this interlocutory injunction will restrain any other legal counsels from announcing his appearance for Comandclem Nigeria Limited on the 19th of October, 2015, except the validly briefed and duly contacted professional lawyers by Late King Professor CJA Uwemedimo during his life time that include, Babatunde Aiku (SAN), Barrister Rev. Jesse-Daniels Onuigbo Esq., Barrister Kunle Faokunla Esq.”


“Furthermore, this interlocutory injunction will restrain Prince Reginuold Uwemedimo from parading himself as the Secretary of Comandclem Nigeria Limited, and stop the dismissed Pastor Monday Obo Akpan from interfering with the operation of Comandclem Nigeria Limited.


In addition to the above, this interlocutory injunction will ensure that the status quo as it relates to the administration of Comandclem Nigeria Limited is maintained as being approved by the Late Chairman, King Professor CJA Uwemedimo, in the General Meeting of the Company held on the 15th and 16th day of May, 2013, at its Head Office at No. 23 Aka Idak Eyop Street Uyo.
Thanks.


(3.0) Conclusion


(3.1) It is on record that the activities of Akon uwemedimo, Reginould Uwemedimo, and the dismissed Pastor Monday Obo Akpan have negatively affected the smooth operation of Comandclem Nigeria Limited as exhibited on the 2nd of June, 2015, in the Supreme Court of Nigeria where Professor Bankole Sodipo disrupted the continuation of the hearing of an appeal against Mobil Producing Nigeria Limited, and caused avoidable case adjournment to 19th of October, 2015.


(3.2) To avoid the re-occurrence of this ugly situation on the 19th of October, 2015, Comandclem Nigeria Limited and two (2) of its directors have instituted this interlocutory injunction, in the interest of the Patentees, directing all the BOD Members in the management of CCNL to maintain the status quo as approved by the Late Chairman, King Professor CJA Uwemedimo, in the General Meeting of the Company held on the 15th and 16th day of May, 2013, at its Head Office at No. 23 Aka Idak Eyop Street Uyo.


(3.3) The orders of the interlocutory injunction are hereby attached.

Name: Yusuf Nurudeen (B. Sc., AAT, ACA)
Correspondent: Anti-Corrosive Vanguard
Position: CCNL Marketing Manager
4, Ogudu Road,
Ojota,
Lagos.








http://comandclemnewsupdate.blogspot.com/2015/07/breaking-news-ccnl...

Recently cardiovascular disease remains the No. 1 cause of death the U.S. A disease of the heart caused by much ch***sterol, obesity, smoking, poor diet. For more details fo;;ow the link below
http://www.nasarity.com/cardiovascular-disease-and-nutrition/

Anti-Corrosive Special Paint: The Sole Invention Behind The Off-Shore Oil Production In Nigeria Is
Sixteen (16) Years Old Today, 5th Day Of August, 2015.




(1.0) Introduction

(2.0) Statements Of King Professor Emeritus CJA Uwemedimo In An Interview

(3.0) Conclusion






(1.0) Introduction

(1.1) Today, 5th day of August, 2015, marks sixteen (16) years ago King Professor Emeritus CJA Uwemedimo was vested with the Statutory Inventor of Anti-Corrosive Special Paint, RP: 13522 by President Olusegun Obasanjo (GCFR) through the Patent Office, Federal Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Federal Republic of Nigeria, on the 5th day of August, 1999.


(1.2) King Professor Emeritus CJA Uwemedimo is both the True And Statutory Inventor of Anti-Corrosive Special Paint;


-for being the first to conceptualize the inventive ideas in 1980, and


-for being the first to file inventive doc**ents in the Patent Office of the Federal Republic of Nigeria to obtain RP:13522, and


-for being the first to validly claim a foreign priority with the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) to obtain PCT/GB/2010/000074.


(1.3) The above claims of King Professor Emeritus CJA Uwemedimo are adequately supported by the Patents and Designs Act, Chapter 344, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 1990, Section 2.(1) and I quote verbatim.


“Subject to this section, the right to a patent in respect of an invention is vested in the statutory inventor, that is to say, the person who, whether or not he is the true inventor, is the first to file, or validly to claim a foreign priority for, a patent application in respect of the invention.”




(2.0) Statements Of King Professor Emeritus CJA Uwemedimo In An Interview.


(2.1) During an interview with King Professor Emeritus CJA Uwemedimo in his life time, he said and I quote him verbatim.


“The king is sure that no matter what happens, his royalties will be paid to him because everything is about the world`s intellectual property organization, and the patents, and the rules of patents, the rules of intellectual property.”


“Say it and let everybody know categorically that I invented this thing and it has not been challenged, and nobody can challenge it, because if you challenge it, you must provide the proof.”


Click here to download.

Source: http://youtu.be/tR66pPOzSsA


(2.2) From the above statements of King Professor Emeritus CJA Uwemedimo, Patentees of Comandclem Nigeria Limited should not express any fear with respect to the delay in the payment of the royalties expected to be accrued from the unauthorized use and importation of Anti-Corrosive Special Paint by Mobil Producing Nigeria Unlimited.


(2.3) Bill Gate of America invented softwares to transform the information technology, and all the users of his patented softwares pay royalties to him.


(2.4) No Patentee of an invention suffers in the world; the case of Comandclem Nigeria Limited will not be an exception.


(3.0) Conclusion

(3.1) On behalf of the entire Board of Directors in Comandclem Nigeria Limited appointed and approved by the Late Chairman, King Professor CJA Uwemedimo, in the General Meeting of the Company held on the 15th and 16th day of May, 2013, at its Head Office at No. 23 Aka Idak Eyop Street Uyo, I congratulate;

-the Federal Republic of Nigeria,

-the Management of Mobil Producing Nigeria Unlimited, and

- all the Patentees of Comandclem Nigeria Limited,

over the successful research and invention of Anti-Corrosive Special Paint for QIT QAD, RP: 13522,
the only enabling paint that allows the extraction of
-Crude Oil,

-Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG),

-Condensate, And

-Other Barrel Gases in Nigeria.


(3.2) The Honourable Justices of the Supreme Court of Nigeria on the 2nd day of June, 2015 before Honourable Justice Walter Nkanu Onnoghen (JSC) had adjourned the hearing of the appeal (SC.69/2011) between Comandclem Nigeria Limited and Mobil Producing Nigeria Unlimited to 19th day of October, 2015.


(3.3) It is the prayers of the Anti-Corrosive Vanguards that, “Patentees shall reap the fruits of their investments in the intellectual property of Comandclem Nigeria Limited.”


(3.4) Amen




Name: Yusuf Nurudeen (B. Sc., AAT, ACA)

Correspondent: Anti-Corrosive Vanguard
Position: CCNL Marketing Manager
4, Ogudu Road,
Ojota,
Lagos.
0703-252-2248

RSS

© 2017   Created by Vanguard Media Ltd.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service