As Patentees Await A New Hearing Date,
Justice Mahmud Mohammed (CJN)
Warned Judges of Appeal Courts
Over Conflicting Judgments
Content
(1.0) Introduction
(2.0)The Conflicting Judgments Of Two Judges From
The Same Federal Court Of Appeal,
Calabar Judicial Division of Nigeria Between
The Same Parties And On The Same Issue In Disputes
(3.0) Justice Mahmud Mohammed (CJN)
Reactions/Statements On The Conflicting Judgments
Of The Federal Court Of Appeals Judges In Nigeria
(4.0) Justice Onnoghen (JSC) Speaks “A Judge That Over-Ruled Another Judge Of Coordinate Jurisdiction Is A Fool”
(5.0) Conclusion
(1.0)Introduction
(1.1) Patentees who have invested in the intellectual property of Late King Professor Emeritus CJA Uwemedimo/Comandclem Nigeria Limited, RP:13522, have been waiting eagerly for the Honourable Justices of the Supreme Court Of Nigeria to officially issue a new hearing date so as to entertain all the outstanding motions with respect to the patent right infringement suit against Mobil Producing Nigeria Unlimited.
(1.2) The hearing, and the subsequent determination of those outstanding motions could not take place on the 19th of January, 2015 in the Supreme Court of Nigeria attributable to a nationwide industrial strike embarked upon by the Nigerian Judicial Workers.
(2.0) The Conflicting Judgments Of Two Judges From
The Same Federal Court Of Appeal,
Calabar Judicial Division of Nigeria Between
The Same Parties And On The Same Issue In Disputes
(2.1) Comandclem Nigeria Limited filed a substantive appeal against Mobil Producing Nigeria Unlimited in the Supreme Court of Nigeria to correct the judgment of the Federal Court Of Appeal, Calabar Judicial Division, delivered on 8th day of December, 2009 by Honourable Justice Kumai Bayang Akaahs for being in conflict with the earlier judgment of same the Federal Court Of Appeal, Calabar Judicial Division delivered on 14th day of July, 2005 by Honourable Justice Christopher M. Chukwuma-Eneh
(2.2) The major issue in dispute, and the argument of Mobil Producing Nigeria Unlimited at the Interlocutory & Substantive Stages of the case has been that the Amended Statement Of Claims filed by Comandclem Nigeria Limited were statute barred.
(2.3) At the interlocutory stage of the case, Honourable Justice Christopher M. Chukwuma-Eneh (JCA) had ruled categorically that the Amended Statement Of Claims filed by Comandclem Nigeria Limited were not statute barred when the court said and I quote verbatim.
“I
have examined paragraph 29 of the Amended Statement of Claims and I
agreed with the respondents (CCNL) there were relieves i.e. cause of
actions not caught by the limitation law and it will be unwise to ask
the court to strike dawn the claim with relieves as contained (iii),
(iv) (v) and (viii) of paragraph 29 of the Amended statement of Claim.
It
must be observed that relieves (iii), (iv) (v) and (viii) of paragraph
29 of the Amended statement of Claim have not been affected by the
limitation law.
I do not see the propriety of dismissing the respondents` (CCNL) action in the light of those relieves.”
Per: Honourable Justice Christopher M. Chukwuma-Eneh (JCA)
Suit No.: CA/C/6/2003
(2.4) At the substantive stage of the case, Honourable Justice Kumai Bayang Akaahs assumed jurisdiction on a settled decision of a court of concurrent jurisdiction, and miraculously made a pronouncement that contradicted the earlier judgment delivered by Honourable Justice Christopher M. Chukwuma-Eneh of same the Federal Court Of Appeal, Calabar Judicial Division when Honourable Justice Kumai Bayang Akaahs said and I quote him verbatim.
“As it turned out the purported infringement occurred in the early 1980s and since the action was commenced in 2000, it is statute barred even
if they had proved their case as there is no evidence that the
infringement has continued after the Patent for the invention was
registered.”
Per: Honourable Justice Kumai Bayang Akaahs JCA CA/C/15/200
(3.0) Justice Mahmud Mohammed (CJN)
Reactions/Statements On The Conflicting Judgments
Of The Federal Court Of Appeals Judges In Nigeria
(3.1) While declaring open, the 2014 Annual Conference for the Justices Of The Federal Court Of Appeal held in Abuja, The Chief Justice of Nigeria, Honourable Justice Mahmud Mohammed warned seriously Judges Of The Federal Court Of Appeal In Nigeria to steer clear of making conflicting judgments between the same parties and on the same issues in dispute because such conflicting pronouncements had resulted to miscarriage of justice, & lost of public confidence in various courts in Nigeria when he said and I quote him verbatim.
“Conflicting
judgments of the various divisions of the court of appeal are not only
undesirable but the result may manifest in a miscarriage of justice and
ultimately lost of public confidence in the judiciary”
(3.2) While answering questions from the Senators of the Federal Republic Of Nigeria during his confirmation as the Chief Justice of Nigeria, Honourable Justice Mahmud Mohammed acknowledged the fact that The Judges Of The Federal Court Of Appeal made contradictory judgments because lawyers insisted on re-litigation and review of pronouncements of a court of concurrent/coordinate jurisdiction when he said and I quote him verbatim.
“The conflicting judgments coming from the tribunals and court of appeals are as a result of lawyers, who, in fact, insist that the rules of review prevail, and sometimes some of our judges also make mistakes as we are not also infallible. We could make mistakes.”
(4.0) Justice Onnoghen (JSC) Speaks “A Judge That Over-Ruled Another Judge Of Coordinate Jurisdiction Is A Fool”
(4.1) Honourable Justice Walter Samuel Nkanu Onnoghen(JSC) has described a judge who contradicted or over-ruled another judge of coordinate/concurrent jurisdiction as a fool in the judgment he delivered in the case between Professor Albert Folorunsho Ogunsola V. Alhaji Mohammed Abiodun Usman when he said and I quote him.
“In
the realms of jurisdiction and having regards to the nature of our
judicial set up it is heretical for a Judge to purport to sit on appeal
and hiding under one subterfuge or the other to quash the decision of
another exercising no less of equal power and authority.
It
is only a Judge who is full of malcontent or unbridled prejudice that
would seek to subjugate a fellow Judge by usurping the powers of an
appellate court. Indeed it is asinine (foolish) to say the least."
Per: Walter Samuel Nkanu Onnoghen, J.C.A.
Suit No.: CA/IL/54/2001
Parties: Professor Albert Folorunsho Ogunsola V. Alhaji Mohammed Abiodun Usman
(4.2) In the same case cited above, Honourable Justice Walter Samuel Nkanu Onnoghen(JSC)categorically
stated that a judge from an appeal court is legally incompetent to
entertain an appeal from another appeal court, and make pronouncements
contradictory to earlier verdicts. With your due permission, I quote
him.
“I however hasten to say that I agree with the statement of the law as stated in the case of Nworga v. Njoku
(2001) 14 NVVLR (Pi. 734) 539 at 546 and 550 - 551 as cited and relied
upon by learned counsel for the appellant where the Port Harcourt
division of this court staled the position inter alia thus;
"It is not competent for a court to over-rule the decision of another court of co-ordinate jurisdiction.
Thus,
in absence of statutory authority, a court has no power to set aside or
vary the order of another court of co-ordinate or concurrent
jurisdiction.
No court can, therefore, sit on appeal over its own decision of courts of co-ordinate””
(5.0) Conclusion
(5.1) Honourable Justice Kumai Bayang Akaahs failed to award the multi-billion dollar royalty expected to be accrued to Patentees of Comandclem Nigeria Limited because Honourable Justice Kumai Bayang Akaahs claimed that the case of Comandclem Nigeria Limited was statute barred.
(5.2) The argument of the Legal Counsels of Comandclem Nigeria Limited before The Honourable Justices Of The Supreme Court Of Nigeria has been that Honourable Justice Kumai Bayang Akaahs contradicted/over-ruled a settled verdict of Honourable Justice Christopher M. Chukwuma-Eneh, being a judge of coordinate powers,
between the same parties (CCNL v Mobil Oil) and most importantly, on
the same subject matter (whether the case of CCNL is statute barred or
not).
(5.3) There are four (4) outstanding motions the Honourable Justices Of The Supreme Court Of Nigeria will entertain before fixing a new hearing date to hear the substantive appeals.
(5.4) Those four (4) outstanding motions are stated below
(1) Restoration Application
(2) Application For Substitution Of Name
(3) Application For A Party Sought To Be Joined
(4) Time Extension To File The Cross Appellant Reply Brief
(5.5)
As the court pleases, and on the discretions of the court, a new
hearing date shall be issued through the instrument of the court called Hearing Notice to entertain the aforementioned applications.
Name: Yusuf Nurudeen (B. Sc, AAT, ACA)
Head Office Address:
CCNL Zonal Headquarters,
Position: CCNL Marketing Manager
Number 4, Ogudu Road,
Ojota,
Lagos State.
Mobil Number: +2347032522248
CCNL Twitter Name: www.twitter.com/Comandlem_Nig
CCNL Facebook Name: Comandclem Patentees
No comments:
Post a Comment