₦airaland Forum

Welcome, Guest: Join Nairaland / LOGIN! / Trending / Recent / New
Stats: 2,209,525 members, 4,821,913 topics. Date: Tuesday, 19 March 2019 at 12:54 AM

Comandclem Nigeria Limited Versus Mobil Producing Nigeria Unlimited - Nairaland / General - Nairaland

Nairaland Forum / Nairaland / General / Comandclem Nigeria Limited Versus Mobil Producing Nigeria Unlimited (10188 Views)

Mobil Pays Comandclem Nigeria Limited Finally! / Comandclem Nigeria Limited / Nairaland Versus Facebook (2) (3) (4)

(1) (2) (3) (Reply) (Go Down)

Comandclem Nigeria Limited Versus Mobil Producing Nigeria Unlimited by YusufAkure(m): 1:21pm On May 10, 2013
Comandclem Nigeria Limited Versus Mobil Producing Nigeria Unlimited- Suit Number’s/69/2011





[size=18pt] (A) PATENTEES OR CLEMENT FOUNDATION REGISTRATION[/size]



[size=15pt] AMOUNT OF REGISTRATION
N30,000:00 AND 4 PASSPORT PHOTOGRAPHS

BENEFITS
(1) N30,000:00 AS A MONTHLY TICKET UNDER CCNL SOCIAL SECURITY SCHEME

(2) GUARANTEED EMPLOYMENT IN

(A) OIL AND GAS INDUSTRIES,
(B) NEW 155 COTTAGE INDUSTRIES
(C) AN AIRLINE COMPANY TO BE FLOATED BY CCNL.


(B) COMMITTEE OF FRIENDS IN THE RULING COUNCIL OF CCNL REGISTRATION AS :

(1) PRINCE / PRINCESS
(2) LADY / SIR
(3) NOBLE
(4) BARON
(5) KNIGHT

PLEASE NOTE: YOU MUST FIRST AND FOREMOST REGISTER AS A PATENTEE BEFORE PROCEEDING OR ATTEMPTING TO REGISTER INTO ANY OTHER CATEGORY.

AMOUNT OF REGISTRATION

(1) PRINCE / PRINCESS = N150,000
(2) LADY / SIR= N200,00
(3) NOBLE= N2 MILLION
(4) BARON= N3 MILLION
(5) KNIGHT= N4 MILLION

PLUS ADDITIONAL 2 PASSPORT PHOTOGRAPHS


BENEFITS
(1) MONTHLY SALARIES FOR THOSE IN THOSE RULING COUNCILS ARE SA FOLLOWS.
BASIC TOTAL ALLOWANCE
(1) PRINCE / PRINCESS = N100,000 N400,000
(2) LADY / SIR = N300,000 N500,000
(3) NOBLE = N500,000 N700,000
(4) BARON = N500,000 N800,000
(5) KNIGHT = N500,000 N800,000
(2) THEY ARE THE PEOPLE WHO WILL BE SELECTED INTO RULING COUNCIL OF CCNL.
(3) CONTRACT WILL BE AWARDED TO THEM IF THEY REGISTER AS CONTRACTORS
(4) THEY WILL BE APPOINTED AND SELECTED TO SUPERVISE THE DIRECTORS, MANAGERS AND WORKERS.
(5) TRAINING AND SCHOLARSHIP TO THE PARTICIPATING YOUTH.
(6) THEY WILL BE ISSUED CERTIFICATES TO ANSWER THEIR INTERNATIONAL TRADITIONAL NAMES THROUGHOUT THE WORLD TO BE SPONSORED BY CCNL.
(7) OFFICIAL CAR WILL BE GIVEN ON APPLICATION.
(cool HUMAN DEVELOPMENT AND WEALTH EMPOWERMENT.
(9) GRANTING OF LOANS TO INDIVIDUALS AND GROUPS.
(10) THEY WILL ENJOY FREE AIR TICKETS TO TRAVEL THROUGHOUT THE WORLD.



(C) OVERSEAS TRAINING REGISTRATION

AMOUNT OF REGISTRATION

N65,000 PLUS A PASSPORT PHOTOGRAPHS

BENEFITS
CCNL WILL SEND ITS QUALIFIED STAFF ABROAD FOR TRAINING. THE COMPANY WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR AIR TICKET, ACCOMMODATION AND OTHER ALLOWANCES. PARTICIPANTS WILL COME TO NIGERIA AFTER THE TRAINING TO BE ONE OF THE DIRECTORS OF THE NEW INDUSTRIES/COMPANIES TO BE FLOATED BY CCNL.


(D) CONTRACT REGISTRATION

AMOUNT OF REGISTRATION
(1) UA 1 = N35,000
(2) UA 2 = N55,000
(3) UA 3 = N100,000
PLUS ADDITIONAL 2 PASSPORT PHOTOGRAPHS
BENEFITS
THOSE WHO REGISTER WITH THE COMPANY AS CONTRACTORS WILL HAVE GUARANTEED CONTRACTS TO BE AWARDED TO THEM WITH THE ABOVE PROPOSED INDUSTRIES TO BE FLOATED BY CCNL





NAME: YUSUF NURUDEEN
POSITION: CCNL MARKETING MANAGER
HOT LINE: +2347032522248
[/size]













keep in view

Re: Comandclem Nigeria Limited Versus Mobil Producing Nigeria Unlimited by missuzoma: 1:34pm On May 10, 2013
ANOTHER SCAM THREAD BY THE COMANDCLEM FRAUDSTERS. BEWARE PEOPLE. ALL YOU WILL READ HERE FROM YUSUF AKURE ARE ALL LIES.
Re: Comandclem Nigeria Limited Versus Mobil Producing Nigeria Unlimited by YusufAkure(m): 5:59pm On May 11, 2013
[size=18pt]
Man, 82, still waiting for justice after 13 years
Kunle Olasanmi | Apr 15, 2013
[/size]



[size=16pt]A Professor of Science, Clement Uwemedimoh, 82, who claimed he invented anti corrosive special paint for QIT QAD in1980 for Mobil Producing Nigeria Unlimited is before the Supreme Court, claiming that Mobil is using his invention without paying him royalties. KUNLE OLASANMI in this report looks at the issues involved

A proverb says if lies embark on a journey and had been on it way for 20 years, once the truth is revealed, it catches up with it. Another one says that it is very hard to suppress the truth. Could these two Yoruba proverbs be playing out themselves in the case between Commandclem versus a multi-national company, Mobil Producing Nigeria Unlimited.

The case, which has been on for some time now is presently before the apex court in the land, the Supreme Court. It involves the claim of patency right by an 82 years old man, Professor of Science, King C.J.A. Uwemedimoh, who said he invented anti corrosive special paint for Qit Qad in1980, which Mobil and other multi-national oil companies are using today. According to his case before the court, he said the invention took him to the deep part of the sea where he was able to come up with a solution to Mobil’s problem after a thorough research. According to him, Mobil is using his invention without paying him royalties

The Professor of Science alleged that the oil company has used a lot of tactics, including the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission to intimidate him and harass him into submission, but remained resolute and committed to his claim.

Operatives of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission had sometimes ago charged the old man to court in Lagos for fraud. He was later granted bail by the court. According to him, before he was granted bail, he spent about 40days in EFCC detention cell in Lagos.

But, Mobil said in its affidavit before the court that it never at any point in time entered into any agreement with the professor. The professor had also claimed that he became blind after he came back from the sea and was able to find a lasting solution to Mobil’s problem.

After agreement broke down between the Professor and Mobil, he wrote series of letter to them on the need to respect the agreement they both had. But according to him the company refused. He was able to drag the multi-national company to court after he got the patent rights in 1999 as the person who invented the chemical.

He had won almost all the cases in court, according to the documents and judgement made available to journalists but Mobil is using all manner of tactics to stand on the cause of justice. He accused the company of sending EFCC after him to weigh him down.

He narrated the genesis of the case in the affidavit in support of his appeal: I (Professor CJA Uwemedimoh) know the defendant (Mobil Producing Nigeria Unlimited) as the company I worked for and gave them my patent to use to facilitate all their products. They are into oil exploration, drilling of crude oil, condensate, liquefied natural gas and other cubical and barrel gas. They are located in Ibeno, Eket, Onna, all in Akwa-Ibom State. They are also located in Port Harcourt and Warri. The state is called QIT Ibeno.

I (Professor CJA Uwemedimoh) remember 1980, that was when I invented the Anti-Corrosive Special Paint For Qit Qad for Mobil to use. Mr. Peter Nwa (an uncle to Professor CJA Uwemedimoh) informed me that Mobil had a problem that the salt water did not allow them to operate as it was corroding all the metal pipes and tanks in the producing area and that wood bores and weeds were attacking the woods used in the producing areas and that the salt water was washing away the arable lands and rendering the coast land useless, mosquitoes and other kinds of pests were making the place unbearable for the workers. That the helicopters were also corroding and did not have free flights to the off-shore. Peter Nwa was a staff of the defendant (MOBIL OIL). After listening to him, I told him that I could use my expertise if I am given an opportunity. So I wrote a letter to the Area Operation Manager of the Defendant (MOBIL OIL) on 2nd May 1980 and I promised to visit and interview them on 8th May, 1980.

At the interview, they narrated all the problems to me and said that provided they give me an helicopter and some men to work and conduct a research in the Creeks. The persons at the interview were Harry Hawkins, Mr. Gwalker, Tom Lafferty (these were whites) then the blacks are Dr. Gbirm, Mr. Esi, Okonkwo Oji. They promised that if I could solve their problems relating to the corrosion, snakes, and wheelers, coat the helicopter to prevent it from corroding; they promised to give me $2 (two dollars) per barrel of all the products produced by Mobil. I quickly arranged for a research using speedboats and helicopters to find the cause of all the problems narrated to me. I came out with a solution by inventing Anti-Corrosive Special Paint For Qit Qad. I gave a sample of my invention to Mr. V. Maduka, a staff of International Paint For West Africa (IPWA). I have my own copy of the letter I wrote to Mobil on 2nd of May 1980. Mr. Maduka wrote a letter forwarding the sample to the Regional Manager East asking if they could manufacture or producing the paint for me. I have a copy of the letter. The original copy of the letter is with the Federal High Court, Calabar in a sister suit against Chevron. I obtained a certified true copy of the letter from the court.

I gave the sample to IPWA with limited consent that they should not allow anybody to know my secret formula and they should produce only for me to give to Mobil and for nobody else. The IPWA succeeded in manufacturing my invention and the store keeper wrote informing me this. I identify the letter written to me. The original is before the Federal High Court Calabar in a sister suit. What I have is a certified true copy.

I was happy and elated and I wrote to Mobil announcing the completion of Anti-Corrosive Special Paint. I obtained a gallon of the sample of my invention from International Paint For West Africa (IPWA) vides a delivery note. Thereafter, we took the sample to Mobil premises, tested and found it very wonderful. So they gave me a purchase order of 75 gallons of the blue paint and also gave me a sole supplier status. I supplied the order and Harry Hawkins wrote a letter to me confirming the verbal discussion/agreement. Thereafter, they ordered another 75 gallons of the oil paint and also gave me sole supplier status. I supplied the order and Henry Hawkins wrote a letter to me confirming the verbal discussion/agreement. Thereafter, they ordered another 75 gallons of White OAD paint by purchase order and I supplied it. After this, Mobil gave me several chemicals.

I have receipt from IPWA for the production of my invention. I identify the document shown to me as receipt from IPWA. The Defendant used my product and found it useful. Since then, all the problems are gone and they are processing. They stop giving supply order. They bypassed me and started dealing with IPWA directly to purchase my special paints. I went to research and improve on the invention. I gave my research findings to Government and Government after satisfying itself gave the patent for my invention on 5th of August, 1990.

When Mobil bypassed me to IPWA, I wrote several letters to them. I have copies of my letters. They did not react until I asked my Lawyer Felix Udoh to write to them. They reacted and abused me.

I was able to understand that Mobil is drilling about 3 million barrels of their products per day. I have come to court to help me enjoy the fruits of my labour.[/size]




http://blueprintng.com/2013/04/man-82-still-waiting-for-justice-after-13-years/
Re: Comandclem Nigeria Limited Versus Mobil Producing Nigeria Unlimited by YusufAkure(m): 6:01pm On May 11, 2013
[font=comic sans
ms][size=19pt]Ester Message To CJN[/size][/font]

[size=17pt]Mobil Oil Finally Admitted
Suit
No Sc.198/2005 As Functus Officio
[/size]


[size=15pt]Content
(1) Introduction
(2) Fact Of The Case
(3) Functus officio- Honourable Justice Amiru Sanusi
(4) Conclusion
[/size]




[size=15pt] (1) Introduction
Good morning Ma. Happy-Ester Monday. Also, happy
new month.
I consider it inevitable to draw your immediate
attention to paragraph 2.4 of
[/size]
[font=comic sans
ms][size=15pt] The Respondents` Brief Of Arguments Opposing
The Appellants`/Applicants` Motion On Notice Dated 20th Day Of December,
2012
[/size][/font] [font=comic sans
ms][size=15pt]filed by Mobil Producing Nigeria Unlimited
and dated on 22nd of January, 2013 where Mobil Producing Nigeria
Unlimited for the first time admitted completely in the history of this
patent right infringement and breach of sole supplier status agreement
litigation that SUIT
[/size][/font] [font=comic sans
ms][size=15pt]NO. SC.198/2005 was functus officio.
[/size][/font]
[size=15pt]With you due
permission, I quote paragraph 2.4
[/size]

[size=15pt] “After briefs of arguments
have been duly filed and exchanged by the parties and issues joined by
them in the appeal, the appellants/applicants filed the instant
application seeking for an order of this honourable court to consolidate
the processes filed in SUIT NO. SC. 198/2005. The processes in that
suit relate to an interlocutory application filed by the respondents
seeking an extension of time to apply for leave of court to appeal
against the decision of the court of appeal, Calabar Division in Appeal
NO. CA/6M/2003.
[/size]
[font=comic sans
ms][size=15pt]This Honourable Court Refused That Application
On 30th May, 2006.”
[/size][/font]
[size=15pt]From the above
admitted fact to the obvious effect that the interlocutory application
filed by Mobil Producing Nigeria Unlimited to reverse the verdict of
Honourable Justice Christopher M. Chukwuma-Eneh (Appeal NO. CA/6M/2003)
was refused and the motion dismissed by the Supreme Court Of Nigeria
(Suit No Sc.198/2005) with =N=1,000:00 cost to Comandclem Nigeria
Limited showed that Mobil Producing Nigeria Unlimited has accepted Suit
No Sc.198/2005 as Functus Officio.
[/size]





[size=18pt] (2) Fact Of The
Case
[/size]

[size=15pt] Sequel to the
judgment of
[/size]
[font=comic sans
ms][size=15pt] Honourable Justice Christopher M.
Chukwuma-Eneh (Appeal NO. CA/6M/2003)
[/size][/font]
[size=15pt] which upheld the
pronouncements of
[/size]
[font=comic sans
ms][size=15pt] Honorable Justice D. A. Adeniji SUIT:
FHC/CA/CS/22/2002
[/size][/font] [font=comic sans
ms][size=15pt] between CJA Uwemedimo & Anor
(Plaintiffs) and Mobil Producing Nigeria Unlimited (Defendant), the
Management of Mobil Oil appealed to the Supreme Court of Nigeria out of
time recognized by law. As a result of this fallacy, Mobil Oil
approached the Apex Court of Nigeria for the following orders.
[/size][/font]
[size=16pt] (1) Extending the time
within which to apply for leave to appeal in pursuant to section 233 (4)
of the constitution of the federal republic of Nigeria of 1990, against
the judgment delivered by the court of appeal, Calabar division on the
14th day of July, 2005.
(2) Granting leave to applicant to appeal against the said judgment of
the court of appeal, Calabar division dated on 14th July, 2005.
(3) For extension of time within which the applicant can file its notice
of appeal against the judgment delivered by the court of appeal,
Calabar division on the 14th July, 2005.
[/size]

[size=15pt] The legal team of
Comandclem Nigeria Limited filed a counter affidavit on 10th of
October, 2005 and a further counter affidavit on 22th of November, 2005
praying the Apex Court of the land to refuse the above application of
Mobil Oil haven being filed out of time stipulated by law and for want
of prosecution. Unfortunately for the Management of Mobil Producing
Nigeria Unlimited headed by Mark R. Ward (a foreigner), this application
was refused, and the motion was also dismissed with =N=1,000:00 to
Comandclem Nigeria Limited headed by King CJA Uwemedimo (a Nigerian).
With your due permission, I quote the verdict of the apex court
delivered by Honourable Justice S. A. AKINTAN, JSC on 30th of May, 2006.
[/size]


[size=15pt]IN THE SUPREME COURT OF
NIGERIA
HOLDEN AT ABUJA
ON TUSDAY THE 30TH DAY OF MAY, 2006
BEFORE THEIR LORDSHIPS
[/size]

[size=15pt]SYLVESTER UMARU
ONU………..JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
UMARU ATU KALGO ………………..JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
SUNDAYAKINSOLA AKINTAN ……………JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
ALOMA MARIAM M. ……………..JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
FRANCIS FEDEDO TABAI……….JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
[/size]

[font=comic sans
ms][size=15pt] (SC./198/2005.)
MOBIL PRODUCING NIG. UNLIMITED…………………….APPLICANT

CJA UWEMEDIMO &ANOR. ……………
…………………..RESPONDENTS
[/size][/font]

[size=15pt]Court: The Applicant (MOBIL
PRODUCING NIGERIA UNLIMITED) has failed to satisfy us as to why the
motion should be granted. The application is therefore refused and the
motion is dismissed with N1, 000:00 cost to the Respondents (COMANDCLEM
NIGERIA LIMITED)
RULING
(Delivered by S. A. AKINTAN, JSC)
[/size]






[size=16pt] (3) functus officio-
Honourable Justice Amiru Sanusi
[/size]


[size=15pt]The
judicial implication of the pronouncements of the Supreme Court of
Nigeria on the suit Number SC./198/2005 to the apparent effect that the
application of Mobil Producing Nigeria Unlimited was refused and the
motion dismissed implies that the ruling of the Supreme Court Of Nigeria
was Functus Officio in accordance with the authority of Honourable
Justice Amiru Sanusi JCA in the SUIT NO. CA/J/28/2000 delivered on 13th
of April, 2004 in Court of Appeal – Jos Judicial Division before
Honourable Justice Aloma Mariam Murhtar , Honourable Justice Amiru
Sanusi, Honourable Justice Ikechi Francis Ogbuagu.
With your due permission, I quote (P. 24, Paras A-C) of SUIT NO.
CA/J/28/2000.
[/size]


[size=16pt] By the provision of order 6
rule 10 of the court of appeal rules, 2002, where an appellant fails to
file his brief within the time stipulated or the time extended by the
court, the respondent may apply to the court for the dismissal of such
appeal for want of prosecution, once such appeal is dismissed, the
decision becomes final and court becomes functus officio. See the case
of olowu v. abolore (1993) 5 NWLR (Pt. 293) 255; Babayagi v. Bida (1998)
2 NWLR (Pt. 538) 367; Yonwuren V. Modern & Sons (Nig) Ltd (1985) 1
NWLR (Pt. 2) 244; Obiora V. Osele (1989) 1 NWLR (Pt. 97); UBA Plc V.
Ajileye (supra).
[/size]


[size=15pt]Per: Honourable Justice
Amiru Sanusi - (P. 24, Paras A-C)
SUIT NO. CA/J/28/2000.
[/size]


[size=16pt] Note: functus officio is a
Latin expression which means that a judge is not allowed to give a
decision or make an order on the same matter twice.
[/size]





[size=16pt] (4)
Conclusion
[/size]



[size=15pt] Now that Mobil
Producing Nigeria Unlimited has conspicuously admitted for the first
time that their application seeking an extension of time to apply for
leave of court to appeal against the decision of the court of appeal,
Calabar Division in Appeal NO. CA/6M/2003 was refused by the Supreme
Court Of Nigeria making the verdict functus officio, court observers and
general public will be keenly awaiting the pronouncements of the
Supreme Court of Nigeria on the suit SC.69/2011. The general public and
court observers will be interested in the outcomes of the suit
SC.69/2011 to determine whether or not a lower court has jurisdiction to
entertain and over-rule settled verdict of the Supreme Court of Nigeria
between the same parties and on the same issues in dispute.
[/size]

[size=15pt]Mother of the Nation, we
(the hopeless and the common men on the street) are keenly watching to
see how justice will prevail in a 33-years-old case ( 2nd of May, 1980
till 4th of April, 2013) between Comandclem Nigeria Limited and Mobil
Producing Nigeria Unlimited- suit No SC./69/2011 before the Supreme
Court of Nigeria. May God give you the wisdom to resolve this case
within the shortest possible time. Amen.
[/size]


[size=15pt]NAME: YUSUF NURUDEEN
(B.Sc.–ACC, AAT, ACA)
POSITION: CCNL NATIONAL MARKETING MANAGER
OFFICE ADDRESS: CCNL ZONAL HEADQUARTERS, NUMBER 4, OGUDU ROAD,
OJOTA, LAGOS STATE.
MOBIL NUMBER: +2347032522248
EMAIL ADDRESS: thepatenteesonlinenewspaper@yahoo.com
TWETTER NAME: CCNL_PATENTEES
FACEBOOK NAME: COMANDCLEM PATENTEES
CCNL CORPORATE FACEBOOK ADDRESS:
www.facebook.com/COMANDCLEMNIGERIALIMITED
CCNL CORPORATE WEBSITE: www.comandclemonline.com
CCNL FORUM:www.comandclem.org/forum
[/size]
Re: Comandclem Nigeria Limited Versus Mobil Producing Nigeria Unlimited by YusufAkure(m): 6:07pm On May 11, 2013
[size=18pt] HOW MOBIL PRODUCING NIGERIA UNLIMITED BOUGHT MERCENARY JUDGE GLADYS K. OLOTU WITH AMERICA DOLLARS IN AN ATTEMPT TO REPRIEVE CCNL LETTER PATENT 13522 IN THE FEDERAL HIGH COURT UYO, NIGERIA
SUIT NO: FHC/UY/CS/47/2003
[/size]



[size=16pt] Introduction

It is a truism to affirm that taking all the robes of all the good judges that have ever lived on the face of the earth, and they would not be large enough to cover the iniquity of one corrupt judge. Public trust and confidence in the judiciary systems of any country are crucial to an aggrieved party in the society. The matter of justice and its administration is very fundamental in a civilized society like Nigeria. Public trust in the judiciary placed judicial officers who are responsible for the exercise of judicial powers to do justice in justifiable dispute placed before them.

The foremost duties of judges are to interpret and declare the law in the resolution of justifiable disputes submitted to them for hearing and determination whether it be between individuals or corporate entities.

Also the trail judges appearance, demeanor, and statements should reflect the dignity of the judicial office and enhance public confidence in the administration of justices in Nigeria. It is expected that the trail should give each case individual treatment and judge’s decisions should be based on the particular facts of that case.
The duties of judicial adherence to precedent as well as obedience to statute are indeed cornerstones of the constitutionality and validity of the entire judicial process. In one word, non-adherence to precedent impugns public confidence in the administration of justice in Nigeria. Without any controversy, the credibility and utility of the judiciary where failure to follow the pattern of judicial precedents exist will amount to exchange of public trust with monetary inducements or extraneous influence.

This is what transpired in the case of patent right infringement litigation between Comandclem Nigeria limited and Mobil producing Nigerian unlimited where a mercenary judge Gladys K. Olotu failed in totality to abide by the doctrine of precedent, judicial impartiality, abuse of judicial discretion and most importantly avoidance of conflict of interest in the determination of the case reflected an extreme case of injudicious conducts being also a violation of oath of office to do justice without fear or favor and not to allow personal interest to influence official conduct or decision. Wonder shall never end in Nigeria judicial system.

I am yet to read, hear or even to see an unbelievable situation whereby a judge of the federal high court in Nigeria will turn herself to an advocator /council of a party (MPNU) in a dispute over patent right infringement litigation and admit allegations against a party (MPNU) which were denied by the same party (MPNU) only to give judgment against the party that alleges (CCNL). When foreign currencies especially America dollars find its way into the court rooms and eventually penetrates into the pockets of a judge, what do you expect rather than legal somersault and judicial abracadabra in the judgment of the judge involved. In one word, mercenary judge Gladys K Olotu in hungry of American Dollars
[/size]



[size=18pt] A CONCISE ANALYSIS OF THE PLEADINGS IN THE CASE AS CLAIMED BY THE PARTIES
HEAR AND CLAIMS OF PROFESSOR CJA UWEMEDIMO AND COMANDCLEM NIGERIA UNLIMITED
[/size]


[size=16pt] “I remember 1980, that was when
I invented the anti-corrosive chemical for Mobil to use. Mr Peter Uwa informed me that Mobil had a problem that the salt water did not allow them to operate as it was corroding all the metal pipes and tanks in the producing area and that wood bores and weeds were attacking the woods used in the producing areas and that the salt water was washing away the arable lands and rendering the coast land useless, mosquitoes and another kinds of pets were smacking the place unbearable for the workers. That the helicopters were also corroding and did not have free flights to the off-shore. The problem were so many. They area all in my records. Peter Nwa was a staff of the defendant. After listening to him, I told him that I could use my expertise if I am given an opportunity. So I wrote a letter to the Area Operation Manager of the Defendant on 2nd May 1980 and I promised to visit and interview them on 8th May, 1980. At the interview, they narrated all the problem to me and said that provided they give me an helicopter and some men to work and conduct a research in the Creeks. The person at the interview were Harry Hawkins, Mr Gwalker, Tom Laferty (these were white) then the blacks are Dr Gbirm, Mr Esi, Okonkwo Oji. They promised that if I could solve their problems relating to the corrosion, snakes, and wheelers, coat the helicopter to prevent it from corroding, they promised to give me $ 2 (two dollars) per barrel of all the products produced by Mobil. I quickly arranged for a research using speedboats and helicopters to find the cause of all the problems narrated to me. I came out with a solution by inventing anti corrosive special paint”
[/size]


[size=16pt] Summary of relevant facts of the claims

i. Professor CJA UWEMEDIMO’S uncle (Mr Peter Nwa) who is a staff of MPNU informed Professor CJA Uwemedimo of Corrosion problem of MPNU
ii. After listening to Mr Peter Nwa, Professor UWEMEDIMO’S said he could use his expertise to solve those problems of corrosion if given opportunities
iii. Professor UWEMEDIMO wrote a letter to the Area Operation Manager of MPNU on the subject matter and promised to visit and interview MPNU
iv. In the Interview where Harry Hawkins,. Mr G. Walker, Tom Lafferty and Dr Gbirm, Mr Esi, OKONKWO Oji were present promised to pay $2 barrel of all the products produced by MPNU if professor UWEMEDIMO could research and invent paint to solve all the corrosion problems orally.
v. Based on this oral agreement, Professor CJA UWEMEDIMO researched and invented anticorrosive special paint the only paint that enable the extraction of crude oil in Nigeria and anywhere in the world
vi. And lot more
[/size]


[size=18pt] HEARING AND CLAIMS OF TWO WITNESS OF MPNU [/size]
[size=16pt] “Mr Harry F. Hawkins and Mr G.W. Walker
My name if Harry Fredrick Hawkins. My address is 5146 county Road, 125A Wild Wood, Florida. I`m retired. I do not know the 1st and 2nd Plaintiffs “Professor UWEMEDIMO and Comadclem Nigeria Limited. Their names do not mean much to me. I knew Mobil the defendant. I worked for them. I am 84 years old. I have a very bad hearing problem. I just got out of hospital in October because they put a pacemaker in me to control my heart. This was in October. I also have acute arthritis problem in my heart. This was in October. I also have acute arthritis problem in my right leg. I came to Mobil Nigeria sometime in May or June 979. My position was maintenance manager. In 1980 when the plaintiff’s cause of action arose, I was maintenance manager. I know Mr G.W. Walker. He was my boss at Qua Iboe Terminal. I know Dr. A. Agbim. He was the counterpart to Mr G. walker. He was my boss. When Walker was at the terminal and I was there, Walker would go to Lagos and Agim would take his place. The Maintenance manager reported to the operations manager. Dr Agbim and Walker were operations manager. I knew Felix Ese very well. He was my counterparts as maintenance Manager. I do not know Okonkwo Odu. I know Tom Lafferty. He was a contract employee for Mobil Oil Nigeria. Contract employees were people who were employed from England and United State to do part of the raining of Nigerian Employees. I do not remember any meeting with the 1st Plaintiff, Walker, Ese, Okonkwo, Tom Lafferty and Agbim where an oral contract was reached to the effect that the defendant would pay the 1st plaintiff $ 2a per barrel of every petroleum product produced by Mobil. And lot more.
My name is G.W. Walker. The G.W are from my father’s names. My father was George Washington Walker but I am G. W. Walker. I live at 5900 Rexroth Avenue, Bakersfield, California. I am 83 years old. I am retired. I play golf. I take medication for gout, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, rhythmic heart condition. I also have a pacemaker. I also take medication for arthritis. I do not know the plaintiffs. I know the defendant, Mobil Nigeria. I worked for them. I worked for Mobil Nigeria from the middle of 1978 to the end of 1983. I know Harry Hawkins. He worked for us at the Terminal at Qua Iboe. He was maintenance superintendent. I knew Dr Agbim. He was my relief. When I was in Lagos, he was in the terminal. When I was in the terminal her was in Lagos. Iknown Mr Felix Ese. He was an Engineer that worked primarily in maintenance at Qua Ibo. I do not known Mr Okonkwo Oju and lot more”
[/size]


[size=16pt] SUMMARY OF RELEVANT FACTS OF THE CLAIMS
i. Mr Harry Fredrick Hawkins don’t know Professor CJA Uwamedimo and Comandclem Nigeria Limited.
ii. Mr Harry Fredrick Hawkins knew Mr G.W. Walker, Dr Agbim , Felix Ese , Okonkwo Odu , Tom Lafferty etc .
iii. Mr Harry Fredrick Hawkins denied holding any meeting with Professor CJA Uwemedimo and others where oral contract was reached to pay $2 par all the products produced by MPNU on the request to research and invent anti corrosive special paint
iv. G.W. Walker don’t know Professor CJA Uwemedimo and Comandelem Nigeria limited
v. G.W Walker know Harry F. Hawkins, Dr Agbim, Mr Felix Ese etc
vi. G.W Walker Denied holding any meeting with professor Umemedimoh and others where oral contract was reached to pay $2 per all the products of produced by MPNU on the request to research and invent anti corrosive special paint.
[/size]



[size=18pt] DISPLAY OF INCONSISTENCIES IN THE CLAIMS OF THOSE OF TWO WITNESS OF MPNU AND COUNSELS OF MPNU
The counsel to MPNU held contrary claims to those of two witness of MPNU as follows;
(1) Professor Uwemedimo is a paid employee of MPNU
(2) The invention of anti corrosive special paint is made by Professor Uwemedimo in the course of the said employment..
(3) The invention of anti-corrosive special paint is made by Professor Uwemedimo in the execution of a co tract for a performance of specified work.
(4) Conclusively, going by section 2 (4) of patent and Design act the invention of anti corrosive special paint belongs to MPNU who commissioned the said invention
(5)
Burning Questions that Need answers
The following questions are directed to mercenary Judge Gladys K Olotu
1. How could Professor Uwemedimo who was not known to Mr Harry F. Hawkins and Mr G.W. Walker be a paid employee of MPNU? Wonder shall never end!
2. Where is the letter of appointment of such an engagement? Please, can somebody help me out!
3. How much salary MPNU paid to Professor employed professor Uwemedimo? I want to know
4. What was the cadre of employment they employed professor Uwememodimo. I need explanation.
5. What are the terms of the said contract? This is very important to be declosed
6. Which specified work was agreed upon between professor Uwemedimo and MPNU?
7. Where was such an agreement to execute a contract to perform a specified work reached? Miracles shall continue to occur in Nigeria court room
[/size]



[size=18pt] LEGAL SOMERSAULT AND JUDICIAL ABRACADABRA
IN THE JUDGMENT OF MERCENARY GLADYS K. OLOTU ON 28TH OF NOVEMBER, 2008 POINTING TO HOW AMERICA DOLLARS PENETRATED INTO THE COURT-ROOMS AND POCKET OF JUDGE.
[/size]


[size=16pt] As I said earlier, I am yet to read, hear even seen an unbelievable situation whereby a judge of the federal High Court in Nigeria will turn herself to an advocator or counsel of party (MPNU ) in a dispute over patent right infringement litigation and admit allegations against a party (MPNU) which were denied by the same party (MPANU) only to give judgment against the party that alleges (CCNL). Wonder shall continue in Nigerian court rooms.
Both Mr Harry Fredick Hawkin and Mr G.W. walker claimed they don’t know professor Uwemedimo who researched and invented anti-corrosive special paint. Here is the judicial firm-trick from mercenary Judge Gladys K Olotu of the federal High Court. In her judgment which is shown below

“In concluding my determination of these issues, I hold that the Plaintiffs are not entitled to the letters patent is respect of their alleged invention to remedies/royalty” or compensation for the infringement of same in view of the second limb of section 2(4) of the patent and design Act”
[/size]


[size=16pt] Interpretation of the Judgment of Mercenary Judge Gladys k. Olotu
Section 2(4) of patents and Design Act
“When an invention s made in
- (first limb) the course of employment or
- (second limb) in the execution of a contract for the performance of specific work, the right to a patent in the invention is vested in the employer or, as the case may be, in the person who commissioned the work”
Judges Gladys K Olotu ruled as follows
1. A contract was given to Professor Uwemedimo,
Note: This was denied by Mr Harry F. Hawkins and Mr G.W. Walker. You can’t give a contract to somebody you don’t know
2. The nature of the contract was to perform a specific work – (reached and invention of anti- corrosive special paint
Note: This was also denied by Mr Harry F. Hawkins and Mr G.W. Walker
3. Professor Uwemedimo is an employee of MPNU who invented anti- corrosive special paint in the course of his employment which was commissioned by MPNU
Note: The letter of appointment or engagement as an employee of MPNU was not shown to us.
4. As a result of the above, MPNU invented anti- corrosive special paint
Note: Where is the certificate of invention issued by the Federal Government of Nigeria appropriate agency and world intellectual property organizations? Please help me out, I need a cup of water.
[/size]

[size=16pt] This is a clear case of legal somersault and judicial abracadabra. I cannot stop laughing fellow patentees Mercenary judge Gladys K Olotu admitted allegations which were denied by MPNU only to give judgment against professor Uwemedimo and CCNL. Without any controversy, American dollar has found its ways into the court room and eventually resides in the pocket of the mercenary Judge Gladys Olotu. This explains why we have judicial firm ticks in our court rooms in Nigeria.
If judge like mercenary judge Gladys K. Olotu ignores the law and decides only as per her own notions of justice and propriety, litigation becomes a gamble and casinos and not cathedrals rings true. Advocates will be treated as gamblers instead of social engineers. The Indian farmers gamble in the monsoon. The Indian lawyer gambles on the psychology of the judge. The younger generation of advocates will be induced to believe that instead of working hard to know the law, it would be better to known mercenary judges and advocates will turn into glorified brokers.
It is pertinent to categorically sate that my criticism of the judgment delivered by mercenary judge Gladys K. Olotu should not be prohibited by any rational thinking human being because of my constitutional right to free speech remains inviolate in a civilian democratic dispensation. The maradonic judicial pronouncement of mercenary Gladys K Olotu in the case between CCNL and MPNU left much to be desired in terms of critical analyze of the subject maters of the case. I consider the totality of the judgment as nothing rather than judicial abortion of a nine-month –old pregnancy by a maradonic Judge Gladys K Olotu of the Federal High Court of Nigeria Uyo. Without any controversy, American dollars have penetrated in to the courtroom and eventually got into the pocket of the judge. Miracles shall continue to flow in Nigerian curt rooms.
[/size]


[size=16pt] NAME: YUSUF NURUDEEN (AAT, ACA)

POSITION: CCNL NATIONAL MARKETING MANAGER

OFFICE ADDRESS:
CCNL ZONAL HEADQUARTERS,
NUMBER 4, OGUDU ROAD,
OJOTA,
LAGOS STATE.

CCNL CORPORATE WEBSITE: www.comandclemonline.com

CCNLFORUM: www.comandclemonline.com/forum/index.php

MOBIL NUMBER: +2347032522248

FACEBOOK NAME: COMANDCLEM PATENTEES

TWETTER NAME: CCNL_PATENTEES

CCNL CORPORATE FACEBOOK ADDRESS: www.facebook.com/COMANDCLEMNIGERIALIMITED

EMAIL ADDRESS: thepatenteesonlinenewspaper@yahoo.com
[/size]
Re: Comandclem Nigeria Limited Versus Mobil Producing Nigeria Unlimited by YusufAkure(m): 6:21pm On May 11, 2013
CROSS APPEAL FILED BY MOBIL PRODUCING NIGERIA UNLIMITED


PAGE 1 TO 4 OF 25

Re: Comandclem Nigeria Limited Versus Mobil Producing Nigeria Unlimited by YusufAkure(m): 6:27pm On May 11, 2013
CROSS APPEAL FILED BY MOBIL PRODUCING NIGERIA UNLIMITED


PAGE 5 TO 8 0F 25

Re: Comandclem Nigeria Limited Versus Mobil Producing Nigeria Unlimited by YusufAkure(m): 6:31pm On May 11, 2013
PAGE 9 TO 12 OF 25

Re: Comandclem Nigeria Limited Versus Mobil Producing Nigeria Unlimited by YusufAkure(m): 6:34pm On May 11, 2013
PAGE 13 TO 16 OF 25

Re: Comandclem Nigeria Limited Versus Mobil Producing Nigeria Unlimited by YusufAkure(m): 6:43pm On May 11, 2013
PAGE 17 T0 20 OF 25

Re: Comandclem Nigeria Limited Versus Mobil Producing Nigeria Unlimited by YusufAkure(m): 6:49pm On May 11, 2013
PAGE 21 TO 24 0F 25

Re: Comandclem Nigeria Limited Versus Mobil Producing Nigeria Unlimited by YusufAkure(m): 6:50pm On May 11, 2013
PAGE 25 OF 25

Re: Comandclem Nigeria Limited Versus Mobil Producing Nigeria Unlimited by YusufAkure(m): 5:20am On May 12, 2013
THE OFFICIAL REPORT OF
THE LEGAL PROCEEDINGS
8TH OF APRIL , 2013
The Supreme Court Of Nigeria
Between
Comandclem Nigeria Limited
And
Mobil Producing Nigeria Unlimited
SUIT NUMBER:SC.69/ ­2011
Content
(1) Background Information.
(2) Pre-Hearing Preparations Of ComandclemNiger ­ia Limited And Mobil Oil For8th Of April, 2013 Case.
- CCNL Strategic Approach To The Apex Court
- Mobil Oil Strategic Approach To The Apex Court
(3) Motion On Notice Filed By The Litigants.
(4) The Proceedings Of 8th Of April, 2013 In The Supreme Court Of Nigeria
(5) Blow By Blow Account Of Arguments Of Lawyers On The Cross Appeal Filed By Mobil Producing Nigeria Unlimited
(6) The Rulings of the Supreme Court of Nigeria On 8th Of April, 2013
(7) The Interpretation Of The Rulings Of Justice Mahmud Mohammed On Cross Appeal Filed By Mobil Producing Nigeria Unlimited
(cool The Impacts Of The Rulings Of Court (Justice Mahmud Mohammed) On Suit Sc./69/2011
(9) Personal Opinions Of Anti-Corrosive Vanguards On The Rulings Of Court (Justice Mahmud Mohammed)
(10) Date Of Next Hearing Of The Suit No SC./69/2011
Background Information
On 29th of January, 2013, the teaming lovers and supporters of King Professor CJA Uwemedimoh across the globe were disappointed but apparently hopeful while in the court room in realization of the facts that the Supreme Court of Nigeria fallaciously assigned the case (SC.69/2011) of patent right infringement litigation and breach of sole supplier agreement between Comandclem Nigeria Limited and Mobil Producing Nigeria Unlimited to Honourable Justice Kumai Bayang Akaahs being one of the five (5) Honourable Justices of the Apex Court Of The Land to adjudicate the thirteen years old case.
Honourable Justice Kumai Bayang Akaahs being one of the three (3) Justices of the Federal Court of Appeal, Calabar Judicial Division that gave substantive verdict on the contested issues set-aside for determinationbe ­tween Comandclem Nigeria Limited and Mobil Oil on 8th of December, 2009, lacks judicial capacity to entertain the same contested issues between the same parties twice haven being promoted to the Supreme Court of Nigeria. It is axiomatic in the Nigerian Judicial System that a judge cannot preside over his appeal. In realization of this judicial truism, the case between Comandclem Nigeria Limited and Mobil Producing Nigeria Unlimited was shifted forward to 8th of April, 2013.
Click here,
http:// ­comandclem.org/ ­forum/ ­index.php?topic= ­3.24
Re: Comandclem Nigeria Limited Versus Mobil Producing Nigeria Unlimited by YusufAkure(m): 9:42am On May 16, 2013
[size=18pt]THE OFFICIAL REPORT OF
THE LEGAL PROCEEDINGS
8TH OF APRIL , 2013
The Supreme Court Of Nigeria
Between
Comandclem Nigeria Limited
And
Mobil Producing Nigeria Unlimited
SUIT NUMBER:SC.69/2011
[/size]


[size=15pt]Content
(1) Background Information.
(2) Pre-Hearing Preparations Of Comandclem Nigeria Limited And Mobil Oil For 8th Of April, 2013 Case.
- CCNL Strategic Approach To The Apex Court
- Mobil Oil Strategic Approach To The Apex Court
(3) Motion On Notice Filed By The Litigants.
(4) The Proceedings Of 8th Of April, 2013 In The Supreme Court Of Nigeria
(5) Blow By Blow Account Of Arguments Of Lawyers On The Cross Appeal Filed By Mobil Producing Nigeria Unlimited
(6) The Rulings of the Supreme Court of Nigeria On 8th Of April, 2013
(7) The Interpretation Of The Rulings Of Justice Mahmud Mohammed On Cross Appeal Filed By Mobil Producing Nigeria Unlimited
(cool The Impacts Of The Rulings Of Court (Justice Mahmud Mohammed) On Suit Sc./69/2011
(9) Personal Opinions Of Anti-Corrosive Vanguards On The Rulings Of Court (Justice Mahmud Mohammed)
(10) Date Of Next Hearing Of The Suit No SC./69/2011
(11) Conclusion
[/size]

Re: Comandclem Nigeria Limited Versus Mobil Producing Nigeria Unlimited by YusufAkure(m): 9:46am On May 16, 2013
PAGE 1 OF 11

[size=18pt]Background Information[/size]
[size=15pt]On 29th of January, 2013, the teaming lovers and supporters of King Professor CJA Uwemedimoh across the globe were disappointed but apparently hopeful while in the court room in realization of the facts that the Supreme Court of Nigeria fallaciously assigned the case (SC.69/2011) of patent right infringement litigation and breach of sole supplier agreement between Comandclem Nigeria Limited and Mobil Producing Nigeria Unlimited to Honourable Justice Kumai Bayang Akaahs being one of the five (5) Honourable Justices of the Apex Court Of The Land to adjudicate the thirteen years old case.
[font=comic Sans MS] [size=15pt][color=green] Honourable Justice Kumai Bayang Akaahs being one of the three (3) Justices of the Federal Court of Appeal, Calabar Judicial Division that gave substantive verdict on the contested issues set-aside for determination between Comandclem Nigeria Limited and Mobil Oil on 8th of December, 2009, lacks judicial capacity to entertain the same contested issues between the same parties twice haven being promoted to the Supreme Court of Nigeria. It is axiomatic in the Nigerian Judicial System that a judge cannot preside over his appeal. In realization of this judicial truism, the case between Comandclem Nigeria Limited and Mobil Producing Nigeria Unlimited was shifted forward to 8th of April, 2013.
[/size]

Re: Comandclem Nigeria Limited Versus Mobil Producing Nigeria Unlimited by YusufAkure(m): 9:49am On May 16, 2013
PAGE 2 OF 11
[size=18pt]Pre-Hearing Preparations of
Comandclem Nigeria Limited
and Mobil Oil
[/size]


[size=15pt]CCNL Strategic Approach To The Apex Court
King Professor CJA Uwemedimoh hired the services of Barrister Rev. Jesse-Daniels Onuigbo Esq of over twenty-two (22) years legal experience/knowledge in the Nigerian case laws to lead the legal team of Comandclem Nigeria Limited to the Supreme Court of Nigeria. This professional legal luminary called Barrister Rev. Jesse-Daniels Onuigbo Esq displayed high level of expertise on the assumption of office in this case of patent right infringement and breach of sole supplier status between Comandclem Nigeria Limited and Mobil Producing Nigeria Unlimited.
He believes that there are some motions/processes which should have been filed in the Federal High Court, Calabar Judicial Division before Justice Gladys K. Olotu but were omitted. As a result of this, he filed some motions/processes before the apex court of the land to enable the honorable justices of the Supreme Court of Nigeria to get acclimatize with the true picture and totality of a 13-year-old case, though some of the motions/processes, he anticipated may be refused.
Barrister Rev. Jesse-Daniels Onuigbo Esq filed the following motions among other processes in the Apex Court Of The Land.
[/size]

Re: Comandclem Nigeria Limited Versus Mobil Producing Nigeria Unlimited by YusufAkure(m): 9:52am On May 16, 2013
PAGE 3 OF 11
[size=18pt]Motion On Notice Filed By The Litigants. [/size]
[size=15pt] (A) Motion On Notice Dated 6th of February, 2012 praying the court for the followings.
(1) An order of court granting leave to the Appellants/Applicants to amend their notice and grounds of appeal, and file an amended Appellant brief thereto.
(2) For the “Amended Notice and Grounds of Appeal” and “Amended Appellants Brief” annexed hereof and marked Exhibit V & VI respectively to be deemed to be duly filed and served relevant court fees having been paid.
(3) An order of court granting leave to the Appellants/Applicants to file additional documents in support of their claims.
(4) An order of court setting down this appeal for hearing.
(5) An order of accelerated hearing in this appeal.
(6) And for such further order or orders as this Honourable court may deem fit to make in the circumstances.

(B) Motion On Notice Dated 6th of February, 2012 praying the court for the followings.
(1) An order of court joining the Party Sought to be Joined as Second Respondent in this suit.
(2) An order that all the court processes in this appeal be served on the Party Sought to be joined at the head office of the Respondent at Mobil House, Lekki Express Way, Victoria Island Lagos, or alternatively, through courier service at the EXXONNMOBIL CORPORATION HEAD QUARTERS, 5959 LAS COLINAS BOULEVARD, IRVING , TEXAS, UNITED STATES 75039-2298, (972) 444-1000.
(3) And for such further order or orders as the Honourable Court may deem fit to make in the circumstance.

(C) Motion On Notice Dated 20th of December, 2012 praying the Honourable court for an order to consolidate all the processes of the court in suit no sc.198/2005 with those in the Substantive suit number sc./69/2011.

Mobil Oil Strategic Approach To The Apex Court
On the other hand, the Legal Counsel of Mobil Producing Nigeria Unlimited - Mike Ozekhome and Eyimofe Atake filed the following processes /motions.
(1) A Substantive Cross Appeal Dated 20th of March, 2012.
(2) Respondent’s Reply Brief to the Original Appellant Brief of Argument of CCNL filed by former lawyer- (Dr. Tony Ukam)
[/size]

Re: Comandclem Nigeria Limited Versus Mobil Producing Nigeria Unlimited by YusufAkure(m): 9:55am On May 16, 2013
PAGE 4 OF 11
[size=18pt]The Proceedings Of 8th Of April, 2013 In
The Supreme Court Of Nigeria
[/size]


[size=15pt]On 8th of April, 2013, the teaming supporters and lovers of King Professor CJA Uwemedimoh across the globe were present in the Supreme Court of Nigeria to watch the life proceedings of a (13) thirteen-year-old case being re-litigated in the Supreme Court of Nigeria for the second times on the same contested issues between the same parties- Comandclem Nigeria Limited and Mobil Producing Nigeria Unlimited. King Professor CJA Uwemedimoh was also in the court room with his close associates, family members and friends & well-wishers to hear the pronouncements of the Apex Court of the land on motions/processes regularizations before the Honourable Justices of the zenith court of the nation.
Honourable Justice Mahmud Mohammed was the presiding judge supported by Honourable Justice Mary Peter Odili, Honourable Justice Kayode Ariwoola and (2) other Honourable Justice at press time, we don’t know. Comandclem Nigeria Limited was represented by Barrister Rev. Jesse-Daniels Onuigbo Esq,and Ogunbodede Esq while Mobil Producing Nigeria Unlimited was represented by Chief Mike Ozekhome and (cool others legal luminaries.
Honourable Justice Mahmud Mohammed who was the presiding judge ruled substantially on all the motions on notice before the Supreme Court of Nigeria filed by either the legal counsels of Comandclem Nigeria limited or Mobil Producing Nigeria Unlimited. For the purpose of this report, we shall x-ray in details The Substantive Cross Appeal filed by Mobil Producing Nigeria Unlimited on 11th of April, 2012, and signed & dated by Dr. Eyimofe Atake on 20th of March, 2012. In our subsequent publications, we shall consider other motions on notice regularized by the Supreme Court of Nigeria on 8th of April, 2013 in the suit number SC./69/2011. Thanks for your understanding.
[/size]

Re: Comandclem Nigeria Limited Versus Mobil Producing Nigeria Unlimited by YusufAkure(m): 9:57am On May 16, 2013
PAGE 5 OF 11

[size=18pt]Blow By Blow Account Of Arguments Of Lawyers
On The Cross Appeal Filed
By Mobil Producing Nigeria Unlimited
[/size]

The conversation below exhibited how litigants argued on the cross appeal filed by Mobil Producing Nigeria unlimited on 8th of April, 2013 before the Honourable Justices of the Supreme Court Of Nigeria. Happy reading.
[size=15pt]Court (Justice Mahmud Mohammed) [/size]
Do we have any order motion on notice before this court?
[size=15pt]Mike Ozekhome (Mobil Oil) [/size]
My lord, we have a motion on notice dated 23th of March, 2012 but filed 11th of April 2012.
[size=15pt]Court (Justice Mahmud Mohammed) [/size]
Is the motion on notice signed by Dr. Atake?
[size=15pt]Mike Ozekhome (Mobil Oil) [/size]
Yes Sir. It was signed by Dr. Atake.
[size=15pt]Court (Justice Mahmud Mohammed) [/size]
Under which rule of this court are you filing this motion on notice?
[size=15pt]Mike Ozekhome (Mobil Oil) [/size]
My lord, we are bringing our motion on notice under:
-Order 2, Rule 31, Section 1,
- Order 6, Rule 1, of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Nigeria of 1985 as amended and other inherent jurisdiction of this honourable court, my lord.
[size=15pt]Court (Justice Mahmud Mohammed) [/size]
Barrister Onuigbo, this application is just a sort of application to file a cross appeal with you so that your Amended Notice Of Appeal, and Cross Appeal of Mobil Oil could be heard together. Barrister Onuigbo, any objection to this application?
[size=15pt]Barrister Rev. Jesse-Daniels Onuigbo Esq (CCNL) [/size]
My lord, we filed a counter-affidavit against this application.
[size=15pt]Court (Justice Mahmud Mohammed) [/size]
You filed a counter-affidavit! You see? The cross appeal of Mobil Oil is already on the ground. They shouldn’t cross appeal if they are unhappy with any part of the judgment of the lower court which you are also appealing against in this court?
[size=15pt]Barrister Rev. Jesse-Daniels Onuigbo Esq (CCNL) [/size]
My lord, what we are saying is that Mobil oil ought to have brought this motion on notice (cross appeal) before now. Mobil Oil ought to have filed this application. Mobil Oil filed this application twenty-seven (27) months after the judgment of the lower court delivered on 8th of December, 2009. My lord …………..!!!!!..........!!!!!!!.........!!!!!!!!!?
[size=15pt]Court (Justice Mahmud Mohammed) [/size]
Alright………….Alright…………Alright. Can Mobil Oil be granted an extension of time to file a cross appeal? If Mobil Oil has any complaint against the judgment of the lower court; the same judgment which yourself is not happy about, so what prevent Mobil Oil from coming here to say whatever they have to say against the judgment of the lower court?
[size=15pt]Barrister Rev. Jesse-Daniels Onuigbo Esq (CCNL) [/size]
No objection my lord.
[size=15pt]Court (Justice Mahmud Mohammed) [/size]
Thank you. Hope you are not asking for cost?
[size=15pt]Barrister Rev. Jesse-Daniels Onuigbo Esq (CCNL) [/size]
I am not asking for cost, my lord. We shall reciprocate the gesture of the other party. My lord.
[size=15pt]Court (Justice Mahmud Mohammed) [/size]

Re: Comandclem Nigeria Limited Versus Mobil Producing Nigeria Unlimited by YusufAkure(m): 10:04am On May 16, 2013
PAGE 6 0F 11
[size=18pt]Court Ruling[/size]
[size=15pt]The application for an enlargement of time for leave of this court to cross appeal against the judgment of the Court Of Appeal Calabar Judicial Division delivered on 8th of December, 2009 which was not opposed is hereby granted.
The cross appeal already filed in this court on 11th of April, 2012 is deemed properly filed and served today - 8th of April, 2013.
The application by the respondent/cross appellant for the extension of time to file respondent/cross appellant brief of argument is deemed properly filed and served. The respondent/cross appellant brief of argument already filed on 11th of April, 2012 is deemed properly filed today – 8th of April, 2013. No order of cost.
[/size]

Re: Comandclem Nigeria Limited Versus Mobil Producing Nigeria Unlimited by YusufAkure(m): 10:07am On May 16, 2013
PAGE 7 0F 11
[size=18pt]The Interpretation Of Rulings Of Justice Mahmud Mohammed On Cross Appeal Filed By Mobil Producing Nigeria Unlimited[/size]
[size=15pt]Interpretation of legal terms. [/size]
[size=15pt]In realization of the fact that Mobil Producing Nigeria Unlimited absolutely failed to file A Substantive Cross Appeal In The Supreme Court Of Nigeria within (3) months as provided for in the Supreme Court Act, Chapter 424, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 1990, Section 27, Subsection (2A); Mike Ozekhome recently Filed An Application For Leave Of Court For Time Extension to File A Substantive Cross Appeal
Please, kindly allow me to quote The Supreme Court Act, Chapter 424, Laws Of The Federation Of Nigeria 1990, Section 27, Subsection (2A);
[/size]

[size=15pt]27. (1) where a person desires to appeal to the Supreme Court he shall give notice of appeal or notice of his application for leave to appeal in such manner as may be directed by Rules of Court within the period prescribed by subsection (2) of this section that is applicable to the case.

(2) The periods prescribed for the giving of notice of appeal or notice of application for leave to appeal are-

(a) in an appeal in a civil case, fourteen days in an appeal against an interlocutory decision and three months in an appeal against a final decision;
[/size]


[size=15pt]As a result of the above statutory provisions, the leading legal counsel of Comandclem Nigeria Limited-Barrister Rev. Jesse-Daniels Onuigbo Esq filed a Counter-Affidavit Requesting The Honourable Justices Of The Supreme Court Of Nigeria To Dismiss And Refuse The Cross Appeal Filed By Dr. Eyimofe Atake For Being Filed Out Of Time Recognized By Law. To ensure that the A Substantive Cross Appeal succeeds before the Honourable Justices of the Supreme Court of Nigeria, Mike Ozekhome filed An Application For Time Enlargement To File A Cross Appeal as provided for under section 31 of the Supreme Court Act, Chapter 424, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 1990.

Please, kindly allow me to quote Section 31, Subsection (1) of the Supreme Court Act, Chapter 424, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 1990.
[/size]

[size=15pt]31. (1) The Court may enlarge the time provided by these Rules for the doing of anything to which these Rules apply, or may direct a departure from these Rules in any other way when this is required in the interest of justice.

On 8th of April, 2013, the Leading Legal Counsel of Comandclem Nigeria Limited - Barrister Rev. Jesse-Daniels Onuigbo Esq had no option than to allow the Application For Leave Of Court For Time Extension to File A Substantive Cross Appeal to succeed in a situation where such a request was made by the Court (Justice Mahmud Mohammed).
Court (Justice Mahmud Mohammed)
[/size]

[size=15pt]Alright………….Alright…………Alright. Can Mobil Oil be granted an extension of time to file a cross appeal? If Mobil Oil has any complaint against the judgment of the lower court; the same judgment which yourself is not happy about, so what prevent Mobil Oil from coming here to say whatever they have to say against the judgment of the lower court?
Owing to the fact that the Application For Leave Of Court For Time Extension to File A Substantive Cross Appeal was granted by the by Court (Justice Mahmud Mohammed), the Substantive Cross Appeal filed by Mobil Oil was also granted despite it was filed twenty-seven (27) months as against three (3) months recognized by the law.
[/size]

Re: Comandclem Nigeria Limited Versus Mobil Producing Nigeria Unlimited by YusufAkure(m): 10:09am On May 16, 2013
PAGE 7 0F 11
[size=18pt]The Interpretation Of Rulings Of Justice Mahmud Mohammed On Cross Appeal Filed By Mobil Producing Nigeria Unlimited[/size]
[size=15pt]Interpretation of legal terms. [/size]
[size=15pt]In realization of the fact that Mobil Producing Nigeria Unlimited absolutely failed to file A Substantive Cross Appeal In The Supreme Court Of Nigeria within (3) months as provided for in the Supreme Court Act, Chapter 424, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 1990, Section 27, Subsection (2A); Mike Ozekhome recently Filed An Application For Leave Of Court For Time Extension to File A Substantive Cross Appeal
Please, kindly allow me to quote The Supreme Court Act, Chapter 424, Laws Of The Federation Of Nigeria 1990, Section 27, Subsection (2A);
[/size]

[size=15pt]27. (1) where a person desires to appeal to the Supreme Court he shall give notice of appeal or notice of his application for leave to appeal in such manner as may be directed by Rules of Court within the period prescribed by subsection (2) of this section that is applicable to the case.

(2) The periods prescribed for the giving of notice of appeal or notice of application for leave to appeal are-

(a) in an appeal in a civil case, fourteen days in an appeal against an interlocutory decision and three months in an appeal against a final decision;
[/size]


[size=15pt]As a result of the above statutory provisions, the leading legal counsel of Comandclem Nigeria Limited-Barrister Rev. Jesse-Daniels Onuigbo Esq filed a Counter-Affidavit Requesting The Honourable Justices Of The Supreme Court Of Nigeria To Dismiss And Refuse The Cross Appeal Filed By Dr. Eyimofe Atake For Being Filed Out Of Time Recognized By Law. To ensure that the A Substantive Cross Appeal succeeds before the Honourable Justices of the Supreme Court of Nigeria, Mike Ozekhome filed An Application For Time Enlargement To File A Cross Appeal as provided for under section 31 of the Supreme Court Act, Chapter 424, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 1990.

Please, kindly allow me to quote Section 31, Subsection (1) of the Supreme Court Act, Chapter 424, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 1990.
[/size]

[size=15pt]31. (1) The Court may enlarge the time provided by these Rules for the doing of anything to which these Rules apply, or may direct a departure from these Rules in any other way when this is required in the interest of justice.

On 8th of April, 2013, the Leading Legal Counsel of Comandclem Nigeria Limited - Barrister Rev. Jesse-Daniels Onuigbo Esq had no option than to allow the Application For Leave Of Court For Time Extension to File A Substantive Cross Appeal to succeed in a situation where such a request was made by the Court (Justice Mahmud Mohammed).
Court (Justice Mahmud Mohammed)
[/size]

[size=15pt]Alright………….Alright…………Alright. Can Mobil Oil be granted an extension of time to file a cross appeal? If Mobil Oil has any complaint against the judgment of the lower court; the same judgment which yourself is not happy about, so what prevent Mobil Oil from coming here to say whatever they have to say against the judgment of the lower court?
Owing to the fact that the Application For Leave Of Court For Time Extension to File A Substantive Cross Appeal was granted by the by Court (Justice Mahmud Mohammed), the Substantive Cross Appeal filed by Mobil Oil was also granted despite it was filed twenty-seven (27) months as against three (3) months recognized by the law.
[/size]

Re: Comandclem Nigeria Limited Versus Mobil Producing Nigeria Unlimited by YusufAkure(m): 10:34am On May 16, 2013
PAGE 8 OF 11
[size=18pt]The Impacts Of The Rulings Of Court (Justice Mahmud Mohammed) On Suit Sc./69/2011[/size]
[size=15pt] It is pertinent to critically examine in detailed the possibilities of both positive and negative impacts of the rulings of Court (Justice Mahmud Mohammed) On Suit Sc./69/2011. Our abilities to carry out judicial surgical operations on the pronouncements of Court (Justice Mahmud Mohammed) On Suit Sc./69/2011 on 8th of April, 2013 with respect to the regularizations of all the motions on notice will go a long way to forecast the possible outcomes of a (13) thirteen- year-old-case between Comandclem Nigeria Lomited and Mobil Producing Nigeria Unlimited.
In Our next publication, the entire team of Anti-Corrosive-Vanguards shall review the pronouncements of Court (Justice Mahmud Mohammed) On Suit Sc./69/2011 on 8th of April, 2013. Happy reading in advance.
[/size]


PAGE 9 OF 11
[size=18pt] Personal Opinions Of Anti-Corrosive Vanguards On The Rulings Of Court (Justice Mahmud Mohammed) [/size]

[size=15pt] The entire members of Anti-Corrosive Vanguards enjoy the constitutional rights of freedom of speech on issues pertaining to the Patent Right RP 13522 Of King Professor CJA Uwemedimoh. Our personal opinions shall be reserved until all the processes are filed in the Supreme Court of Nigeria by the legal counsels of Comandclem Nigeria Limited and Mobil Producing Nigeria Unlimited. [/size]

PAGE 10 0F 11
[size=18pt] Date Of Next Hearing
The Suit No SC./69/2011
[/size]

[size=15pt] Going by the rulings of the Court (Justice Mahmud Mohammed) on 8th of April, 2013, it was obvious that the court deemed the Amended Brief Of Argument filed by Comandclem Nigeria Limited dully filed and served, and also deemed the Substantive Cross Appeal filed by Mobil Producing Nigeria Unlimited dully filed and served. The legal implication of this is that the Court expects the legal counsel of Comandclem Nigeria Limited to file a reply (Respondent’s Reply On Cross Appeal) to the Substantive Cross Appeal of Mobil Producing Nigeria Unlimited. In the same vein, the court also expects the legal counsel of Mobil Producing Nigeria Unlimited to file a reply (Respondent’s Reply on Amended Brief of Argument) to the Amended Brief Of Argument Of Comandclem Nigeria Limited. Those two correspondences are expected to be dully filed and served with (cool eight weeks as provided for in the Supreme Court Rule of 1985 (As Amended), Order 6, Rule 5, Section 2. [/size]
[size=15pt] “The respondent shall file in the Court and serve on the appellant his own Brief within eight weeks after service on him of the Brief of the appellant. “[/size]

PAGE 11 0F 11
[size=18pt] Conclusion[/size]
[size=15pt] The legal implications of granting both the Amended Brief of Argument filed by Comandclem Nigeria Limited, and the Substantive Cross Appeal filed by Mobil Producing Nigeria Unlimited in the Supreme Court of Nigeria exhibited ostensibly that Honourable Justice Mahmud Mohammed was only keenly interested in the critical review or re-litigation of the entire judicial pronouncements of the first appellant court before Honourable Justice Kumai Bayang Akaahs majorly on the contested issues set-aside for determination between the litigants. [/size]
[size=15pt] The contested issues between the litigants (CCNL and Mobil Oil) are un-reconcilable differences calling for an immediate adjudication before the Honorable Justices of the Supreme Court of Nigeria. From the perspective of Mobil Oil, this Oil Giant was not happy with the two pronouncements of the Federal Court of Appeal, Calabar Judicial Division before Honourable Justice Kumai Bayang Akaahs who ruled categorically that Anti-Corrosive Special Paint for QIT with patent number RP 13522 was invented by King Professor CJA Uwemedimoh, and the oral agreement to pay the sum of $2:00 (Dollar) per barrel was not against public policy (Petroleum Act).
[font=comic Sans MS] [size=15pt][color=blue] Conversely, Comandclem Nigeria Limited was not comfortable with the two pronouncements of the Federal Court of Appeal, Calabar Judicial Division before Honourable Justice Kumai Bayang Akaahs who ruled that paragraph 29 (iii), (iv), (v), and (viii) of the Amended Statement of claim were statute barred, and Comandclem Nigeria Limited failed to show evidence that the infringement of the Latter Patent RP 13522 was continuous after 5th of August, 1999 when the Patent Certificate was issued by the Federal Government Of Nigeria to King Professor CJA Uwemedimoh.


It is the contention of Anti-Corrosive Vanguard that paragraph 29 (iii), (iv), (v), and (viii) of the Amended Statement of claim were not statute barred because of the fact that they constitute rem judicata , and the issue of continuous infringement on the Patent Right RP 13522 after 5th of August, 1999 by Mobil Oil has never been an issue in dispute either at interlocutory stage or the recent substantive stage of the legal battle.
[/size]


[size=15pt] NAME: YUSUF NURUDEEN (AAT, ACA)
POSITION: CCNL NATIONAL MARKETING MANAGER
OFFICE ADDRESS: CCNL ZONAL HEADQUARTERS, NUMBER 4, OGUDU ROAD,
OJOTA, LAGOS STATE.
MOBIL NUMBER: +2347032522248
EMAIL ADDRESS: thepatenteesonlinenewspaper@yahoo.com
TWETTER NAME: CCNL_PATENTEES
FACEBOOK NAME: COMANDCLEM PATENTEES
CCNL CORPORATE FACEBOOK ADDRESS: www.facebook.com/COMANDCLEMNIGERIALIMITED
CCNL CORPORATE WEBSITE: www.comandclemonline.com
CCNL FORUM:http://www.comandclemonline.com/forum/index.php?
www.comandclem.org/forum/index.php?topic=3.32
[/size]

Re: Comandclem Nigeria Limited Versus Mobil Producing Nigeria Unlimited by YusufAkure(m): 11:53am On Jun 07, 2013
[size=18pt]Comandclem Nigeria Limited[/size]

[size=18pt]Computerization Of Patentees` Database
Through
A Multi-Purpose Identity Card
[/size]




[size=16pt]In realization of an unexpected increase in the number of Patent-Right Holders in the intellectual property of King Professor CJA Uwemedimoh Called Anti-Corrosive Special Paint For QIT QAD with Patent Number RP:13522, the Management after due consultations with some information technology professionals resolved to Computerize The Patentees` Database through Multi-Purpose Identity Cards which is in line with best International Corporate Practice.
The inevitable needs to recognize Patent-Right Holders with Multi-Purpose Identity Cards will not only eliminate the era of office paper work but also create Data Reliability, Data Integrity And Most Importantly, Data Security.
This Multi-Propose Id Card allows both physical and digital recognition of Patent Right Investors through embedded integrated circuit chips capable of processing patentees` information with the aid of chips enabled terminals.
[/size]




[size=18pt]FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS[/size]

[size=18pt] (1)What Is A Multi-Purpose I.D. Card? [/size]

[size=15pt]A Multi-Purpose I.D. Card is an embedded integrated circuit chips I. D. Card capable of electronically storing and processing patentees` sensitive information with the aid of sophisticated chips enabled information technology devices. It boosts patentees` confidence and trust in a social security scheme, and most importantly, it makes administrative work easy for the Management because it eliminates herculean office papers` work, and creates Data Accuracy, Data Security And Data Reliability Among Others. [/size]

[size=18pt] (2)Who Is Eligible To Apply For A Multi-Purpose I. D. Card Form? [/size]


[size=15pt]Only a registered member of Comandclem Nigeria Limited either as A Patentee or A Committee of Friend is eligible to apply for a Multi-Purpose I. D. Card Form. [/size]


[size=18pt] (3) Why Should Patentees Apply For Multi-Purpose I. D. Cards Form While The Case Is Still Ongoing In The Supreme Court Of Nigeria? [/size]


[size=15pt]Comandclem Nigeria Limited is a proactive company driven by highly focused Management Team geared toward the actualization of the entire aims and objectives of the company within the shortest time possible. The Focused Management Team must not wait till the end of the case before embarking on the computerization of the entire Patentees` Database. In actual fact, the computerization of the CCNL Patentees` Database is overdue. Also, your company needs money to pursue the ongoing litigation in the Supreme Court of Nigeria. [/size]

[size=18pt] (4)What Does It Take To Get A Multi-Purpose I. D. Card Form? [/size]
[size=15pt]The cost of A Multi-Purpose I. D. Card form is free while
-The cost of Multi-Purpose I. D. Card is =N=2,000:00 &
-A passport.
[/size]






[size=18pt] (5)What Is The Method Of Payment? [/size]
[size=15pt]



[font=comic Sans MS] [size=15pt][color=green]Payment can be made through
- Registration & Information Offices of Comandclem Nigeria
Limited in your State.
Or
- Bank Name : Access Bank Nigeria PLC
Account Name: Comandclem Nigeria Limited
Account Number: 0042926342
[/size]


[size=18pt] (6) What Are The Pre-Requisites To Apply For A Multi-Purpose I. D. Card Form? [/size]


[size=15pt] - An official receipt of registration or a bank teller
- CCNL completed registration form
[/size]



[size=18pt] (7) I Have Relocated To A New State Different From My State Of Registration. Can I Obtain The Multi-Purpose I. D. Card Form In My New State? [/size]

[size=15pt]Yes. You can obtain your Multi-Purpose I. D. Card Form in your New State different from your State Of Registration. You must ensure that
(1) You write your State Of Registration in the Multi-Purpose I. D. Card Form.
(2) You collect your Multi-Purpose I. D. Card in the New State.
Note: Comandclem Nigeria Limited will ensure that your sensitive data are captured on our database among patentees in your state of registration. You Multi-Purpose I. D. Card will be collected in your New State.
[/size]


[size=18pt] (cool What Is The Administrative Implication If I Fail To Apply For A Multi-Purpose I. D. Card Form? [/size]


[size=15pt]The administrative implication is that the sensitive data of any patentee that fails to apply for a Multi-Purpose I. D. Card Form will not be captured in the Corporate Data Base that will be made available on the internet in batches any moment from now. The authenticity of registration of such a patentee cannot be confirmed on the internet. [/size]



[size=18pt] (9) What Is The Closing Date Of Applying For A Multi-Purpose I. D. Card Form? [/size]


[size=15pt]The last stage of Patentees` Documents & Physical Verification Exercise is online confirmation of valid registration. The earlier the participation of patentees in the computerization exercise, The Better The Confirmation Of The Validity Of Their Registrations. [/size]


[size=18pt] (10) I Cannot Find My CCNL Completed Registration Form And Official Receipt. Sensitive Data Therein Are Needed To Complete The Multi-Purpose I. D. Card Form. Please, How Can I Participate In The Multi-Purpose I. D. Card Registration Exercise? [/size]


[size=15pt]This is not a problem. Contact the CCNL Manager in your State of Registration for your Multi-Purpose I. D. Card Form. CCNL Manager in your State of Registration will surely be of help to you in this regard. [/size]



[size=18pt]For further enquiries, visit,
Comandclem Nigeria Limited,
No. 4, Ogudu Road,
Ojota,
Lagos State.
[/size]

Re: Comandclem Nigeria Limited Versus Mobil Producing Nigeria Unlimited by YusufAkure(m): 11:54am On Jun 07, 2013
page 5 and 6

Re: Comandclem Nigeria Limited Versus Mobil Producing Nigeria Unlimited by YusufAkure(m): 6:57am On Jun 10, 2013
Re: Comandclem Nigeria Limited Versus Mobil Producing Nigeria Unlimited by YusufAkure(m): 8:32pm On Jun 13, 2013
Re: Comandclem Nigeria Limited Versus Mobil Producing Nigeria Unlimited by YusufAkure(m): 9:32am On Jun 29, 2013
[size=18pt]Mobil Oil (Mark R. Ward)
You Are Bound By Your Pleadings.
[/size]

[size=18pt]Anti-Corrosive Vanguards[/size]- [size=18pt]restated. [/size]

[size=15pt]Pleadings of Mobil [/size]

[size=15pt]Oil Paragraph 54 (ii) Of Amended Statement Of Defence Of (MOBIL OIL) Dated 9th Of May, 2007. [/size]


[size=15pt]Mobil Oil Finally Confessed On Continuous Infringement Of My Invention[/size]




[size=15pt] “At the date of the filing of the patent application by the 1st plaintiff (CCNL) in respect of the alleged paint/chemicals, the defendants (MOBIL OIL) were already conducting an undertaking in Nigeria with respect to the efficacy of the paints that will suit the defendants` oil (MOBIL OIL) pipelines, and as a result of the said undertaking, [/size] [size=15pt]they (MOBIL OIL) were already manufacturing the paints and / or applying the process for the manufacture of the paints. Therefore, the defendants (MOBIL OIL) are entitled to apply and use those paints / chemicals in law.” [/size]


[size=15pt]PLEADINGS: Purpose of pleadings
ONUOHA NWOKOROBIA V. DESMOND UCHECHI NWOGU & ORS.
CITATION: (2009) LPELR-SC.291/2002
[/size]


[size=15pt]"It is settled law that litigation is fought on pleadings of the parties, as it forms the foundation from which it is developed and tackled to the stage of judgment. It is pleadings that form the basis of the plank of a case and the evidence that is adduced in support therefore. Hence the fulcrum of a case is derived from the pleadings and its success depends thereon, for pleadings that are bereft of the facts needed to prove a case, cannot be proved by evidence no matter how cogent[/size]. [size=15pt]i.e. parties are bound by their pleadings.
See Shell B.P. v. Abedi 1974 1 SC. 23, and Ebosie v. Phil-Ebosie 1976 7 SC. 119."
[/size]

[size=15pt] Per MUKHTAR, J.S.C. (P. 17, paras. D-G) [/size]


[size=15pt]THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS ARE EXPECTED TO BE ANSWERED BY MOBIL OIL IN THE RESPONDENT'S REPLY BRIEF. FOR THE PAST 10 WEEKS, MOBIL OIL IS AFRAID
TO REPLY.

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION

(1) Whether in the final analysis, the case, and in particular,
paragraph 29 (iii), (iv), (v), and (viii) of the amended statement of
claim dated 20/11/2001 is statue barred?

(2) Whether the infringement of the appellants` right was continuous to
entitle them to compensation, damages or royalties from the respondent.

(3) Whether from the totality of the pleadings of the respondent (then defendant), did the respondent deny and or successfully transverse the
averment in paragraph 23 of the Appellants` (the plaintiffs) amended statement of claim sufficiently for the Appellant to be called upon to prove the continuous use of appellants` patented product by the
respondent?

https://twitter.com/COMANDLEM_NIG

http://www.facebook.com/ComandclemNigeriaLimited

http://comandclemonline.com/forum/index.php?topic=2.408
[/size]








[size=15pt]NAME: Yusuf Nurudeen (AAT, ACA)
POSITION: CCNL National Marketing Manager
OFFICE ADDRESS: CCNL Zonal Headquarters, Number 4, Ogudu Road,
Ojota, Lagos State.
MOBIL NUMBER: +2347032522248

(1) http://comandclemnewsupdate.blogspot.com/

(2) http://comandclemnewsupdate.blogspot.com/2013/06/court-orders-mobil-to-pay-834m.html

(3) http://comandclemnewsupdate.blogspot.com/2013/06/once-in-lifetime-investment-opportunity.html


(4) http://comandclemnewsupdate.blogspot.com/2013/06/comandclem-nigeria-limited.html


(5) http://comandclemnewsupdate.blogspot.com/2013/06/the-official-report-of-legal_8.html
(6) www.comandclem.org/forum/index.php?topic=3.32
(7) www.comandclemonline.com/forum/index.php?
(cool www.facebook.com/COMANDCLEMNIGERIALIMITED
(9) FACEBOOK NAME: COMANDCLEM PATENTEES
[/size]

Re: Comandclem Nigeria Limited Versus Mobil Producing Nigeria Unlimited by YusufAkure(m): 10:39pm On Oct 09, 2013
See me here

Re: Comandclem Nigeria Limited Versus Mobil Producing Nigeria Unlimited by YusufAkure(m): 6:28pm On Nov 10, 2013
HEARING NOTICE HAS BEEN ISSUED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA


www.facebook.com/ComandclemNigeriaLimited



www.comandclemonline.com/forum/index.php?topic=2.464
Re: Comandclem Nigeria Limited Versus Mobil Producing Nigeria Unlimited by YusufAkure(m): 4:55am On Aug 24, 2014
Who Is Chasing Who?



Since time immemorial, a Domestic Hen and a Domestic Cockroach are enemies because the formal chases the latter for an immediate crush and subsequent consumption. A Domestic Cockroach is always a meat in the meal of a Domestic Hen.


There are occasions a Domestic Cockroach will escape the consumption attempts made by a Domestic Hen. In such situations, a Domestic Cockroach believes that he is wiser and more intelligent than a Domestic Hen.


But when the unfortunate befall the Domestic Cockroach, he walks in the daylight and confronts an angry and hungry Domestic Hen.


Guess what will happen? Casualties will be recorded.


This time around, on October 7th, 2014, in the Supreme Court of Nigeria, the Domestic Cockroach of Mobil Producing Nigeria Unlimited will walk in the daylight and casualties will be recorded on their party. Few days to 7th of October, 2014.




-usefulman

(1) (2) (3) (Reply)

LAWMA To Convert Popular Ojota Dump Site To Golf Course / Www.2go .com 2go Signup,download, 2go Login / A Tanker Fell At Brown Road, Aguda Surulere

(Go Up)

Sections: politics (1) business autos (1) jobs (1) career education (1) romance computers phones travel sports fashion health
religion celebs tv-movies music-radio literature webmasters programming techmarket

Links: (0) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)

Nairaland - Copyright © 2005 - 2019 Oluwaseun Osewa. All rights reserved. See How To Advertise. 600
Disclaimer: Every Nairaland member is solely responsible for anything that he/she posts or uploads on Nairaland.