Terrence99:


It is an interlocutory appeal and a thousand Tankos can't stop it. What was frowned at was Exparte injunctions.

I don't know why you fulanis are very daft in legal matters.

Sirjamo:
You're a fuul.

If the appeal Court did not erred in granting the interlocutory injunction, 1 billion Wikes together with all you PDP Dundees cannot upturn it.

sapientia:
Can't he wait for the appeal court?

ourema:
Rivers State government, through its
Attorney-General, has gone to the Supreme
Court to set aside the decision of the Court
of Appeal that ordered it to maintain status
quo on the collection of Value Added Tax,
VAT, pending the determination of an
appeal that was lodged by the Federal
Inland Revenue Service, FIRS.

The State, in its nine grounds of appeal, a
copy of which was sighted by Vanguard on
Tuesday, is praying the apex court to order
that the substantive appeal by the FIRS,
marked CA/PH/282/2021, and all other
processes therein, be heard and determined
by a new panel of the Court of Appeal.
Aside from the FIRS, the Attorney-General
of the Federation was cited as Respondents
in the appeal that Rivers State entered
through its team of lawyers led by
Emmanuel Ukala, SAN.

https://www.vanguardngr.com/2021/09/breaking-rivers-govt-drags-fg-to-supreme-court-over-vat-revenue/

AntiBMC:
Hmm. The same court presided over by Tanko Muhammad, an illiterate who only went to Islamic school? Lol.

This is a man that was specially handpicked by the FG (Fulani govt), to do their bidding. He is the reason why Bulhari is president, he is the reason why Hope Uzodimma is a governor. So, for Wike to carry ds VAT matter there...lol...excuse me for not having an iota of faith in the "supreme" court.

Sirjamo:
This is not Onoghen's Supreme Court that always favour the Poverty Development Party.

Rushing to Supreme Court when the matter is still pending before the appeal Court is no longer allowed in this era of Tanko Mohammed.


Wike is looking for his retirement package in form of value added tax. He just realized that VAT exists, after almost seven years in office.

darthv:


There is no time you don't spew trash, you never disapoint.
Well you are paid for it.
Job well done

ourema:
Apart from this current case the Rivers State governor performance is below that of his predecessor Amaechi.

Employment his rating is below the previous government,
Workers promotion and Pensioner gratuity is very poor

SarkinYarki:


You clearly don't know the meaning of illiterate ...His case will be thrown out ..there status quo will be upheld .. receive sense the appeal court stay of action order was the interlocutory appeal and can't be vacated by the supreme court ...Well let Rivers lawyer eat

Qtrpst4:
You want a sharia law expert who do not know the difference between technicality and the substance of a matter give you restructuring?

AntiBMC:
Hmm. The same court presided over by Tanko Muhammad, an illiterate who only went to Islamic school? Lol.

This is a man that was specially handpicked by the FG (Fulani govt), to do their bidding. He is the reason why Bulhari is president, he is the reason why Hope Uzodimma is a governor. So, for Wike to carry ds VAT matter there...lol...excuse me for not having an iota of faith in the "supreme" court.

AntiBMC:
Hmm. The same court presided over by Tanko Muhammad, an illiterate who only went to Islamic school? Lol.

This is a man that was specially handpicked by the FG (Fulani govt), to do their bidding. He is the reason why Bulhari is president, he is the reason why Hope Uzodimma is a governor. So, for Wike to carry ds VAT matter there...lol...excuse me for not having an iota of faith in the "supreme" court.


He doesn’t have the final say bro,he is only the chairman plus there are other judges there one of which is Peter odili wife who is from rivers too so let’s see how this fight ends but this is indeed a welcomed Dev!!

ourema:
Apart from this current case the Rivers State governor performance is below that of his predecessor Amaechi.

Employment his rating is below the previous government,
Workers promotion and Pensioner gratuity is very poor

ourema:
Apart from this current case the Rivers State governor performance is below that of his predecessor Amaechi.

Employment his rating is below the previous government,
Workers promotion and Pensioner gratuity is very poor

bobowaja:

Abokis which employment deh up north despite the feeding bottle almajiri?

garfield1:


Wike is overreaching himself.by asking for a new appeal panel,he will definitely lose the case.he must have tried bribing them and failed

sapientia:
Can't he wait for the appeal court?

ourema:
Apart from this current case the Rivers State governor performance is below that of his predecessor Amaechi.

Employment his rating is below the previous government,
Workers promotion and Pensioner gratuity is very poor

Terrence99:


You are eternally stupid, dumb abokee. Basic legal matters, you can't even understand. No wonder you fools always come to the South to get lawyers. Illiteracy is in your DNA.
Go back to the bushes in the North and go kidnap people as you always do. Legal matters are above your competence.

fergie001:

The RVSG is within rights to move up. When a Party is dissatisfied with an interlocutory appeal, he can challenge same at the Superior Court. When it is before the Superior Court, the lower Court must refrain from adjudicating on same pending the judgement of the Higher Court.

The Appeal Court panel created a lot of ambiguity in the Stay it granted.

Firstly, Lagos State applied as an interested Party to the suit because the FIRS in its application for Stay at the FHC in Port Harcourt, included Lagos in its writs. Rivers and Lagos States Assemblys have passed VAT bills into law before it went up to the Appeal Court.

The Justice H S Tsammani-led Appeal Panel deferred the case of Lagos' application for joinder to September 16, 2021. However, it granted a "status quo ante bellum" that included Lagos whose application was to come up on the 16th? How possible?

Secondly, Rivers and Lagos Houses of Assemblys have passed VAT laws that are still unchallenged today by virtue of the fact that they are not parties to any suit and these bills are not before the Courts.

It is another imbroglio likened to an example where a Court is telling the President not to carry out an Act of the National Assembly, without anyone indeed challenging the Act itself.
The best will be to sue the National Assembly or sue the Federal Government with the National Assembly as co-respondents.

Thirdly, FIRS appealed the High Court judgement, only for the Court to sit and they orally applied for Stay of Execution. Without written application, nothing.... motion on notice, nothing.... just orally. And the Appeal Court granted it. How?

This is contrary to Order 6, Rule 1 of the Court of Appeal Rules 2016 which states:
"Every application to the Court shall be by notice of motion supported by affidavit and shall state the Rule under which it is brought and the ground for the relief sought."

Where any application is made to the Court for a stay of execution or of proceedings under any judgment or decision appealed from, such application shall be made by notice of motion supported by affidavit setting forth the grounds upon which a stay of execution or of proceedings is sought.

Rivers State by virtue of the High Court Judgement still reserves the RIGHTS of VAT collection. The SC will help out here.

garfield1 indispensable85 ejimatic vicdom kahal29

fergie001:

The RVSG is within rights to move up. When a Party is dissatisfied with an interlocutory appeal, he can challenge same at the Superior Court. When it is before the Superior Court, the lower Court must refrain from adjudicating on same pending the judgement of the Higher Court.

The Appeal Court panel created a lot of ambiguity in the Stay it granted.

Firstly, Lagos State applied as an interested Party to the suit because the FIRS in its application for Stay at the FHC in Port Harcourt, included Lagos in its writs. Rivers and Lagos States Assemblys have passed VAT bills into law before it went up to the Appeal Court.

The Justice H S Tsammani-led Appeal Panel deferred the case of Lagos' application for joinder to September 16, 2021. However, it granted a "status quo ante bellum" that included Lagos whose application was to come up on the 16th? How possible?

Secondly, Rivers and Lagos Houses of Assemblys have passed VAT laws that are still unchallenged today by virtue of the fact that they are not parties to any suit and these bills are not before the Courts.

It is another imbroglio likened to an example where a Court is telling the President not to carry out an Act of the National Assembly, without anyone indeed challenging the Act itself.
The best will be to sue the National Assembly or sue the Federal Government with the National Assembly as co-respondents.

Thirdly, FIRS appealed the High Court judgement, only for the Court to sit and they orally applied for Stay of Execution. Without written application, nothing.... motion on notice, nothing.... just orally. And the Appeal Court granted it. How?

This is contrary to Order 6, Rule 1 of the Court of Appeal Rules 2016 which states:
"Every application to the Court shall be by notice of motion supported by affidavit and shall state the Rule under which it is brought and the ground for the relief sought."

Where any application is made to the Court for a stay of execution or of proceedings under any judgment or decision appealed from, such application shall be made by notice of motion supported by affidavit setting forth the grounds upon which a stay of execution or of proceedings is sought.

Rivers State by virtue of the High Court Judgement still reserves the RIGHTS of VAT collection. The SC will help out here.

garfield1 indispensable85 ejimatic vicdom kahal29

fergie001:

The RVSG is within rights to move up. When a Party is dissatisfied with an interlocutory appeal, he can challenge same at the Superior Court. When it is before the Superior Court, the lower Court must refrain from adjudicating on same pending the judgement of the Higher Court.

The Appeal Court panel created a lot of ambiguity in the Stay it granted.

Firstly, Lagos State applied as an interested Party to the suit because the FIRS in its application for Stay at the FHC in Port Harcourt, included Lagos in its writs. Rivers and Lagos States Assemblys have passed VAT bills into law before it went up to the Appeal Court.

The Justice H S Tsammani-led Appeal Panel deferred the case of Lagos' application for joinder to September 16, 2021. However, it granted a "status quo ante bellum" that included Lagos whose application was to come up on the 16th? How possible?

Secondly, Rivers and Lagos Houses of Assemblys have passed VAT laws that are still unchallenged today by virtue of the fact that they are not parties to any suit and these bills are not before the Courts.

It is another imbroglio likened to an example where a Court is telling the President not to carry out an Act of the National Assembly, without anyone indeed challenging the Act itself.
The best will be to sue the National Assembly or sue the Federal Government with the National Assembly as co-respondents.

Thirdly, FIRS appealed the High Court judgement, only for the Court to sit and they orally applied for Stay of Execution. Without written application, nothing.... motion on notice, nothing.... just orally. And the Appeal Court granted it. How?

This is contrary to Order 6, Rule 1 of the Court of Appeal Rules 2016 which states:
"Every application to the Court shall be by notice of motion supported by affidavit and shall state the Rule under which it is brought and the ground for the relief sought."

Where any application is made to the Court for a stay of execution or of proceedings under any judgment or decision appealed from, such application shall be made by notice of motion supported by affidavit setting forth the grounds upon which a stay of execution or of proceedings is sought.

Rivers State by virtue of the High Court Judgement still reserves the RIGHTS of VAT collection. The SC will help out here.

garfield1 indispensable85 ejimatic vicdom kahal29

garfield1:
Before lagos and rivers enacted the vat law,what does the existing law on vat specifies

fergie001:

The law states that the States will collect VAT on behalf of the FG. However, the FHC in Port Harcourt in its ruling....has punctured that....It declared that Rivers State and indeed any State of the Federation are the primary custodians of collecting VAT.

FIRS sought a Stay of Execution from the same Court but by then the Rivers law was already in existence. The FHC simply said it cannot over-ride a law passed by the State legislature, unless it came into conflict with the Constitution or an Act of the National Assembly, dismissing same.

The FHC ruling of August 9 is a Declaratory Judgement. Declaratory Judgements are final orders as they make rulings with respect to declared rights.

In Nigerian law, no Court can order a Stay of Execution on Declaratory Judgements.

What can be sought for is a motion on notice vide injunction pending appeal. What I mean is that the Judge said Rivers State has the rights but went on to restrain the FIRS.

The Stay is on the restraining order, but the substantive relief still stands unless vacated by Appeal.

All this happened even before the VAT law.

Sirjamo:
Shebi your slave master don carry the matter enter Supreme court? We go see how your life go be after the case is thrown out through the window. Werey tutu.