₦airaland Forum

jayce232:
Are they still shaking out weak hands?
From shaking out weak hands on Twitter to cycle is over. If this cycle has taught anyone anything is that nobody knows anything. Everyone is just doing guess work & the market will always do what it wants. If market is this bearish in a supposed bull year, it means it can also be bullish in a supposed bear year. Just expect anything. All the analysts on Twitter & YouTube predicting the highest bull year to be 2025 in the early months of 2024 have all varnished. If market should pump now they will crawl out. More importantly to note is always have usdt, usdt should constitute at least 30% of your portfolio, it will prompt u to see every dip as an opportunity.

It follows the years in a swing market. Hence the dumbest with enough liquids will make it. Some swing traders are still in massive profit. Why? When you are busy looking at weekly, monthly or hourly chart actions, they are looking at YoY.

Analyscam50:
If I commit suicide in this my miserable life

Know it’s crypt

Everything is almost turning to dust innexhange

Maybe it wants too retest 2020 or 2023.

Court Slams Customs Over Killing, Upholds ₦40m Damages — Says Fundamental Rights Case Not Criminal Trial

By Amebo Lawyer, Esq. | Abuja | November 13, 2025

The Court of Appeal has upheld a landmark ₦40 million judgment against the Nigeria Customs Service Board over the unlawful killing of a citizen in Ogun State, ruling that cases involving violations of fundamental rights cannot be treated as criminal trials even when the acts have criminal undertones.

Court Slams Customs Over Killing, Upholds ₦40m Damages — Says Fundamental Rights Case Not Criminal Trial

Delivering judgment in Nigeria Customs Service Board & Ors v. Sunday, the appellate court affirmed that the killing of one Olabode Sunday by Customs officers was a flagrant breach of his constitutional right to life guaranteed under Section 33(1)of the 1999 Constitution.

Right to Life Is Sacred” — Court

The court held that there was clear affidavit evidence showing that Customs officers fired shots at Owode, Ogun State, during an operation on January 25, 2019, leading to Sunday’s death. The judges dismissed Customs’ claim that their shots were merely fired into the air and that nobody died.

Justice Ogakwu, who delivered the lead judgment, said there was “no evidence whatsoever” that the killing was in execution of a court order or a lawful act.

“The killing was illegal and unlawful, done in flagrant violation of Section 33(1) of the Constitution,” the court held. “Every Nigerian has a right to life and cannot be deprived of it except by the sentence of a court of law.”

The lower court had earlier awarded ₦40 million in damages to the victim’s family for the unlawful killing. And the Customs Service, being dissatisfied with the verdict of the trial court, appealed to the Court of Appeal. -

Customs’ Defence Falls Flat

In their appeal, Customs argued that since the alleged acts amounted to murder, a criminal offence. And that the respondent ought to have proved the case beyond reasonable doubt, as required in criminal trials.

The Court of Appeal rejected this argument, describing it as “misguided and misplaced.”

“The fact that the allegations have some criminal connotation does not change the character of the case from one for enforcement of fundamental rights,” Justice Ogakwu ruled.

He emphasized that fundamental rights enforcement is a civil procedure, not a criminal one, and is designed to provide a speedy, simple, and effective means of redress under Section 46(1) of the Constitution.

“Raising the standard of proof to the level required in criminal cases would defeat the entire purpose of enforcing fundamental rights,” the court warned.

Evidence Backed the Killing

The appellate court found that police and hospital records tendered as Exhibits B and D corroborated the respondent’s claim that five persons were killed on the day of the incident by Customs officers attached to the Idiroko Border Command.

The Divisional Police Officer’s report confirmed the killings and an ongoing investigation by the Ogun State CID, while hospital records showed five corpses deposited by policemen from Owode Division, directly contradicting Customs’ denial.

Appeal Dismissed

The Court of Appeal held that the trial court had properly evaluated the evidence and reached the right conclusion.

“The lower court unquestionably appraised the facts and justifiably evaluated the evidence,” Justice Ogakwu concluded. “There is no basis for interference.”

With that, the appellate court dismissed Customs’ appeal in its entirety, affirming the ₦40 million compensation already awarded to the victim’s family.

The ruling sends a strong message to security agencies that human rights enforcement is not a criminal trial, and that the sanctity of life remains supreme under Nigerian law.

Appeal Court Slams Bank for Arbitrary Interest Hike — Guarantor Freed from LoanLiability

By Amebo Lawyer, Esq. | Ibadan | November 10, 2025

The Court of Appeal in Ibadan has delivered a major ruling against African International Bank Ltd, faulting the lender for unilaterally increasing interest rates on two loan facilities granted to Integrated Dimensional Systems Ltd.

In the landmark decision — *Integrated Dimensional Systems Ltd & Ors v. African International Bank Ltd (2002) 4 NWLR (Pt. 758) 660, CA, the appellate court held that no bank has the right to vary contractual loan terms without the borrower’s consent, declaring such conduct a clear breach of agreement.

How It Started

The dispute arose after the bank granted the company two short-term loans totalling N330,000.

One of N180,000 at 19.5% interest and another of N150,000 at 15% interest, and repayable between November 1987 and January 1988.

Six years later, the bank claimed the company owed N1.78 million, citing accrued interest and Central Bank rate adjustments. It sued the company and two directors who had stood as guarantors, demanding repayment with 39% annual interest until judgment.

Trial Court Ruling

The Oyo State High Court awarded judgment in the bank’s favour but limited the interest to the contractual rates at 19.5% and 15%, and capped the guarantor’s liability at N250,000.

Both sides went on appeal: The company argued that the court wrongly extended interest beyond the loan period, while the bank insisted it had the power to adjust rates under CBN guidelines.

Appeal Court: “Banks Must Keep Their Word"

In a unanimous judgment, the Court of Appeal slammed the bank for breaching the loan agreement.

Justice Akintan, who delivered the lead judgment, ruled that the written agreements (exhibits T1, T2, and W) were binding and could not be altered at will.

“Parties must be bound by the terms they voluntarily entered into,” he held. “It would be wrong to impose any meaning not agreed upon by both parties.”

The court said the loans expired on the agreed dates, and any interest charged thereafter could not be contractual but only damages for breach, not an excuse to keep compounding interest endlessly.

CBN Guidelines Not a Shield

Rejecting the bank’s defence, Justice Adekeye said Central Bank directives could not override private contracts.

“Banks cannot hide under CBN guidelines to impose unilateral interest hikes on customers,” she declared. “That would amount to a breach of contract to which the Central Bank was not a party.”

The court described as “preposterous” the bank’s claim that a N330,000 facility could grow into a N1.78 million debt without a new agreement.

Guarantor Walks Free

In a key pronouncement, the court set aside the judgment against the third appellant, one of the guarantors, ruling that the bank’s suit against him was premature.

It held that no valid written demand for repayment was served on the guarantor before litigation — a condition precedent to liability.

“A guarantor’s liability only arises after a written demand,” Justice Adamu ruled. “Without such notice, the action is incompetent and void.”

Verdict

The Court of Appeal allowed the company’s appeal, voided the excessive interest charges, and struck out the claim against the guarantor. It also reaffirmed that banks must strictly adhere to their loan agreements and cannot rely on regulatory circulars to alter customer obligations.

With this ruling, the appellate court sent a strong message to Nigerian banks: stick to your contracts or face the consequences.

**By Amebo Lawyer, Esq. | Abuja | November 10, 2025**

The Supreme Court of Nigeria has ruled that Austin Laz Thermoplastic Industries Ltd must repay N17.2 million to Guaranty Trust Bank Plc (GTBank), despite the bank’s breach of contract in freezing the company’s account.

Delivering judgment in Austin Laz Thermoplastic Ind. Ltd v. G.T.B. Plc (2025) 15 NWLR (Pt. 2008) 235, SC, the apex court dismissed the company’s appeal and affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeal, which had earlier ordered repayment of the outstanding loan balance.

Bank Wrong, But Austin Laz Still Owed

Austin Laz had dragged GTBank before the Edo State High Court, accusing the bank of blocking its account after approving a N20 million import finance facility and an N8 million overdraft line. The company claimed the bank deducted N560,000 in charges but later refused to release funds for the importation of machines, leading to heavy business losses.

The firm sought N500 million in damages and asked the court to nullify a mortgage over its Benin factory and a personal guarantee signed by its director.

GTBank denied wrongdoing and counter-claimed N18.3 million as the amount outstanding from the credit facility. It said the company had already drawn part of the loan before the account was flagged due to a suspicious jump in the property’s valuation from N44.5 million to N207 million.

From High Court to Supreme Court

The High Court agreed that GTBank breached its contract by freezing the account and awarded N300,000 in damages. However, it dismissed the bank’s counterclaim.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal partially reversed that verdict. It upheld the finding of breach but ruled that Austin Laz must still repay N17,210,315.04—the proven loan balance as of May 2010.

Supreme Court Backs GTBank

Justice Jauro, delivering the Supreme Court’s lead judgment, said the bank’s breach did not wipe out the company’s debt.

“There is no law that excuses a party from liabilities incurred before a breach by the other party,” he held. “The appellants have been compensated for the breach but must make good their debt.”

The court stressed that allowing the company to escape repayment after benefiting from the loan would amount to double compensation.

It further ruled that GTBank’s counter-claim was properly proven through evidence extracted from Austin Laz’s own witness under cross-examination and upheld the lower court’s power to award a lesser amount than claimed, provided it was supported by credible evidence.

Verdict Final

With the appeal dismissed, the Supreme Court affirmed that GTBank’s breach of contract entitled Austin Laz to damages but not to a debt pardon.

This is what we call " Civilian barracks".

MEGAWATCH:
What do I mean?

Don't you understand what it means when we say that something is gone?

Please stop this your double faced attitude it's irritating.

What is gone? Perhaps, because I am criminal defense attorney/ "special prosecutor", I am unable to see from your lenses. So, please explain to me like I am a 4 year old.

It is well sha.

MEGAWATCH:
Nigeria judiciary is gone!

This is the same court our people from the west are praising to high heavens.


Anyway, let's the distruction of our courts continue, I know it will get to them very very soon.



🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬

How do you mean? Kindly explain better.

By Amebo Lawyer, Esq.—9 November 2025

In 2004, four young men, university students in Ilorin, were dragged before a High Court and accused of being members of the dreaded cult group. Among them was a man who called himself "Black Jesus".

The case seemed open and shut. The accused, perhaps out of fear or confusion, all nodded “guilty” when the judge asked for their plea.

Within minutes, the gavel came down. They were convicted.

No trial. No evidence. Just a plea and a sentence.

But five years later, the Court of Appeal would shatter that hasty conviction, delivering a judgment that now stands as one of Nigeria’s most striking reminders that justice, no matter the crime, must never be rushed.

The Day in Court

The young men — Adeniyi Kayode (aka "Black Jesus", Gospel Ogona, Oluwole Eniola (aka "Calculus", and Usman Bolakale were accused of forming and belonging to an illegal cult on campus, contrary to the Kwara State Anti-Cultism Law.

When the charges were read in the High Court, the first three said they understood and pleaded guilty. The fourth pleaded not guilty. Without explaining what the charges meant or their consequences, the trial judge wasted no time in convicting the three and setting aside the fourth for later trial.

That, the Court of Appeal later ruled, was a fatal mistake.

Appeal Court: “Justice Must Be Done, Not Hurried”

When the case reached the Court of Appeal in Kayode v. State (2009), the justices were alarmed by what they saw.

The record showed that the charges were merely read to the accused persons. It was never explained to them in a language or in a manner that showed that they understood the charges that were read to them or what they were being tried for.

And this was a violation of Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which demands that the judge ensure an accused person truly understands the charge before pleading guilty.

Justice Abdullahi, delivering the lead judgment, said:

... “Though the charge was read to the accused, it was not explained before their plea was taken. That is contrary to the law.”

He warned that nothing should be left to speculation in a criminal trial. Especially one based on a guilty plea. “The record must speak for itself,” he said.

A Dangerous Shortcut

The Court of Appeal described the High Court’s action as a “shortcut to justice” that undermined the accused’s fundamental rights.

Justice Agube, who agreed with the lead judgment, said:

“Throughout the records, the accused were never confronted with the essential ingredients of the offences before they pleaded guilty. Their conviction was therefore irregular.”

He added a powerful note of caution:

“It is better for ten guilty men to escape than for one innocent man to suffer.”

Cultism and Due Process

Justice Agube did not excuse cultism. Far from it. He acknowledged the deadly threat that secret cults pose to Nigeria’s campuses — calling them “a menace that destroys young lives.”

But he also insisted that even those accused of such crimes must face lawful, transparent trials. “The convicts ought to be sent back to the High Court to properly stand trial,” he said. “If convicted, let them face the music — but lawfully.”

Lessons for the Justice System

The judgment went beyond cultism. It served as a reminder that:

* Judges must explain charges, not just read them.
* A guilty plea must be informed and voluntary, not automatic.
* Even when fighting crime, the rule of law must prevail.

As the Court of Appeal put it, punishment should reform, not ruin:

“If an individual is ruined, the larger society will be at the receiving end.”

Why This Case Still Matters

Two decades after that fateful day in Ilorin, Kayode v. State continues to echo in courtrooms across Nigeria. It’s cited whenever a judge is tempted to rush justice or when defendants are pressured into quick guilty pleas.

The message is timeless: the courtroom is not a conveyor belt for convictions. Even the most reviled offenders deserve the full measure of the law.

Because in the end, justice, real justice, is not just about punishment.

It’s about fairness.

The End

Jakumo:
It is important that anyone with a case in court learns from what is about to befall Kanu. The arrogance, stupidity, and futility of sacking one's lawyers in order to represent oneself in court will become evident when Kanu's very long jail sentence is handed down by the presiding judge.

The punishment that Kanu will endure as a direct result of his screaming personal insults at the presiding judge, while also DARING the judge to jail him, will be a far longer term of imprisonment than would have been handed down IF ONLY Kanu had taken a calmer, repectful, and less confrontational attitude.

In short, Kanu's fate is sealed with all these outbursts in court. This man will soon be silenced and forgotten in jail, where he can shout and scream as loud as he likes until he runs out of willpower to continue that pointless waste of energy.

Where is Mr. Ekpan? His one time prime minister?

Newsgeek24:
https://verynigerian.com/police-withdraws-fraud-charges-against-andy-uba-as-ex-senator-refunds-n400m/

This was a magistrates court matter. And they don't have Judges plus you can't file discontinuance in a criminal matter at the high court.

By Dalitigator, Esq. | November 6, 2025

Supreme Court has ruled that a police chief has the authority to dismiss officers without conducting a new hearing, provided there has been a thorough review of the case. This decision underscores the power of police leadership in personnel matters and the importance of due process in the review process.

In a decisive ruling that clarifies how far the police hierarchy can go in disciplining erring officers, the Supreme Court of Nigeria has upheld the dismissal of two policemen, ruling that the Commissioner of Police acted within his powers when he reviewed their case and imposed a more severe punishment, even without calling them for another hearing.

The case, Gyang v. Commissioner of Police, Lagos State (2014) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1395) 547, SC, marks a significant milestone in the courts' interpretation of the balance between administrative discipline and a fair hearing under Nigerian law.

From Acquittal to Dismissal

The story began when two policemen, Gyang and his colleague, were tried before a police orderly room tribunal on allegations of corrupt practices.

After hearing witnesses and reviewing the evidence, the tribunal acquitted them of the charge.

But that wasn’t the end.

The Provost Marshal at the Force Headquarters, acting on the instructions of the Commissioner of Police, reviewed the case and, without inviting the officers for another round of defence, set aside the acquittal and dismissed them from the Nigeria Police Force.

The officers cried foul, insisting that their constitutional right to a fair hearing under Section 36 of the 1999 Constitution had been violated.

They went to the Federal High Court, Lagos, asking for an order of certiorari to quash the Commissioner’s decision and reinstate them.

Courts Say: No Breach of Fair Hearing

The Federal High Court ruled against them, holding that since no new evidence was taken and no fresh witnesses were called, the Commissioner had merely reviewed the existing record of the orderly room trial and did not need to invite them again.

The Court of Appeal agreed.

It held that the review by the Commissioner of Police was akin to an appeal, not a retrial, and therefore did not require a fresh oral hearing.

Still dissatisfied, the dismissed officers went to the Supreme Court, arguing that the Commissioner’s action amounted to a denial of fair hearing.

Supreme Court’s Verdict: Review is Not a Retrial

In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, siding with the police authorities.

The apex court held that administrative bodies such as the police must indeed observe fair hearing when acting judicially, but that “fair hearing” does not always mean an oral hearing.

According to the court, once the officers had been given full opportunity to defend themselves during the orderly room trial, the Commissioner was not obliged to reopen the case orally during his review.

The Supreme Court explained that:

“The review panel did not try the appellants. It simply examined the proceedings and judgment of the orderly room trial. The right to fair hearing was therefore not breached.”

The court further clarified that a review is not the same as a judicial trial. It is an administrative re-examination of a case based on records, not a fresh hearing.

No Interference with Lower Courts

The Supreme Court also refused to disturb the concurrent findings of both the High Court and the Court of Appeal.

Since the dismissed officers failed to show that those findings were perverse or unreasonable, the apex court said it had no reason to interfere.

Key Takeaways for the Public

Fair Hearing v. Oral Hearing

Being heard doesn’t always mean being called to speak again. It’s enough if a person has had an earlier opportunity to defend themselves.

Administrative Reviews Are Valid

A superior officer can review a disciplinary decision based on written records without breaching constitutional rights.

Discipline Must Be Fair, But Can Be Firm

The ruling strengthens the authority of administrative heads to act, provided they don’t introduce new evidence behind an accused person’s back.

Courts Won’t Undo Proper Procedures

Once lower courts make factual findings based on evidence, the Supreme Court will rarely interfere unless injustice is clear.

Why It Matters

The Gyang*case underscores that discipline within the Police Force must follow due process, but due process does not mean endless hearings. It also reminds public servants that administrative fairness, not endless litigation, remains the heart of justice.

In simple terms: if you were heard once, the law won’t demand a second round unless something new arises.

By Amebo Lawyer, Esq. | October 29, 2025

In a landmark decision that reaffirms the sanctity of fair hearing and due process, the Supreme Court of Nigeria has upheld the judgment of the Court of Appeal, which set aside the conviction of a man accused of armed robbery in State v. Sani (2018) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1624) 278, SC

Arrest and Trial

Sani and one Babangida Gambo were arraigned before the High Court of Katsina State, Daura Division, on a two-count charge of armed robbery under the Robbery and Firearms Act. Both pleaded not guilty.

The victims of the robbery, identified in court as PW3 and PW4, could only identify Babangida as one of the attackers. No one identified Sani. The only evidence against him were two confessional statements allegedly made to the police.

When the prosecution sought to tender the statements, Sani objected, claiming they were extracted through force. The court ordered a trial-within-trial to test the voluntariness of the confessions, but then made a grave procedural mistake.

A Faulty Process

Instead of pausing the main trial until the mini-trial ended, the judge merged both proceedings. After ruling that the confessions were voluntary, the judge immediately called for final addresses and delivered judgment, convicting Sani and sentencing him without giving him a chance to adjust his defence.

The trial court held that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. Dissatisfied, Sani appealed to the Court of Appeal.

Court of Appeal Steps In

At the Court of Appeal, Sani’s lawyer failed to properly align the issues for determination with the grounds of appeal. However, the Court of Appeal, in the interest of justice, reformulated the issues and reviewed the evidence on record.

The appellate court found that no credible evidence linked Sani to the robbery. His so-called confession stood alone, unsupported by any eyewitness identification or physical proof.

The court therefore acquitted and discharged him, emphasizing that justice must not be sacrificed on the altar of technicalities, especially in a case involving life and death.

Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal

The State appealed further, but the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal unanimously, agreeing with the Court of Appeal that Sani’s right to a fair hearing had been compromised.

Justice Rhodes-Vivour, J.S.C., in a scathing observation, condemned the procedure of merging the trial-within-trial with the main trial, describing it as “unknown to criminal procedure and prejudicial to the accused person.”

He stressed that even if a lawyer consents to such an irregular process, the accused cannot waive his right to fair hearing.

Lessons for the Public

This judgment is more than a legal victory. It’s a lesson in justice and fairness.

Fair Hearing is Sacred

No accused person can be denied the opportunity to defend themselves properly, no matter the charge.

Confessions Must Be Voluntary

Any statement obtained under duress, threat, or inducement has no place in justice.

Technical Errors Should Not Trump Justice

Courts must focus on substance over form, especially where a human life is at stake.

Judges Must Follow Proper Procedure

Mixing or rushing trials can cause irreversible injustice.

Appellate Courts Are the Guardians of Liberty

Higher courts exist to correct errors and ensure that no one is punished unjustly.

A Verdict That Strengthens Justice

The Supreme Court’s decision in State v. Sani reinforces that the rule of law protects everyone, including the wrongly accused. It stands as a stern reminder that justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done, for that is the true measure of a civilized society.

kingxsamz:
Okra soup, pomo and fufu.

Major chew..Download it with two cold pure water and you are in Heaven. Food for real men..

SpencerForbes:
True- but if anything sup and you lose guard with no action, automatically dem go see say nothing Dey except your composure.

Na Nigeria we Dey and you know say injustice na our work, na why some people Dey fear to report to police.

So justice good oo but me I feel a touch of vengeance go sweet

Our parents once told us about the chicken, the duck, and the hawk story. Learn from that.

Shalom

SpencerForbes:
Op you fit talk more on number one
That number 2 you go permit me make I do small because if you follow no vengeance too much and people observe, dem go turn you to doormat and the next one fit worse pass the first one.

There is a difference between seeking justice and vengeance.

Vengeance is mine, says the Lord. But he didn't say you should not seek justice. And there is a way you carry your self that people will think twice before offending you.

The Court Battles

When Chief Eseigbe took the matter to court, she sued the truck driver and his employer, a limited liability company. The driver never denied being responsible for the crash. The company even admitted that the truck belonged to them and that the driver was their employee. But they offered no evidence, no explanation, and no remorse. They simply denied everything in a general way and hoped the case would go away.

Shockingly, the High Court dismissed her case, saying she hadn’t “proved negligence.”

She appealed. But before the Court of Appeal could hear her case, she died with her hand still deformed, her dreams still interrupted, her justice still pending. But her brave family carried on the fight in her name.

The Court of Appeal finally agreed that the accident was caused by negligence, but awarded her only ₦10,000 as compensation. A token sum for a lifetime of suffering.

Her lawyers were not satisfied. They took the case to the Supreme Court of Nigeria.

The Supreme Court’s Verdict

At the Supreme Court, justice finally came, even though Chief Eseigbe was no longer alive to see it.

The Justices were unanimous:

Negligence was proven.

The truck hit her car from behind. In law, when a vehicle crashes into another from the rear, the presumption is that the rear driver was negligent. The driver failed to keep a safe distance and was clearly careless.

The employer was vicariously liable

Since the truck belonged to the company and the driver was their employee, the company was responsible for his actions — unless they could prove he was acting outside his job. They gave no such proof. The law, therefore, presumed that he was driving in the course of his employment. Now you see why people sue companies like Dangote and co., when the company truck is involved in an accident.

Silence in court has consequences.

The company didn’t call any witnesses or provide any evidence to challenge the plaintiff’s case. In civil law, when a fact is pleaded and not denied or rebutted, it is taken as admitted. By keeping quiet, the company practically confessed to negligence. So, learn to deny allegations against you, before you are presumed to have admitted such an allegation by keeping silent.

Damages must reflect real suffering.

The Supreme Court held that the ₦10,000 awarded by the Court of Appeal was “grossly inadequate.” Considering her permanent disfigurement, loss of her right hand, pain, and the decline in the value of money, the court increased the compensation to ₦50,000, a significant sum at the time.

The court emphasized that the pain, suffering, and loss of dignity cannot be measured in naira and kobo, but victims, however, deserve fair compensation for their human suffering.

Lessons the Public Should Learn

Rear-end collisions almost always mean negligence.

If you drive into another car from behind, the law presumes you were careless — unless you can clearly prove otherwise. Safe driving distance and full attention are not optional.

End

40 Things I Learnt At 40 (1-10)

After turning 40 last week, I compiled a list of 40 things I’ve learnt through the years. Broken into life, entrepreneurship, career choices and romantic love, I’ll be sharing 10 per day for the next four days.

On Life
1. The best of men are men at best. Frailty is one of the hallmarks of human nature. The best of humans you’ll ever meet will be imperfect.

2. Never take vengeance (not to be confused with justice) on anyone in your personal life, no matter the hurt they’ve caused you. Just give it time. The pain will erase with time. And time often returns to haunt the villains, whether they admit it or not.

3. Loyalty is a less available trait in humans than commonly thought. And this is because loyalty is often confused with a lack of options. Nobody can be said to be loyal to you until they no longer need you — usually because they’ve been exposed to options on par with what you offer them or even higher.

4. When people talk, listen attentively to the things they say. But listen more attentively to the things they do not say — that’s the real information you need.

5. Nobody (including this writer) is indispensable but some people are irreplaceable. They are indispensable because life will continue without them, anyway; but they’re irreplaceable because life will continue not in the same way. Thankfully, depending on multiple factors, you will only meet one to five irreplaceable people in your entire life.

6. You don’t have to win all the time to be a winner; you only have to win a few times — a few important times.

7. The grass is sometimes greener on the other side but mostly greener where you water it.

8. Life is unfair; yes. But that’s one side of the story. The other side is life is fair in the sense that it gives us 24 hours each. We often underestimate how much of life’s unfairness we can level with the use to which we put our every 24 hours.

9. In every decade of your life, you will lose one to three special people to death. Break your past years into decades and you will find this to be already true. Make everyone feel loved while they’re here; nobody knows for sure who’s next.

On Romantic Love
10. If you find someone who loves you, that’s good. If you find someone who respects you (not to be confused with obeisance) even in the bad times, that’s better. If you find someone loyal to you, that’s the best!

Here’s a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Eseigbe v. Agholor, Supreme Court of Nigeria, 1993, which was rewritten to capture the human angle and highlight the lessons everyone should learn from about road safety, accountability, justice, and how the law protects victims of negligence.


THE WOMAN WHO FOUGHT FOR JUSTICE EVEN IN DEATH


On a bright Sunday morning in February 1986, Chief (Mrs.) Eseigbe, a respected woman leader and the only female chief in her community in Ekpoma, set out on a journey along the Abele–Agbor Road. She was seated beside the Onogie of Egoro, the traditional ruler, in his car. The road was clear. The sun was up. It was, by all accounts, a good day to travel.

Then tragedy struck.

From behind, a heavy tipper truck with registration number BD 9846 A suddenly rammed into the Onogie’s car. The impact was so violent that the vehicle somersaulted and burst into flames. Chief Eseigbe and the Onogie barely escaped alive, thanks to some brave passersby who pulled them from the wreckage.

But the chief’s right arm, her writing hand, was gone. Burned, scarred, and rendered useless. She suffered second-degree burns from her forearm to her fingertips, which were now covered in painful keloids that could only be corrected through expensive plastic surgery.

She spent ₦30,000, a huge sum in those days, moving from hospital to hospital in Iruekpen, Benin, and Lagos. Despite her resilience, she would never fully recover.

And yet, the worst wound she suffered was not physical; it was the pain of injustice.

I too love PBAT. Na Baba wen get self respect. Presido of the most populous black nation on earth for a reason. The Messi-ronaldo of politics. How 001 go leave e country to visit you and you go dey send 002 your 002 to receive am. That na error.

Make Baba fall in G20 where e for get better value. PBAT till 2031.

Case in point :

PASSCO INTERNATIONAL LIMITED (Suing Through Its Attorney - Chuka Ifezue) v. UNITY BANK PLC (2021) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1775) 224, SC

The was one funny case that the Supreme Court had to carefully deal. Let's learn from the ever green wisdom of the Apex Court.

In 2005, a company sold its property in Lagos and asked its bank to transfer ₦150 million abroad to fund new investments in Dubai.

But there was one small problem.
And that was the fact that the company’s account mandate, as per contract, said: “All transfer instructions must be in writing and sealed.”

But the company’s chairman, who was the sole signatory to the account, made a verbal request instead.

Well! Even though this was not the mandate as per the contract, the bank complied and transferred the ₦150 million into the company’s UK account.

The account manager and other bank staffs, including the branch manager and head of banking operation must have felt safe with this particular customer, especially if na correct customer wen dey drop tips steady. But what they never envisaged what that this small favour they did the customer was going to cost them their jobs.

Walahi! Fear litigators.

A few months later, the same company sued the bank.

Why, you might ask?

It claimed the bank acted illegally and that the ₦150 million never reached its account.

It wanted the money back.

The bank fired back: “You asked us to transfer it. You got it. Don’t use the law to wash your hands of your own acts.”

The Courtroom Journey

The High Court dismissed the claim because the company admitted in open court that the money reached its UK account.

The company said lai! lai!! We nor go agree with this decision of the High Court. Even if the money got to the UK bank account, there was still a breach of contract, as it was an unauthorized transfer. So, the Company appealed to the Court of Appeal.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the decision of the High Court, calling it “unconscionable” to enjoy the fruits of a transaction and then cry “illegal!”

Still stubborn, the company went to the Supreme Court.

At the Supreme Court

The Justices were not impressed.
They said the law has no sympathy for deceit.
If a transaction is illegal, no court can enforce it.
But even more, you can’t benefit from an act and later call it illegal to gain an advantage.

The company’s own chairman, its “alter ego”, had authorized the transaction. It couldn’t now pretend innocence.

The Court went further. It rebuked the company’s lawyer for pushing a dishonest case after admitting the truth in open court.
Law, they said, is a noble profession, not a weapon for mischief.

“A lawyer owes a duty not just to his client, but to the court and the nation. The law must not be twisted to serve greed.” The Court posited.

Key Lessons for the Public

You can’t eat your cake and still keep it.
If you benefit from a deal, you can’t later call it illegal when it stops serving you.

No court enforces illegality.
Judges are bound by law and conscience, not convenience.

Integrity matters for clients and lawyers alike.
Law is a shield for truth, not a sword for deceit.

The Supreme Court stands for justice, not trickery.
The court dismissed the appeal and called the company’s conduct a misuse of the legal process.

The Moral

When you play games with the law, the law eventually plays you.
Honesty isn’t just a virtue, it’s legal protection.

#LegalLessons #NigeriaLaw #IntegrityMatters #SupremeCourt #JusticePrevails

Once upon a time in Lagos, a businessman named Mr. Otutuizu was preparing for a crucial meeting in Manzini, Swaziland.

He walked into Cameroon Airlines’ office located at Oko Awo Close, Victoria Island, Lagos State, to buy his flight ticket. The airline’s staff assured him that their route would take him safely from Lagos to Douala, then to Harare, and finally to Manzini.

Trusting their word, Mr. Otutuizu bought two tickets, one from Lagos to Harare and back, and another from Harare to Manzini and back. He paid $923 for the journey, carrying along his briefcase containing $20,000 meant for business transactions. The flight was scheduled to depart Lagos on the 27th day of February 1996.

Everything seemed in order until he landed in Zimbabwe. Instead of being flown onward to Manzini, he was unexpectedly diverted to Johannesburg, South Africa, even though his ticket never mentioned South Africa as a stop.

The nightmare began the moment he arrived. Without a South African transit visa, which he was never told he needed, he was arrested by immigration officers, detained, and stripped of his briefcase and personal belongings. His $20,000 was never seen again. Days later, he was deported to Zimbabwe, imprisoned for another week, and eventually sent back to Nigeria/ He was humiliated, broke, and traumatised.

Outraged, Mr. Otutuizu took Cameroon Airlines to court, demanding ₦5 million in damages for their negligence and the breach of contract. The Federal High Court agreed that the airline was at fault and awarded him ₦580,000 against the airline. Simply put, the Court asked the airlines to pay Mr. Otutuizu the sum of ₦580,000.

₦80,000 for the ticket and ₦500,000 as general damages.

But instead of Cameroon Airlines paying Mr. Otutuizu the money awarded by the Federal High Court, it opted to appeal the decision to the Court of Appeal.

The Court of Appeal saw it differently. The court ruled that since the airline’s misconduct had directly led to the loss of $20,000, it had to repay that full amount, plus the general damages. Cameroon Airlines appealed again, hoping the Supreme Court would overturn the judgment.

However, to the airlines' surprise, the Supreme Court unanimously dismissed the appeal. The Court held that under the Warsaw Convention of 1955, which governs international air travel, airlines are liable for damages caused by delay, negligence, or deviation from agreed routes.

While the Convention limits how much an airline may pay, this protection vanishes when the airline acts with willful misconduct, as Cameroon Airlines did by flying Mr. Otutuizu to a country where he had no visa, knowing the risks.

The Court declared that this was not just a mistake, but a willful breach of contract. The airline could not hide under international law to escape full responsibility.

Finally, the airline, having exhausted its right of appeal, had to pay the full amount plus the damages. So, instead of paying ₦80,000 for the ticket and ₦500,000 for general damages.

You can guess the bombastic side eye they will give the lawyer who advised them to appeal. Lol

The Lesson for the Public

This case teaches a powerful truth:

Airlines owe passengers a duty of care to follow agreed routes, inform them of visa requirements, and ensure their safety.

When airlines act recklessly or deliberately breach their contract, they lose the legal protection that limits their liability.

And for passengers, it’s vital to understand your travel documents and keeping records of tickets, receipts, and communications can become your strongest evidence, if something goes wrong.

So, the next time you fly, remember: a ticket is more than paper—it’s a contract. Especially the email correspondence between you and your airline. And when that contract is broken through negligence or deceit, the law will not allow the airline to walk away unscathed.

Study case: Cameroon Airlines v. Otutuizu (2011) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1238) 512, SC.

2.8m. E nor suppose pass so

Vikto17:
Hello dear Nairalanders ,,, l am 32yrs and my fiancee is 30yrs... very loving ,, sweet and excellent soul... she tick everything l need in a woman and l will be getting married to her next year by God grace...

My major concern is that she looks older than her actual age,,, and this is her face alone... l have seen girls her senior who looks younger...
we are not poor .. she eats well and have all the necessary things a woman will want...
please what recommendation should one take to look their age and younger too,,, thanks

She dey use football age for you. Ask to see her primary school certificate. Na there the truth dey. Or use style ask her when she finish primary school during one innocent school discussion. Many dey forget the calculation dem don do as per football age and will tell you the truth and you can do your calculation yourself to get her real age.

E fit shock you say she use like 5 to 10 years senior you. But she package you with good behaviour.

AutoConsult:
Thanks my boss

Do you inspect a naija used Honda Cars?

Part 2

What Happens If Notice Isn’t Properly Served?

The Court emphatically held that failure to serve proper statutory notice robs the court of jurisdiction. What this simply means is that any decisions or judgments reached in such cases are null and void.

No notice, no jurisdiction; simple as that.

So even though the tenants did not fully pursue their defence, the shaky and unproven claims of service by the landlord’s agents could not stand. The trial court should have given these service issues more serious consideration.

The Appeal and Its Lessons

The tenant challenged the trial court's decision, and the Court of Appeal allowed their appeal unanimously.

This case teaches us several important lessons

Quit notices are not mere formalities. They are fundamental steps that protect the rights of both landlords and tenants.

The courts will strictly require proof that proper procedures were followed before assuming jurisdiction. Inadequate or contradictory evidence on service can and will derail a landlord’s claim. Even if a tenant fails to give evidence supporting his/her defence, it still falls on the landlord to prove their case beyond a doubt, especially regarding service of notices

Grounds of appeal must be precise, arising directly from the lower court’s judgment, to be valid.

In Conclusion, Splinters v. Oasis is a powerful reminder that in property disputes, especially in landlord and tenancy matters, attention to procedural details isn’t just legal nitpicking.

It’s the foundation of fair justice.

The law demands that those seeking to recover property from tenants learn to respect the tenant’s right to proper notice. Without it, the court simply cannot act.

So next time you hear about leases and notices, remember: a clear, well-documented notice can mean the difference between winning or losing a case. It’s about fairness, clarity, and respecting each party’s legal protections before matters escalate to court.

And for anyone involved in such a dispute, whether you are a landlord, tenant, or legal practitioner. This case shows why the smallest procedural steps are often the most crucial steps toward justice.

You can follow amebo lawyer for more insights.

Bako v. I.G.P. (2025) is a case where the Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction and sentence of an appellant for criminal conspiracy to commit armed robbery, unlawful possession of fire arms, and armed robbery. The appellant was robbed by a gang of armed robbers in Abuja on 29th January 2017, and reported the incident to the Police.

The Police raided the gang's hideout and arrested about 10 people, including Abraham Moses, Joshua Luka, and the appellant. After due investigation, the three were arraigned before the trial court on three counts of criminal conspiracy to commit armed robbery, unlawful possession of firearms, and armed robbery. The accused persons pleaded not guilty to the charge.

The trial court discharged and acquitted the first accused person, but found the second accused and the appellant guilty on the three counts, convicted, and sentenced them to imprisonment and death. The appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal, which affirmed the decision of the trial court and dismissed the appeal. Further dissatisfied, the appellant appealed to the Supreme Court.

The Court of Appeal held that the appellant's extra-judicial statement to the Police was tendered without objection from his counsel, who retorted "No objection." During cross-examination, the appellant testified that he was tortured to sign it. It was clear from the evidence that the appellant failed to object to the admissibility of the extra-judicial statement at the point of tendering it in evidence before the trial court in accordance with procedural law.

This failure to greet the admissibility of the extra-judicial statement with any tinge of objection at the stage decreed by law was an egregious violence and defilement of the adjectival law on the admission of a confessional statement of an accused person.


The main gist of the Case

On 29th January 2017, Dr. Usman Mohammed and his family were robbed by a gang of armed robbers in Abuja. They reported the incident to the Police, who raided the gang's hideout and arrested about 10 people, including Abraham Moses, Joshua Luka, and the appellant. After investigation, the three were arraigned before the trial court on three counts of criminal conspiracy to commit armed robbery, unlawful possession of firearms, and armed robbery.

The accused persons pleaded not guilty. The trial court discharged and acquitted the first accused person, but found the second accused and the appellant guilty on the three counts, convicted, and sentenced them to imprisonment and death. Dissatisfied with the trial court's judgment, the appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal, which affirmed the decision and dismissed the appeal. Further dissatisfied, the appellant appealed to the Supreme Court and the Court also dismissed the Appeal.

The case highlights the challenges faced by individuals in obtaining justice and addressing criminal activities.

But what are the main points to learn?

Let's examine this critical point in criminal litigation through a decision of the court and learn a few new points that may help us in our daily lives.

In this case, we shall carefully examine the position of the Supreme Court in the case Bako v. Inspector General of Police.

Guess what?

This decision is freshly baked agege bread and ewa agonyi, because it was delivered in 2025, just a few months ago.

The position of the law in the case Splinters (Nig.) Ltd. v. Oasis Finance Ltd. (2013)

Let’s dive into a landmark case that really highlights how crucial proper legal procedures are when it comes to recovering leased premises.
Let's talk about the case of Splinters (Nig.) Ltd. v. Oasis Finance Ltd., a 2013 Court of Appeal case that turned on the question of whether statutory notices were properly served, and why those little steps actually matter more than you might think.
At the heart of this tenancy dispute, the landlord, Oasis Finance Ltd., leased office space at Idejo Towers, Lagos, to Splinters Ltd.
The agreement started in 2000 and was renewed twice yearly, and by 2004, tensions had surfaced, leading to a lawsuit from Oasis claiming possession of the premises and unpaid profits.

Where Did Things Go Wrong?

The landlord claimed it served the tenant with a “notice to quit” and a “seven-day notice” signalling its intention to recover possession before filing the case in court.

Sounds straightforward, right?

But the devil was in the details and the evidence.

Their agent testified about delivering these notices to tenant as if will always be in most cases until it is time for cross-examination. But when pressed during cross examination, the dates he gave didn’t add up.

The agent who was called to come and give testimony in court as the landlord’s witness could not tell the court the exact dates he served the “notice to quit” and a “seven-day notice” which is also known as quit notice in Regular Lagos Street or beer palour language on the tenant.
Na there the first Walhalla for first start, Make we speak small portable langue join our story.

Also, the timeline between when the notices were sent and their contents was inconsistent, and there was no signed acknowledgement or solid proof that the notices actually reached the tenant.

Meanwhile, the tenant denied receiving these notices and maintained their defense in court, though they never fully opened their case or presented evidence to challenge the claims.

Why Proper Notice Matters More Than You Might Expect ?

The Court of Appeal unanimously agreed when it stated that for a landlord to recover premises, the tenant must be duly and validly notified of such intentions.

It’s not a mere formality. In fact, it’s a legal condition before a court can even hear the case.

If the tenancy hasn’t expired, the landlord has to first serve a valid notice to quit.

But if the tenancy has expired, a statutory seven-day notice informing the tenant of the intention to apply for recovery must be served.
And it is only after these steps can the landlord start court action.

But when the lease or tenancy has already expired by effluxion of time, a notice to quit might not be necessary. However, what remains absolutely essential is the seven-day notice alerting the tenant to the landlord’s intention.

In this case, the trial court mistakenly thought the notices were unnecessary since the lease or tenancy had supposedly expired at the end of 2003, but the Court of Appeal clarified this was an error, especially because the tenancy had been renewed annually up to that point, so a notice to quit was still required.

The Fine Print That Can Make or Break a Case

The evidence regarding service was shaky at best. And the question in the mind of the case was whether or not if the notices were actually served on the tenant.

The landlord’s witness, that is the agent that claimed to have served them on the tenant, could not confirm names of the person that received the notices or the dates the notices were served on the tenant. And there was no clear proof that the notices landed where they were supposed to.

The court insisted that notices must be served personally to the tenant or occupant or, if impossible, by posting them visibly on the premises. But even then, lack of concrete proof undermined the entire claim.

Because when you claim to paste the notices on the premises because the tenant refused to accept the notices, as the landlord and his agent claimed in this case, please ensure you have pictures showing the property.

Also, ensure the picture or video evidence of the pasting captures the content of what was pasted, the date it was pasted and the address of the property where it was pasted. And it the tenant is a company as was also showed in this case let it also the tenant’s signboard if they have any. It is very very important.

Please remember that service of notice isn’t just about ticking a box. It’s about ensuring the tenant knows what’s happening. And by so doing, give them a fair chance to respond before a landlord takes legal steps.

In part 2, we shall talk about what happens if Notices are not served at all, or properly served.