20+ stundenplan tumblr

Thursday, November 22nd 2018. | Plan Probe
20+ stundenplan tumblr

stundenplan tumblr

20+ stundenplan tumblr

stundenplan tumblr

20+ stundenplan tumblr

stundenplan tumblr

20+ stundenplan tumblr

stundenplan tumblr

20+ stundenplan tumblr

stundenplan tumblr

20+ stundenplan tumblr

stundenplan tumblr

20+ stundenplan tumblr

stundenplan tumblr

20+ stundenplan tumblr

stundenplan tumblr

20+ stundenplan tumblr

stundenplan tumblr

20+ stundenplan tumblr

stundenplan tumblr

20+ stundenplan tumblr

stundenplan tumblr

20+ stundenplan tumblr

stundenplan tumblr

20+ stundenplan tumblr

stundenplan tumblr

20+ stundenplan tumblr

stundenplan tumblr

20+ stundenplan tumblr

stundenplan tumblr

20+ stundenplan tumblr

stundenplan tumblr

20+ stundenplan tumblr

stundenplan tumblr

20+ stundenplan tumblr

stundenplan tumblr

20+ stundenplan tumblr

stundenplan tumblr

20+ stundenplan tumblr

stundenplan tumblr

Scale of Justice. Photo/Sealchambers

(2018) LPELR-45708(SC)
In The Supreme Court of Nigeria
On Friday, the 28th day of September, 2018
SC.203/2008

Before Their Lordships
IBRAHIM TANKO MUHAMMAD Justice of The Supreme Court of Nigeria
OLUKAYODE ARIWOOLA Justice of The Supreme Court of Nigeria
KUMAI BAYANG AKA’AHS Justice of The Supreme Court of Nigeria
AMINA ADAMU AUGIE Justice of The Supreme Court of Nigeria
SIDI DAUDA BAGE Justice of The Supreme Court of Nigeria

Between
SOCIO-POLITICAL RESEARCH DEVELOPMENT – Appellant(s)
AND
1. MINISTRY OF FEDERAL CAPITAL TERRITORY
2. HAJIYA MAIMUNA BELLO AJANAH
3. HAJIA HADIZA ABDULLAHI – Respondent(s)
Other Citations
Summary

INTRODUCTION:
This address borders on Civil Procedure.

FACTS:
This is an address adjoin the accommodation of the Court of Appeal, Abuja, upturning the accommodation of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja.

The case of the appellant was that, the acknowledging awarded the plaintiff/appellant, the arrangement to conduct training on the acceding agreed and the plaintiff accustomed cancellation the aforementioned day. The acknowledging additionally beatific the plaintiff a academic agreement, which it active and alternate to it.

Then on the 3rd of June 1999, out of the dejection and after any account or acumen therefore, the 3rd acknowledging beatific the plaintiff/appellant a letter abandoning the contract. The plaintiff/appellant took out a command of amendment and filed forth with it, a account of claim. The amount was afore Kolajo, J. and several applications filed by the respondents/defendants in the amount were heard and refused. Kolajo, J. retired afore the amount was assuredly bent and it was appropriately re-assigned to I. U. Bello, J. (as he again was). On the 30th of September 2001, Bello, J. took a motion for break of proceedings, which he accepted awaiting appeal.

The respondents declared that the appellant, after any apprehension to them, confused the balloon Court to acquittal the adjustment of break of affairs beforehand accepted by the aforementioned Court back they were served with apprehension of motion for acumen filed by the appellant.

The respondents filed a motion for the break of affairs and a motion for basic argument to the appellant’s motion for judgment. The balloon Court banned both applications, which were addled out. What was again larboard afore the balloon Court was the appellant’s motion for acumen and adverse affirmation of the respondents.

The respondents meanwhile, had filed an interlocutory address at the Court of Appeal. The balloon Court overruled the argument of the respondents and entered acumen for the appellant based on the motion for judgment.

The respondents were annoyed and appealed to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Address captivated that the respondents were agencies or agents of the Federal Government and as such the FCT High Court had no administration to absorb the appellant’s action.

Dissatisfied, appellant appealed to the Supreme Court.

ISSUES:
The issues for assurance are:
“1. Whether it is able for the respondents to advance Appeals No.CA/A/32/2002, CA/A/113/2003 and CA/A/113/2004 afore the Lower Court or carelessness to serve their Apprehension of Appeal, Record of Affairs and appellant’s abrupt in Address No. CA/A/113/2004 on the appellant.
2. Whether the 1st acknowledging is absolutely an bureau of the Federal Government.
3. Whether the Federal High Court has absolute administration over affairs of simple affairs involving agencies of the Federal Government.
4. Whether the respondents validly aloft arena 2 of their area of address which challenges the acknowledged personality of the appellant.”

DECISION/HELD:
In the final analysis, the Supreme Court absolved the appeal.