IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE FEDERAL CAPITAL TERRITORY
IN THE ABUJA JUDICIAL DIVISION
HOLDEN AT MAITAMA – ABUJA
BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP: HON. JUSTICE S.E. ALADETOYINBO
COURT NO: HIGH COURT SIX (6)
SUIT NO: FCT/HC/CV/1641/2010
PARTIES: OKEBUGWU S.N. ………………….PLAINTIFF

            VS

                   BELLO MARK……………………….DEFENDANT

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 25^TH JULY, 2011

NB: We represented the Defendant.

 This was the first civil case handled by our Principal Partner, Ike .F. Okpe Esq. having been in the employment of public prosecution of criminal cases for years. We represented the defendant, who was a Police Sergeant as at the time of this case. This case bothers on arrears of rent, Electricity bill and other damages to the tune of N 2, 000,000 (Two Million Naira) and was filed in Court in the absence of our client because our client travelled for a foreign mission in Dafur, Sudan to the knowledge of the Plaintiff who was hell bent on securing judgment against our client before he returns to Nigeria. After receiving oral brief from our client, we quickly filed our Statement of defence alongside a motion to regularize the Statement of Defence having been filed out of time.

The Plaintiff saw what we filed and approached us for amicable settlement which we conceded.

Result: Secured a favourable settlement for our client.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANAMBRA STATE OF NIGERIA
IN THE AWKA JUDICIAL DIVISION
HOLDEN AT AWKA
BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP: HON. JUSTICE S.O. OZOR
COURT NO: HIGH COURT THREE (3)
SUIT NO: A/46/2013
PARTIES:         CHIEF OZOR NWAKALOR & 7 ORS

                  VS

                          CHIEF SHEDRACK ANAKWUE & 11 ORS

DATE OF JUDGEMENT: 25^TH OCTOBER, 2013

NB: We represented the 1^st to 10^th Defendants.

We represented the 1^st -10^th Defendants in this Suit. This Suit bothers on the Politics of who becomes the President-General of Amanuke Community. We filed a preliminary objection to the competency of the Suit and the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain this suit. The Plaintiffs saw where we were going, and acknowledging that they had made a fundamental technical mistake, approached us for settlement which we conceded.

Result: Secured a favourable settlement for our Client.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE OF NASARAWA STATE
IN THE NASARAWA STATE JUDICIAL DIVISION
HOLDEN AT MARARABA GURKU
BEFORE: HER LORDSHIP HON JUSTICE A.L. YUSUF
COURT: HIGH COURT FIVE (5)
SUIT NO: NSD/MG58/2015
PARTIES:      ONYEBUCHI PETER IKECHUKWU

           VS

LT COL. C.A. AKALIRO

CHIEF OF ARMY STAFF

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE FEDERATION

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 15^TH DECEMBER, 2015

NB: it is a fundamental human right matter and we represented the 1^st and 2^nd Respondents

Our Clients, the Nigerian Army, the Chief of Army Staff were all accused of breach of fundamental human rights, and the applicant claiming damages to the tune of N 50,000,000 (Fifty Million Naira) but we were able to rightly controvert the Affidavit evidence of the Applicant and as well prove to the Court that the Applicant did not have enough evidence to prove his alleged case of torture by our Clients and as a result of which the claim for damages was unfounded.

Result: The cause was struck out for lacking in merit.

IN THE MAGISTRATE COURT OF ANAMBRA STATE OF NIGERIA
IN THE MAGISTRATE’S COURT OF AWKA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
HOLDEN AT AWKA
BEFORE: HIS WORSHIP N.A ONUNKWO ESQ.
SENIOR MAGISTRATE GRADE II
COURT: MAGISTRATE COURT
CHARGE NO: MAW /146^c/2014
PARTIES:      C.O.P.

  VS.

     FESTUS EZE

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 1^ST JULY, 2015

NB: We represented the Defendant

This is a criminal charge of burglary and stealing against the Defendant whom we represented. The prosecution presented only one witness, the nominal complainant as PW: 1 and during cross-examination the witness pleaded to be allowed to go home and come back another time but he never returned on subsequent dates, hence the case was struck out for lack of diligent prosecution.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANAMBRA STATE OF NIGERIA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ONITSHA JUDICIAL DIVISION
HOLDEN AT ONITSHA
BEFORE: HIS LORDSHIP HON. JUSTICE M.N.O. OKONKWO
COURT: HIGH COURT FIVE (5)
SUIT NO: 0/68/2015
MOTION NO: O/74OM/2016
PARTIES:      CHARLES MADUBUKO

 VS

CHARLES EMEKA OBIEKEZIE

PIUS OKWU OKOLO

DATE OF JUDGMENT/RULING: 27^TH JUNE, 2016

NB: We represented the 1^st Defendant/Applicant

On our client briefing us, we made private background check/investigations to obtain some facts. We filed statement of defence with convincing exhibits alongside motion on notice urging the Court to strike out the Suit for want of jurisdiction because the Plaintiff instituted the action in the wrong Court (judicial division). We were able to prove to the Court through our affidavit evidence that from the claim of the Plaintiff the Suit is as regards to Title to Land, therefore it should be instituted in the High Court where the land is situated and not any other High Court in the State as it was in the instant case. In proving this we also brought the attention of the Court to the damages claimed by the Plaintiff against the Defendant.

The Court after going through our Application and the case laws we cited to support our argument and also the counter affidavit and written address of the Plaintiff.

Result: Our prayers were granted and Suit struck out for lack of jurisdiction.

IN THE CHIEF MAGISTRATE’S COURT OF ANAMBRA STATE OF NIGERIA
IN THE CHIEF MAISTRATE’S COURT OF OGBARU MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
HOLDEN AT ATANI
BEFORE: HIS WORSHIP CHUKWUDEBE O.I
CHIEF MAG. GD II
COURT: CHIEF MAGISTRATE COURT ONE (1)
CHARGE NO: MGB/3c/2016
PARTIES:      C.O.P

        VS

              UCHE MADUBUIKE

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 30^TH SEPTEMBER, 2016

NB: We represented the Defendant

Our client being charged for stealing, and the prosecution brought in the Complainant who testified as PW: 1but  could not prove their case beyond reasonable doubt, so we made a no-case submission proving to the Court that the complainant did not have reasonable evidence to prove the offence of stealing against the Defendant. We also discredited their evidence by cross-examination.

Result: Our no-case submission was upheld and our client discharged.