CRIME & PUNISHMENT
Court Sentences Businessman to Three Years’ Imprisonment for Theft
Funke Olaode
A Lagos businessman, Nwogu-Anucha Peters, has been sentenced to three years in prison for theft.
Justice Rahman Oshodi of the Lagos State Special Offences Court, Ikeja, convicted and sentenced Peters for stealing N700,000 property of Obinna Ukpabi.
The judge pronounced Peters and Business Defence Solutions Limited guilty of stealing, contrary to section 390 of the Criminal Code Law Cap. C17, Vol. 2, Laws of Lagos State of Nigeria, 2003.
In the charge designated ID/4625C/2017, the federal government accused Peters of fraudulently converting the said sum to his use. The government added that as the firm’s alter ego, the convicted Peters had advertised an office space on Victoria Island, Lagos.
In his judgment, Justice Oshodi, who confirmed that the victim (Ukpabi) had indicated an interest in leasing the property from the convicted Peters through a realtor, said, “You showed the Ukpabis the property and had them sign a memorandum of understanding, collecting the sum of N700,000 from them.”
The judge added, “However, contrary to your representations, you had no legal interest in subleasing the property. Even more egregious, after collecting the money, you became incommunicado and never delivered possession of the property to the victim as agreed or refunded their money.
“You dissipated the money on 27 July 2010, the same day you received it. All evidence points to the inescapable conclusion that you obtained this money with the dishonest intention of permanently depriving the victim of it. You have been standing trial for this offence for several years since you were first arraigned in 2018.
“Your lawyers contributed to the delay by failing to attend court or being unwilling to proceed with the trial. However, the trial length cannot detract from the severity of the offence and its impact on the victim. I have also considered that you are in the custodial centre for a similar offence before another court of coordinate jurisdiction.”
The judge noted that Peters “habitually engaged in fraudulent schemes to trick unsuspecting victims of their hard-earned money.”
Oshodi stressed that the sentence “I will impose must reflect the need to prevent you from further engaging in criminal conduct that wreaks financial and emotional havoc on innocent citizens.”
He stated, “At sentencing, you showed no remorse and no regret for your crime. Considering all the above factors, I now sentence you, Nwogu-Anucha Peters, to three years imprisonment from 12 March 2018, the date of your remand by this court. As an artificial legal person, I now impose a fine of N500,000 on the second convict, Business Defence Solutions Limited, which must be paid within ninety days of this judgment.
“If the company fails to pay the fine within the stipulated time, its assets will be sold, and the proceeds will be forfeited to the Federal Government of Nigeria. Furthermore, by Section 297 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Law of Lagos State, 2015, I now make an order of restitution against both convicts, jointly and severally, in favour of the victim, Mr Obinna Ukpabi, in the sum of N700,000.”
He also ruled that this sum must be paid within 90 days of “this judgment and shall include funds standing to the credit of the convicts,” pointing out that the sentence “is without prejudice to other cases pending before different courts of coordinate jurisdictions.”
According to the charge dated March 2, 2017, but filed April 4, 2017, the prosecution had accused the defendants of stealing. They pleaded not guilty, and the trial had commenced. The prosecution called three witnesses: First City Monument Bank representative Harrison Ebishue (PW1), an estate surveyor Mrs Nkeiruka Njike (PW2), and the investigating officer, Nwikega Gbinekanu (PW3), while Peters testified as defence witness One (DW1).
Peters had pleaded not guilty before Justice Sherifat Solebo (retd.) of the same court at his first arraignment on March 12, 2018.
Property Dispute: Court Orders Substituted Service on Billionaire, Olu Okeowo
Wale Igbintade
Justice Akintayo Aluko of the Lagos Division of the Federal High Court has granted a firm, Manna Real Estate Company Limited, and two of its shareholders leave to serve a Lagos-based billionaire and property developer, Oluwatumininu Okeowo, court processes by substituted means over a dispute on their late father’s company.
The other plaintiffs in the suit marked FHC/L/CS/2615/2023 are Tolulola Babarinde (nee Okeowo) and Temitope Solabi (nee Okeowo). Oluwatumininu Clement Okeowo, Gibraltar Construction Limited, Joshua Okeowo, Tolulope Okeowo, and Corporate Affairs Commission (CAC) were listed as defendants.
Among others, the judge held that “having heard S.B. Olarinde, Esq., for the plaintiffs who moved in terms praying it to grant the reliefs sought as endorsed on the motion paper. That leave is granted to the Plaintiffs/Applicants to serve the writ of summons, statement of claim, witness statement on oath and all other processes or forms in this matter on the first respondent to wit by pasting same at the first respondent’s last known place of abode being at Palacio de Okeowo, 35 Olusegun Aina Street, Parkview Estate, Ikoyi, Lagos.”
The judge added, “That leave is granted to the plaintiffs/applicants to serve the writ of summons, Statement of claim, witness statement on oath and all other processes or forms in this matter on the first respondent to wit: by publishing same in newspaper or tabloid circulating nationwide that the plaintiff shall adopt the two modes to ensure due service of the process on the first respondent.
Justice Aluko, after that, adjourned the case until June 11 for a report of service.
In a witness statement on oath deposed to by Tolulola Babarinde (second plaintiff), she stated that the first plaintiff is a real estate company incorporated in October 1969 under the Company Decree of 1968 by Sir Taiwo Okeowo who was the majority shareholder of the company and the managing director until his death on November 8, 2003.
The deponent averred that the company’s share capital is N2,000,000 divided into 2,000,000 ordinary shares of N1:00 each.
She stated, “The shareholding structure is as follows: Sir Taiwo Okeowo 1,500,000 shares, Grace Adesola Okeowo 250,000 shares, Tolulola Tadewa Okeowo 100,000 shares, and Temitope Onajonwa Okeowo 150,000 shares. Upon the death intestate of Sir Taiwo Okeowo, the second and third plaintiffs, alongside Grace Adesola Okeowo (their mother), became the only surviving shareholders and directors of the first plaintiff with powers to act on behalf and in the interest of the company.”
The plaintiffs averred that before the death of Sir Taiwo Okeowo (the father of the second and third to fourth plaintiffs as well as the first, third and fourth defendants), the only named Directors and shareholders of the first plaintiff were Sir Taiwo Okeowo, Grace Adesola Okeowo, Tolulola Tadewa Okeowo, Temitope Okeowo, adding that the first to third and fourth defendants were never and are not directors or shareholders
of the company.
She further alleged that upon the death intestate of Sir. Taiwo Okeowo on November 8, 2003, and without the knowledge or consent of the surviving shareholders and directors of the first plaintiff, the first defendant who is not a shareholder or director of the first plaintiff and with no letters of administration over the estate of Sir. Taiwo Okeowo began dealing with the company’s assets without any authorisation.
One of the first plaintiff’s property upon which the first defendant allegedly carried out his unlawful acts is the property known as Plot 15a & 15b, Bayo Kuku Road (formerly 15 Waring Road) Ikoyi, Lagos, covered by a Federal Certificate of Occupancy with title number L09312.
She averred that the first defendant unlawfully began demolishing the property at Bayo Kuku Road, a built block of 6 Flats and 2 Houses, without the knowledge and authorisation of the first plaintiff’s surviving shareholders and directors.
The deponent averred that the 1st defendant has surreptitiously applied to obtain building permits from the Lagos government to build on the Property and is allegedly selling units to unsuspecting members of the public under the name of Gibraltar Construction Ltd.
Consequently, the plaintiffs seek a declaration that the second and third plaintiffs and Grace Adesola Okeowo are the only surviving shareholders and directors of Manna Real Estate Company Limited and a declaration that the first, third and fourth defendants are not duly allotted and appointed shareholders and directors respectively of Manna Real Estate Company Limited, therefore cannot act on behalf of and deal with or manage the affairs and assets of Manna Real Estate Company Limited.
They are also seeking an order mandating and directing the fifth defendant to rectify the data in its custody to only reflect the names of the surviving shareholders and directors of Manna Real Estate Company Limited, being the names of Grace Adesola Okeowo, Tolulola Babarinde (nee Okeowo) (second plaintiff) and Temitope Solabi (Nee Okeowo) (third plaintiff).
In addition, they want the court to declare an order of perpetual injunction restraining the first, third and fourth defendants from representing themselves or acting as shareholders or directors of Manna Real Estate Company Limited.
The plaintiffs are also claiming N100 million as damages against the first and second defendants for the injury occasioned by their alleged unlawful actions against the Plaintiffs and the 1st plaintiff’s assets.
Breach of Contract: Appeal Court Dismmises Firm’s Preliminary Objection
Wale Igbintade
The Court of Appeal, Lagos Division, has dismissed Elegushi Property Investment’s appeal against the ruling of Justice Deborah Oluwayemi of the High Court of Lagos State, which refused to strike out a suit instituted against the firm over alleged breach of contract.
In its judgment, the appellate court held that the appeal lacked merit and deserved dismissal.
Justice Monica Dongban-Mensem (who presided) delivered the lead judgment, which was aligned with the other members of the panel, namely Justice James Abundaga and Justice Abubakar Talba.
The appellant at the lower court filed a Notice of Preliminary Objection dated December 22, 2014, seeking the striking out of the suit instituted by Subulade Properties Limited (claimant/first respondent) on the grounds that section 8(1)(a) of the Limitation Law of Lagos State, Cap L67, Laws of Lagos State, 2003 provides that the limitation period for the enforcement of a simple contract is six years.
The appellant also submitted that the lower court lacked jurisdiction to hear the matter, contending that the statement of claim is defective because it is signed by an unknown person, giving it the effect of an unsigned court process.
In response to the notice of preliminary objection, the claimant/first respondent filed a counter-affidavit and a written address. After hearing both sides’ arguments, the court delivered its ruling and struck out the appellant’s notice of preliminary objection.
Dissatisfied with the decision of the trial court, the appellant, through its lawyer, Dr. Muiz Banire (SAN), filed a notice of appeal and urged the court to determine whether the appellant’s notice of preliminary objection dated December 22, 2014, constitutes a demurrer and whether the learned trial Judge is permitted by law to look at any other court process aside from the writ of summons and statement of claim to ascertain the signature of the claimant’s pleadings.
The appellant also prayed the court to determine whether the case was caught by the Limitation Law of Lagos State, Cap L67, Laws of Lagos State, 2003.
Resolving the issues, the appellate court, in its lead judgement delivered by Justice Dongban-Mensem, held, “From the records and briefs of counsel, it was not in dispute that the cause of action arose in 2004 and the first respondent instituted an action in the same year 2004 which remained pending until it was struck out in 2014.
“The action which generated this appeal was filed on 21st November 2014. On the authority of Sifax Nig. Ltd. V. Migfo Nig. Ltd Supra, I agree with the learned counsel to the first respondent that time freezes for the purpose of limitation law when an action, though subsequently withdrawn, is instituted in court.”
He added, “In light of the facts before the court, the suit has been before the court since 2004 till 2014, when it was struck out. In the contemplation of the law, the limitation of time has frozen from the period the matter is pending in court and the 1st Respondent in this case, having filed this matter in the same year 2014 it was struck out, was not caught up by the limitation in section 8 (1)(a) of the Limitation Law of Lagos State, 2003.
“The preliminary objection raised by the Appellant at the trial Court is unmeritorious. I hereby resolve issues 2,3 and 4 in favour of the first respondent.”
Legal Experts Mulls AI Potential to Drive Growth in Nigeria
Funke Olaode
Legal experts have pointed out the significant economic opportunities artificial intelligence (AI) presents and noted its potential to drive growth in Nigeria.
They emphasised that the global AI market is expected to soar to $15.7 trillion by 2030, offering substantial growth potential for Africa, with Nigeria poised to benefit significantly.
The legal expert disclosed this at the maiden edition of the Nigerian Bar Association Ikeja Branch Business Forum(NBA-Ikeja) held in Lagos recently, which stated that Nigeria’s AI market was projected to reach approximately $4.64 billion by 2030.
In his address on the theme ‘The Future of AI and Corporate Governance for Companies,’ legal practitioner Desmond Oriakhogba said increasing awareness of AI will grow the economy and form strategic partnerships.
Dr Hakeem Ogunniran, chairman of the Lagos Building Investment Company and a corporate governance expert, also explained the critical aspects of corporate governance and AI’s transformative impact on business practices.
Oriakhogba said that as Nigeria continues to adopt and integrate AI technologies, it could create potential jobs, enhance business efficiency, and improve service delivery in sectors such as healthcare and agriculture.
“The Nigerian government and private sector are working together to harness the transformative power of AI, which is expected to drive economic growth and development across various sectors,” Oriakhogba stressed.
He said robust regulatory frameworks were needed to ensure ethical and responsible AI use while highlighting the opportunities and challenges ahead. He added that AI was evolving and constantly driven by advancements in information and communication technologies.
“We can define AI broadly as powerful algorithms, machines, or computer systems that mimic specific human activities using techniques like machine learning, neural networks, logic programming, and fuzzy logic,” Oriakhogba explained.
He distinguished between Narrow AI and Artificial General Intelligence (AGI), saying, “Generative AI, a subset of Narrow AI, can semi-autonomously create new content like text, images, music, and videos, offering transformative potential in sectors such as entertainment, scientific research, education, healthcare, and corporate governance.
“AGI, capable of surpassing human intelligence, is predicted by scientists to emerge by 2030. Whether AGI will actually materialise by then remains to be seen, but we must prepare for its potential impact.”
On AI’s influence in Africa, especially Nigeria, Oriakhogba said, “AI is making significant impacts in various sectors including legal processes, business ethics, governance, democracy, gender equality, human rights, and the rule of law. AI remains one of the top five most disruptive technologies. It can enhance decision-making processes, cybersecurity measures, and risk management but also poses risks such as cybersecurity threats, data breaches, and ethical dilemmas. Human oversight is essential to ensure ethical and unbiased decision-making.”
Oriakhogba, therefore, commended the Nigerian government’s proactive stance on AI development, citing initiatives such as establishing the National Center for AI and Robotics by the National Information Technology Development Agency (NITDA) and developing a national AI policy.
He added, “A regulatory regime that ensures transparency, accountability, and ethical use of AI is crucial for fostering innovation while safeguarding ethical standards.”
