2. Nigerian Bar Association Respondents
(
Facts
A certain Mrs. Olatimbo Ayinde, the Managing Director/Chief Executive Officer of Tubbs Marine and Energy (“Petitioner”) wrote a petition against the Appellant to the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), alleging professional misconduct. She alleged that she engaged the legal services of the Appellant to undertake the perfection of the Company’s Deed of Assignment over a certain property and after the Appellant received the sum of N7,500,000.00 she paid him for the purposes of carrying out the instruction, the Appellant abandoned the instruction and failed to account for the money or refund it.
The 2nd Respondent forwarded the petition to the Appellant for his reaction, and the Appellant responded to the petition. Thereafter, the 2nd Respondent concluded that a prima facie case had been made against the Appellant, and referred him to the 1st Respondent for trial. The Appellant was charged before the 1st Respondent on a three-count c
Applying the Doctrine of Recent Possession to Dislodge the Defence of Alibi
thisdaylive.com - get the latest breaking news, showbiz & celebrity photos, sport news & rumours, viral videos and top stories from thisdaylive.com Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday newspapers.
Revival of Abandoned/Waived Right of Appeal
thisdaylive.com - get the latest breaking news, showbiz & celebrity photos, sport news & rumours, viral videos and top stories from thisdaylive.com Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday newspapers.
1. The Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria Limited
2. Total E&P Nigeria Limited
3. Nigerian Agip Oil Company Limited … … …Respondents
(Substituted by the Order of the Court of Appeal dated 17/3/2011)
(Lead Judgement delivered by Honourable Ejembi Eko, JSC)
Facts
The Respondents and the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC), were parties to a Joint Operating Agreement (JOA) in relation to Oil Mining Leases (OML) 18, 24, 25 and 29. The Appellant was not a party to the JOA, just as NNPC was not a party to the Agreement for Assignment (“the SPA”) of 45% Undivided Participating Interest in OML 25 owned jointly by the Respondents.
Sometime in June 2013, the Appellant became aware that the Respondents were considering divesting their 45% Undivided Participating Interest in OMLs 18, 24, 25 and 29 and receiving expression of interest from credible organisations, the Appellant therefore, expressed its interest in OMLs 24 and 25, demonstrating financial and