Sentences with phrase «same jurisdiction of the court»

Not exact matches

One of the counts reads: «That you, Mrs. Diezani Allison Madueke (still at large) and Tijani Inda Bashir on or about the 27th day of March, 2015 in Nigeria within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court directly took possession of the sum of N264, 880,000.00 (Two Hundred and Sixty - four Million, Eight Hundred and Eighty Thousand Naira) which sum you reasonably ought to have known forms part of the proceeds of an offence contrary to Section 15 (2)(d) of the Money Laundering (Prohibition)(Amendment) Act, 2012 and punishable under Section 15 (3) of the same Act.»

«That you, AVM Olutayo Tade Oguntoyinbo whilst serving as Chief of Training and Operations, Nigerian Air force and the CEO / Managing Director as well as the sole signatory to the account of Spaceweb Integrated Services Limited with Wema Bank, on or about the 11th July, 2014 at Abuja within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court did accept a gift in the sum of One hundred and Sixty Six Million Naira (N166, 000,000) from Societe D' Equipments Internationaux Nigeria Limited, a contractor with the Nigerian Air force in performance of your official act and you thereby committed an offence contrary to Section17 (a) of the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Act, 2000 and punishable under Section 17 (c) of the same Act».

«It is respectfully submitted therefore My Lord, that on the basis of the grounds argued above, of Lack of, or Excess of Jurisdiction, Procedural Irregularity and breach of the rules of natural justice it is submitted that the decision of the National Disciplinary Committee dated 2nd December, 2015 and endorsed by the National Executive Committee on 10th December 2015 be brought up to this court for purposes of having same quashed.»

A copy of the order has revealed that the fresh suit was filed by Saraki the same day a similar one which he filed before Justice Ibrahim Buba of the Lagos Division of the Federal High Court was struck out for lack of jurisdiction.

The charges in part read: «That you Col. Mohammed Sambo Dasuki whilst being National Security Adviser and Shaibu Salisu, whilst being the Director of Finance and Administration in the Office of the National Security Adviser and Hon. Waripamowei Dudafa (now at large) whilst bring Senior Special Assistant, Domestic Affairs to the President on or about 27th November within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court entrusted with dominion over certain properties to wit: the sum of N10billion being part of the funds in the account of the National Security Adviser with the CBN, the equivalent of which sum you received from the CBN in foreign currencies to wit: $ 47million and $ 5.6 million Euros committed criminal breach of trust in respect of the said property when you claimed to have distributed same to the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) Presidential Primary Election delegates and you thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 315 of the Penal Code Act, Cap 532, Vol.4, LFN 2004.

And since the state constitution was altered by changing the jurisdiction of the courts vis a vis marriage (by changing marriage as its defined), the whole same - sex marriage law violates the state constitution.

One of the charges read, «Innoson Nigeria Limited, Dr. Innocent Chukwuma and Charles Chukwuma between 2009 and July 2011, in Lagos within the jurisdiction of this honourable court with intent to defraud, induced the (members of) staff of Mitsui O.S.K. Lines Limited, Apapa, Lagos and Maersk Line Limited to deliver to you through your clearing agents, containers or motorcycle spare parts moulds of plastic parts and steel structures and raw materials called polyvinchlorid, property of Guaranty Trust Bank Plc imported into Nigeria from China in the name of the said bank as the consignee by falsely pretending that you were authorised by GTB to clear the goods and took delivery of same.

It is on the basis of the above that when on the 25th of April, 2018, the Senate invited the Inspector - General of Police to appear before it on the 26th of April 2018, in respect of the felonious offenses for which Sen. Dino Melaye was taken into Police custody, investigated and arraigned in a Court of Competent Jurisdiction in Lokoja, but because the Inspector - General of Police was on official assignment with the President of Federal Republic of Nigeria to Bauchi on same date, he delegated the Deputy Inspector - General of Police, Department of Operations, Assistant Inspector - Generals of Police and some Commissioners of Police conversant with the matter to brief the Senate.

«That you, Isah Hamman Misau of Hamman Misau Residence, Turaki Street, Misau, Bauchi State, on or about December 15, 2014, at the Independent National Electoral Commission Headquarters, Abuja, within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court, did utter a false document to wit: a Statutory Declaration of Age deposed to at the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, on December 15, 2014, by submitting same to the Independent National Electoral Commission knowing it to be false and you thereby committed an offence contrary to Section 1 (2)(c) of the Miscellaneous Offences Act Cap M17, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004 and punishable under the same section of the Act.»

«That you, Isah Hamman Misau of Hamman Misau Residence, Turaki Street, Misau, Bauchi State, on or about December 16, 2014, at Abuja, within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court, did utter a false document to wit: Affidavit in Support of Personal Particulars of Persons seeking election to the Office / Membership of the Senate of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (INEC FORM C.F. 001/2015) which you submitted to the Independent National Electoral Commission knowing it to be false and you thereby committed an offence contrary to Section 1 (2)(c) of the Miscellaneous Offences Act Cap M17, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004 and punishable under the same section of the Act.

But Justice Gabriel Kolawole, in his judgment, delivered on July 1, 2015, held that he lacked jurisdiction to entertain the suit while the June 8, 2015 judgment of the Lagos Division of the Federal High Court, nullifying the extradition application and affirmed by another judge of the same Lagos division on June 23, 2015, had not been set aside by any appellate cCourt, nullifying the extradition application and affirmed by another judge of the same Lagos division on June 23, 2015, had not been set aside by any appellate courtcourt.

One of the charge reads: «That you, Obiageli Nwagu trading under the name and style of Pizzaz Enterprises on or about the 2nd day of December, 2013 at Enugu within the jurisdiction of the High Court of Enugu State issued a First City Monument Bank Plc cheque No: 01952241 dated 2ndDecember, 2013, valued at N3, 800,000.00 to Chinwe Uzakah, the said cheque when presented for payment within three months was dishonored on the grounds that insufficient funds were standing to the credit of the account upon which it was drawn and thereby committed an offence contrary to Section 1 (1) of the Dishonored Cheque (Offences) Act, Cap D11, Laws of the Federation 2004 and punishable under Section 1 (1)(b) of the same Act».

The charge reads: «That you, AVM Olutayo Tade Oguntoyinbo whilst serving as Chief of Training and Operations, Nigerian Air force and the CEO / Managing Director as well as the sole signatory to the account of Spaceweb Integrated Services Limited with Wema Bank, on or about the 11th July, 2014 at Abuja within the jurisdiction of this Court did accept a gift in the sum of One hundred and Sixty Six Million Naira (N166, 000,000) from Societe D' Equipments Internationaux Nigeria Limited, a contractor with the Nigerian Air force in performance of your official act and you thereby committed an offence contrary to Section17 (a) of the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Act, 2000 and punishable under Section 17 (c) of the same Act».

One of the counts reads: «That you Air Chief Marshal Alex S Badeh (whilst being the Chief of Air Staff, Nigerian Air Force) and IYALIKAM NIGERIA LIMITED between 28th March and 5th December, 2013 in Abuja within the jurisdiction of this Court, did use an aggregate sum of N878, 362,732.94 (Eight Hundred and Seventy - Eight Million, Three Hundred and Sixty Two Thousand, Seven Hundred and Thirty - Two Naira, Ninety - Four kobo) removed from the accounts of the Nigerian Air Force and paid into the account of Rytebuilders Technologies Limited with Zenith Bank Plc for the construction of a shopping mall situate at Plot 1386, Oda Crescent Cadastral Zone A07, Wuse II, Abuja for yourself, when you reasonably ought to have known that the said funds formed part of the proceed of unlawful activity (to wit: criminal breach of trust and corruption) of Air Chief Marshal Alex S Badeh and you thereby committed an offence contrary to Section 15 (2)(d) of the Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act, 2011 (as amended) and punishable under Section 15 (3) of the same Act»

But in her motion challenging the EFCC's ex parte application, Mrs. Jonathan, sought «an order of this court striking out the respondent's ex parte originating summons dated September 20, 2017, filed at the registry of this court honourable court on the same date, on the ground that this honourable court lacks the jurisdiction to entertain the said application.»

However, due to the respect the IGP has for the Senate, that when on the 25th of April, 2018, the Senate invited the Inspector - General of Police to appear before it on the 26th of April 2018, in respect of the felonious offenses for which Sen. Dino Melaye was taken into Police custody, investigated and arraigned in a Court of Competent Jurisdiction while the Inspector - General of Police was on official assignment with the President of Federal Republic of Nigeria in Bauchi on same date, that he delegated the Deputy Inspector - General of Police, Department of Operations, Assistant Inspector - Generals of Police and some Commissioners of Police conversant with the matter to brief the Senate.

(a) The district courts of the United States shall have jurisdiction of proceedings instituted pursuant to this title and shall exercise the same without regard to whether the aggrieved party shall have exhausted any administrative or other remedies that may be provided by law.

This is a crucial that the defendants are living in the same state as those suing them, because previous cases have been thrown out of court because they lived outside the court's jurisdiction.

An earlier Supreme Court ruling that partly invalidated 1996's Defense of Marriage Act prompted the tax agency to decide that same - sex couples married in any U.S. or foreign jurisdiction that recognized gay marriage could file tax returns jointly.

However, it is worth noting that arbitration friendly jurisdictions and courts in leading legal systems do restrain the applications of public policy, reserving same to the flagrant contraventions of the fundamentals of the concerned legal system.

Allianz's position on appeal was that reg 44/2001 provides that, when the court of one European member state becomes seised of a matter, all other European courts must not allow the same matter to proceed until the court first seised has ruled, even if the proceedings first seised have purportedly been brought in breach of a jurisdiction agreement.

A subsequent clause of the same section gives the Supreme Court original jurisdiction in all cases in which a State shall be a party — the State of Georgia may then certainly be sued in this Court.

A subsequent clause of the same section gives the supreme Court original jurisdiction in all

The prenuptial agreement also stated that the Family Court would not have jurisdiction over any pre-marital property of either party or over property acquired after the marriage, unless same be titled in joint names, and that this agreement as to the absence of jurisdiction shall be unmodifiable.

They dissipate court resources as different courts in different jurisdictions might hear and issue decisions on the same set of facts involving the same claimants.

As for the argument raised against the principle of specialisation — to avoid creating a court with a «rigid» jurisdiction that might not be justified in the light of future workload — well, the same argument could actually be invoked against the creation of a «super-GC» whose future caseload is unlikely to double in the near future.

The summary conviction appeal court judge dismissed the appeals on the basis that the trial judge had jurisdiction in both matters, that the rules of procedure in both trials would essentially have been the same, and that Sciascia was not prejudiced by any differences in the applicable rules of evidence.

When the appellate court received the Special Action Petition, the Court of Appeals ordered both parties to file simultaneous briefs addressing whether the trial judge had jurisdiction to issue its order, since it addressed the same subject on which the superior court had previously rcourt received the Special Action Petition, the Court of Appeals ordered both parties to file simultaneous briefs addressing whether the trial judge had jurisdiction to issue its order, since it addressed the same subject on which the superior court had previously rCourt of Appeals ordered both parties to file simultaneous briefs addressing whether the trial judge had jurisdiction to issue its order, since it addressed the same subject on which the superior court had previously rcourt had previously ruled.

At the same time, the monetary jurisdiction of the Small Claims Court will be increasing to $ 35,000.

In addition, since this decision concerns the due process limits on the exercise of specific jurisdiction by a State, the question remains open whether the Fifth Amendment imposes the same restrictions on the exercise of personal jurisdiction by a federal court.

But, the decision leaves Congress with the option of potentially changing that statute which currently limits the personal jurisdiction of federal trial courts to that of a state court of general jurisdiction in the same state, as it already does in cases that are predominantly «in rem» (e.g. interpleader cases and interstate boundary and real property title disputes), in bankruptcy cases, and with respect to the subpoena power of U.S. District Ccourts to that of a state court of general jurisdiction in the same state, as it already does in cases that are predominantly «in rem» (e.g. interpleader cases and interstate boundary and real property title disputes), in bankruptcy cases, and with respect to the subpoena power of U.S. District CourtsCourts.

If a forum state's courts have «general jurisdiction» over a defendant, this means that the defendant can be sued in that forum on any cause of action against that defendant arising anywhere in the world, regardless of any other relationship that the claim has to the forum state (except for claims in the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal courts which can be brought in a U.S. District Court located in the same state, or in an arbitration forum pursuant to a valid arbitration clause that binds the parties, an issue beyond the scope of this question and answer).

It stated: «The common law system requires that lower courts must follow and apply the decisions of higher courts in the same jurisdiction, to the extent that the higher court has decided the same or a substantially similar issue.

Would you expect to see the same kind of system used for e-filing in higher courts as well, or for greater sums of money than the jurisdiction of the Small Claims Court ($ 25,000)?

Having established that natural and legal persons should be treated in the same way, AG Bobek critically addresses the existing interpretation of the Court in respect of the place of jurisdiction for online infringements of personality rights.

The same phrase is used in s. 92 of the Constitution Act, 1867 to describe what is in the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces, but that has been interpreted as a reference to the s. 96 courts.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court might ease the burden with case limitations that prevent cases being filed from other jurisdictions, and other laws are popping up out of state that do the same thing.

Actions or Motions subject of the conflict of jurisdiction shall not proceed further until the Judicial Body issued a decision determining the court having jurisdiction to hear the same.

Duty of justice (2) A justice who receives an information under subsection (1) shall cause the parties to appear before him or before a summary conviction court having jurisdiction in the same territorial division.

When the Superior Court has jurisdiction over the custody and maintenance of the minor children of parents divorced, separated or living separate, and such children are natives of this State, or have resided five years within its limits, they shall not be removed out of its jurisdiction against their own consent, if of suitable age to signify the same, nor while under that age without the consent of both parents, unless the court, upon cause shown, shall otherwise oCourt has jurisdiction over the custody and maintenance of the minor children of parents divorced, separated or living separate, and such children are natives of this State, or have resided five years within its limits, they shall not be removed out of its jurisdiction against their own consent, if of suitable age to signify the same, nor while under that age without the consent of both parents, unless the court, upon cause shown, shall otherwise ocourt, upon cause shown, shall otherwise order.

In other words, Mr. Voisey's argument was better than in any of the cases above, but the costs ordered against him were the same amount as in Cain, where the court declined to even take jurisdiction.

Each repeats the same formulation of the ways in which immunity may be waived, distinguishing between the equally valid methods of waiver in a prior written agreement and an acceptance of the jurisdiction of the court in the face of the court and the proceedings in question.

Writing for the same 5 - 4 majority as in Carosella, Justice Sopinka held, at para. 26, that where evidence has been inadvertently lost, «the same concerns about the deliberate frustration of the court's jurisdiction over the admission of evidence do not arise.»

It was also relevant that transfer to Hungary would rule out this one potential option, and that the courts in this jurisdiction could achieve the same outcomes as the Hungarian Court in respect of a placement there, and therefore had a wider range of potential options available to them.

Provides regardless where a court temporarily sits, the court would continue to preside on behalf of its original jurisdiction (i.e. judicial department, judicial district, county, city, etc.) and the same substantive and procedural laws (e.g. governing venue, jury selection, papers and appeals) would apply as if the court were not relocated.

A case recently came before the Court of Appeal whereby the court was able to consider and provide guidance on the manner in which abductions within the Jurisdiction of England and Wales should be dealt with and whether the same principles that apply whCourt of Appeal whereby the court was able to consider and provide guidance on the manner in which abductions within the Jurisdiction of England and Wales should be dealt with and whether the same principles that apply whcourt was able to consider and provide guidance on the manner in which abductions within the Jurisdiction of England and Wales should be dealt with and whether the same principles that apply when...

(2) The Divisional Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine an appeal that lies to the Superior Court of Justice if an appeal in the same proceeding lies to and is taken to the Divisional Court.

(2) The Court of Appeal has jurisdiction to hear and determine an appeal that lies to the Divisional Court or the Superior Court of Justice if an appeal in the same proceeding lies to and is taken to the Court of Appeal.

Conversely, in Ryanair Ltd v Esso Italiana Srl [2015] 1 All ER (Comm), the Court of Appeal held that the absence of any viable form of contractual complaint about an allegedly cartelised price rendered it impossible to claim that a competition law complaint about the same price was within an exclusive jurisdiction clause.

Recent case law has confirmed that the same principles and processes should apply to review and renewal hearings for authorisations for DoL in the Inherent Jurisdiction of the High Court as to the Court of Protection.