Sentences with phrase «which dismissed the application»

At the resumed hearing, prosecuting counsel, Sam Ologunorisa, SAN, informed the court that the EFCC secured victory over Shema at the Supreme Court, which dismissed the application made by his counsel, J. B. Daudu, seeking to stop his trial.

The first runner - up in the September 2016, governorship primary of the All Progressives Congress in Ondo State, Mr. Olusegun Abraham, has commended the ruling of the Court of Appeal which dismissed the application for stay of court proceedings filed by Governor Rotimi Akeredolu.

Not exact matches

The embattled judge is arguing before the court that «despite the pendency of these two applications before this Court, [Justice Torkonoo] in outright disrespect of this Court caused a hearing notice to be served on me to appear before her on 3rd December, 2015, for the hearing of the same contempt application which [she] had already dealt with on the 28th and 29th September, 2015 and dismissed.»

The two appellants had challenged the Abuja Federal High Court's judgment which first dismissed those applications.

The tribunal on Oct 21 adjourned his trial in the instance of his plea before the appellate court which had on October 30, dismissed Saraki's application to stop his trial at the CCT for lack of merit.

An Accra High Court dismissed an application filed by the disputed Parliamentary Candidate, Nii Noi Nortey, which sought to set aside a default judgment thereby setting the pace for the opposition.

A five - man bench of the apex court made the order in a unanimous ruling in which it dismissed Metuh's application for an order of stay of proceedings of his trial before the Federal High Court.

The Supreme Court [today], Wednesday, dismissed an application filed by journalist Richard Dela Sky, which asked the court to interpret provisions of the 1992 Constitution on the appointment of an Electoral Commission Chair.

The Supreme Court has dismissed a joinder application by the People's National Convention (PNC) in the lawsuit in which a former National Youth Organizer of the party, Abu Ramadan, and one Evans Nimako, are seeking a declaration that the current electoral roll is not credible for the November polls.

The Attorney General sought judicial review, which application was dismissed (2013 FC 113), and subsequently appealed to the Federal Court of Appeal.

He brought proceedings for damages by way of application under the elusive Pt 19 of the Family Procedure Rules 2010 (SI 2010/2955) and which were dismissed and he was back before the Court of Appeal to challenge that dismissal.

The Court of Appeal's reasons for judgment (from which the application was made), dismissing an application for leave to appeal to it, can be found under Re Ivaco Inc. (2007 ONCA 746).

The decision in May 2016 dismissed the application of the AER and Orphan Well Association, which argued that Grant Thornton should have to carry out the abandonment, reclamation and remediation obligations of Redwater's non-producing wells or perform abandonment orders as issued by the AER, which included paying a security deposit.

The tribunal reached these decisions after interpreting Section 45.1 of the Code, which states that: «The Tribunal may dismiss an application, in whole or in part, in accordance with its rules if the Tribunal is of the opinion that another proceeding has appropriately dealt with the substance of the application.»

Permission to apply for judicial review was refused by the High Court, but granted by the Court of Appeal, which went on to hear and dismiss the substantive application for judicial review.

The result ultimately turned on the application of s 14A of the Limitation Act 1980 (LA 1980) and the claim, which otherwise would have succeeded, was dismissed as statute barred.

In R (on the application of Aweys) v Birmingham City Council and other applications [2007] EWHC 52 (Admin), [2007] All ER (D) 230 (Jan) the Court of Appeal dismissed the authority's appeal and held that, upon finding a homeless person to be unintentionally homeless, eligible and in priority need, the «main housing duty» under HA 1996, s 193 (2) arose immediately and that the discharge of this duty could not be met by leaving the applicants in their existing homes: «the homeless at home», which the authority considered no longer reasonable for them to occupy, while waiting for an offer of permanent accommodation under the allocation scheme.

In October 2017, the Commercial Court dismissed a judicial review application which sought to quash An Bord Pleanala's decision to grant the Apple technology company planning permission for the construction of a data storage centre together with an electricity substation and associated infrastructure on a site near Athenry, County Galway.

A non-suit application is permitted by Rule 8.20 of the Alberta Rules of Court, Alta Reg 124/2010, which states, «at the close of the plaintiff's case, the defendant may request the Court to dismiss the action on the ground that no case has been made, without being asked to elect whether evidence will be called.»

The Respondent challenged the CSST's decision before the CLP, which confirmed the CSST's decision and therefore dismissed the Respondent's application to subject the employer to a duty of accommodation under the Charter.

The services determined by the ALT to be essential included applications for postponement, in respect of which the following appears in an appendix to the decision: [translation] «A lawyer who is responsible for a case scheduled for a strike day must apply for a postponement and must conduct the hearing should the court dismiss the application for postponement».

Unfortunately for the lawyer, the Divisional Court had no jurisdiction to hear her application which resulted in her application being dismissed and an additional $ 5,000 in costs being awarded against the lawyer.

They can only claim costs in relation to the judicial treatment of the Joint Application which, as noted, was dismissed.

The Pucci court dismissed the Crown's application which brings me to the questions in this post: (a) what is a rule?

On January 11, 2013, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Divisional Court) delivered its decision in Re Rankin, upholding the decision of the Ontario Securities Commission (the «Commission») dismissing an Application to set aside an order in which it approved a settlement agreement between Commission Staff and the appellant, Andrew Rankin («Rankin»).

Successfully opposed a motion brought by the appellant seeking reinstatement of his leave application which had been dismissed for delay.

In dismissing the appeal against dismissal of an application for judicial review of the Bar Council's decision, the Court examined the relevant ECHR case law, which emphasised adequacy of representation over freedom of choice as to the identity of counsel.

There is a further reasoned order in the same case made on the 5th October 2016 (i.e. without the expense of a hearing) in which Roth J. dismissed the Defendant's application to adduce late expert evidence, since this would be prejudicial to the Claimant.

Police obtained a general warrant, which Telus challenged but was dismissed by the applications judge.

The Appellant and the contracting company brought applications to dismiss the complaint under s. 27 (1) of the Human Rights Code, which provides that a complaint may be dismissed if it is not within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, the acts or omissions alleged do not contravene the Code, there is no reasonable prospect the complaint will succeed, or proceeding with the complaint would not further the purposes of the Code.

This morning, the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed Lesslie Askin's application for leave to appeal the lower court ruling, which puts the issue at rest.»

Mayer v Mayer BCSC 615 followed Coutu v Jorgensen involved very long and protracted litigation involving several court decisions and after four years an application was brought to remove the opposing counsel which was dismissed.

[21] Yes, this may be developing into a major claim, but that does not change all of the other considerations that I have applied and taken from the cases, all of which lead me to conclude that the application should be dismissed, and it is.

If the proper exercise of the Court's discretions to dismiss pursuant to Order 20 or Order 35A, or pursuant to its residual discretion, does not support the dismissal of a native title application, there should be no other basis on which the application is liable to be dismissed.

In my Native Title Report 2007, I noted that new provisions had been inserted into the Native Title Act, enabling the Federal Court to dismiss applications that do not meet the merit conditions of the registration test (which are set out in s 190B of the Native Title Act).

Under these proposed provisions, the Court is not only empowered to dismiss native title applications in the circumstances to which the proposed s. 94C [item36] applies, but it is obliged to do so unless there are unspecified but limited «compelling reasons not to do so» [s 94C (3)-RSB-.

Item 36, which would insert a new s. 94C requiring the Court to dismiss proceedings relating to applications that appear to have been made to attract the application of the «right to negotiate» provisions when the «future act» concerned has been done, except where there are compelling reasons not to do so,

The tribunal rejected a request by Johnson to have the original discrimination complaint dismissed, saying, in part, ``... the new application to dismiss is made under each and every ground contained in s. 27 (1), the vast majority of which simply have no conceivable application.