Supreme Court Update: CCNL versus Mobil Oil
 
HomeFAQSearchMemberlistUsergroupsRegisterLog in

Share | 
 

 Patent Right Infringement: CCNL versus Mobil Oil

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
AuthorMessage
Admin
Admin


Posts : 5
Join date : 2015-03-06

PostSubject: Patent Right Infringement: CCNL versus Mobil Oil   Fri Mar 06, 2015 11:38 pm

What Is The New Hearing Date In
The Patent Right Infringement Appeal Against
Mobil Producing Nigeria Unlimited
Ongoing In The Supreme Court Of Nigeria?


(1) In recent times, I have received hundreds of calls from the CCNL Patentees both in Nigeria and Oversea putting series of pressures on me to fix a new hearing date for the pending case before the Supreme Court of Nigeria.


(2) It is neither the duty of the CCNL Marketing manager, Yusuf Nurudeen , nor the responsibility of The Board Of Directors in CCNL to fix a hearing date for cases before the Supreme Court of Nigeria.


(3) It is the sole responsibility of the Supreme Court of Nigeria to fix hearing date for cases listed before it as demonstrated by Honourable justices Uwa in the case between Bajoga v. Government, F.R.N.2007 , when he said and I quote him verbatim.


"It is the court`s duty to fix hearing date of the motion on notice after granting leave. An applicant has no role to play in the fixture of such hearing dates."

Per: Justice Uwa Bajoga v. Government, F.R.N.2007


(4) From the above authority of Justice Uwa, it is obvious that the fixing of hearing date for cases before a court of competent jurisdiction is not the duty of any litigant but the responsibility of the court.


(5) Asking me (Yusuf Nurudeen) or The Board Of Directors in CCNL to fix hearing date for a case before The Supreme Court of Nigeria is like asking us to take over the responsibility of the court.


(6) As the court pleases, & on the discretion of the court , the court shall notify The Board Of Directors in CCNL the next or new hearing date of suit sc./69/2011 through an instrument of the court called HEARING NOTICE.


(7) The moment a new hearing notice is issued by the Supreme Court of Nigeria court, I shall notify all the CCNL Patentees on the social media.


(Cool Thanks for your understanding.





Yusuf Nurudeen (AAT, ACA)
CCNL Marketing Manager
4, Ogudu Road,
Ojota,
Lagos.
+234-703-252-2248
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://ccnlnewsupdate.africamotion.net
Admin
Admin


Posts : 5
Join date : 2015-03-06

PostSubject: Re: Patent Right Infringement: CCNL versus Mobil Oil   Sat Mar 07, 2015 11:51 am

information is good
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://ccnlnewsupdate.africamotion.net
Admin
Admin


Posts : 5
Join date : 2015-03-06

PostSubject: Patentees Agitate For A New Hearing Date Following The Suspension Of JUSUN Strike   Sun Mar 08, 2015 9:36 am

Patentees Agitate For A New Hearing Date
Following
The Suspension Of JUSUN Strike


Content
(1.0) Introduction
(2.0) History Gallery Of CCNL`s Appeal In The Supreme Court
(3.0) The Need To Appreciate The BOD Members And Staff Of CCNL In The Course To Finalize The Appeal
(4.0) Conclusion


(1.0) Introduction
(1.1) The Patentees who have invested in the patented invention of Comandclem Nigeria Limited, RP:13522, have been agitating seriously for a new hearing date to entertain the outstanding motions with respect to patent right infringement appeal (SC./69/2011) against Mobil Producing Nigeria Unlimited ongoing in the Supreme Court of Nigeria.


(1.2) It is on records that on 3rd of November, 2014, Honourable Justice Mahmud Mohammed (CJN) adjourned the hearing of all the outstanding motions to 19th of January, 2015 following an oral application made by CCNL`s Leading Legal Counsel, (Aiku Bamidele SAN) to effect the substitution of King Professor CJA Uwemedimo names in all the applications filed before the Supreme Court of Nigeria.


(1.3) Unfortunately, on 19th day of January, 2015, a day set aside to entertain those motions, clashed with the nationwide strike of the Nigerian Judiciary Workers.


(1.4) The nationwide industrial strike embarked upon by JUSUN was officially suspended in the Federal Courts only in Nigeria not excluding the Supreme Court of Nigeria on 26th of January, 2015.


(1.5) Sequel to the suspension of the industrial strike embarked upon by JUSUN on 26th of January, 2015, there have been agitations and outcries among patentees requesting for a new hearing date to finalize a fifteen-year-old case against Mobil Producing Nigeria Unlimited over an unauthorized use of the patented invention of King Professor Emeritus CJA Uwemedimo.


(2.0) History Gallery Of CCNL`s Appeal In The Supreme Court

(2.1) Honourable Justice Mahmud Mohammed (CJN),  acknowledged that the Supreme Court of Nigeria has been over burdened with high volume of appeals in a Public Dialogue organized by Nigeria Bar Association, few weeks ago, when he said,

“The court registry is currently burdened with over 5,000 appeals, and the panels of justices are still hearing appeals filed in 2005”


(2.2) From the above statement of Honourable Justice Mahmud Mohammed (CJN), it is obvious that appeals filed 10 years ago (2005) in the Supreme Court of Nigeria have not been concluded by the Judges in view of the fact that the court has been over burdened with high volumes of appeals.


(2.3) Despite those outrageous numbers of pending appeals seriously begging for hearings before the Supreme Court of Nigeria, the Honourble Justices had fixed appeal of  CCNL versus Mobil Oil (Cool eight times as stated below

(2.3.1) 10th of July, 2012: Mobil Oil totally failed to appear in the Supreme Court, and Justice Aloma (CJN) subsequently adjourned the appeal to 29th of January, 2013


(2.3.2) 29th of January, 2013: Supreme Court made an error to assign the appeal to Justice Kumai Bayang Akaahs , who delivered ruling in the Federal court of Appeal between CCNL and Mobil Oil. Note, a judge cannot sit on his own appeal. Justice Aloma (CJN) apologized for the error, and she subsequently adjourned the appeal to 8th of April, 2013.


(2.3.3) 8th of April, 2013:  Honourable Justice Mahmud Mohammed granted the Cross Appeal filed by Mobil Oil, and the Amended Brief Of Argument filed by CCNL.


(2.3.4) 30th of October, 2013: Justice Tanko Mohammed ruled in the Inner Chamber of the Supreme Court On Accelerated Hearing Motion filed by CCNL, and subsequently adjourned the appeal to 5th of May, 2014.


(2.3.5) 5th of May, 2014: Honourable Justice Walter Nkanu Onnoghen (JSC) dismissed the Appeal of CCNL on an alleged notice of withdrawal purportedly written by Tony Ukam (Former CCNL Lawyer) but filed by Pastor Monday (Ex-Staff of CCNL), and Honourable Justice Walter Nkanu Onnoghen (JSC) subsequently adjourned the Cross Appeal to 7th of October, 2014.


(2.3.6) 7th of October, 2014: Court was unable to sit on any motion because 7th of October, 2014 clashed with Muslim Festival, and subsequently the court re-fixed the appeal to 3rd of November, 2014.


(2.3.7) 3rd of November, 2014: The death of the King was communicated to the Court. In view of the fact that a dead person cannot sue or be sued, Honourable Justice Mahmud Mohammed (CJN) subsequently adjourned the appeal to 19th of January, 2015 to effect the substitution of names of the King.


(2.3.Cool 19th of January, 2015: Justices of the Supreme Court of Nigeria were unable to entertain any motion because of JUSUN strike unfortunately clashed with 19th of January, 2015.


(3.0) The Need To Appreciate The BOD Members And Staff Of CCNL In The Course To Finalize The Appeal.

(3.1)  It is on record that CCNL filed its Appeal in the Registry of the Supreme Court of Nigeria in the year 2011, and the Appeal in question had been fixed for hearing (Cool eight times in the history of the case.


(3.2) There are appeals filed in year 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010 in the Registry of the Supreme Court of Nigeria that might have not been fixed for hearing up to (Cool eight times.


(3.3) Patentees of Comandclem Nigeria Limited should appreciate the concerted efforts of the entire Board of Directors, and staff in CCNL in their day to day struggles to finalize the appeal in the Supreme Court of Nigeria.


(3.4) We have the understanding that Patentees have invested for years in the Patented invention of CCNL without any return on their investment, but Patentees should as well appreciate the Management of CCNL for all the efforts put in place to finalize the case in the Supreme Court of Nigeria.


(4.0) Conclusion

(4.1) It is the sole responsibility of the Supreme Court of Nigeria to fix hearing date for cases listed before it as demonstrated by Honourable justices Uwa in the case between Bajoga v. Government, F.R.N.2007, when he said and I quote him verbatim.

It is the court`s duty to fix hearing date of the motion on notice after granting leave. An applicant has no role to play in the fixture of such hearing dates.
Per: Justice Uwa
Bajoga v. Government, F.R.N.2007


(4.2) From the above authority of Justice Uwa, it is obvious that the fixing of hearing date for cases before a court of competent jurisdiction is not the duty of any litigant but the responsibility of the court.


(4.3) Asking me (Yusuf Nurudeen) or The Board Of Directors in CCNL to fix hearing date for a case before The Supreme Court of Nigeria  is like asking us to take over the responsibility of the court.


(4.4) As the court pleases, & on the discretion of the court, the court shall notify The Board Of Directors in CCNL the next or new hearing date of suit sc./69/2011 through an instrument of the court called HEARING NOTICE.


(4.5) The moment a new hearing notice is issued by the court, I shall notify all the CCNL Patentees on the social media.


(4.5) Thanks for your understanding.


Yusuf Nurudeen (AAT, ACA)
CCNL Marketing Manager
4, Ogudu Road,
Ojota,
Lagos.
+234-703-252-2248
CCNL Twitter Handle: www.twitter.com/Comandlem_Nig
Facebook group:www.facebook.com/groups/comandclemforum/
Instagram: www.instagram.com/comandclem_nig_ltd
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://ccnlnewsupdate.africamotion.net
comandclem
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Patent Right Infringement: CCNL versus Mobil Oil   Wed Jul 01, 2015 9:56 am

An Open Letter To The National Judicial Council and
The Nigerian Bar Association

Reasons Why Professor Bankole Sodipo Should Be
Call To Order On Suit SC.69/2011
Before The Supreme Court Of Nigeria

A Legal Counsel Represents Two Conflicting Parties
In The Same Suit Before
The Supreme Court Of Nigeria.


(1.0) Introduction
(2.0) Issues Set Aside For Determination
(3.0) Argument On Ethical Ineligibility Of Professor Bankole Sodipo To Represent Comandclem Nigeria Limited In Suit Sc.69/2011
(4.0) Power Of The Supreme Court Of Nigeria To Restrain Professor Bankole Sodipo From Representing Comandclem Nigeria Limited In Suit SC.69/2011
(5.0) Conclusion

(1.0) Introduction
(1.1) History was made in the Open Court of the Supreme Court of Nigeria on the 2nd of June, 2015, when a Professor of Law, Professor Bankole Sodipo, from the legal firm of G.O. Sodipo & Co, announced his appearance for Comandclem Nigeria Limited (Cross Respondents/Applicants) in suit SC.69/2011 despite the fact that another Barrister, Barrister Daniel Ozoma from the same legal firm of G.O. Sodipo & Co had on the 5th of May, 2014, announced his appearance for A Party Sought To Be Joined (Oyewo Muideen Adekunle- An Antagonist of King Professor CJA Uwemedimo and Comandclem Nigeria Limited) in the same suit before the Supreme Court of Nigeria.

(1.2) On the 5th of May, 2014, one Barrister Daniel Ozoma from the legal firm of G.O. Sodipo & Co said before Honourable Justice Walter Samuel Nkanu Onneghen (JSC) and I quote him verbatim.

“My name is D.O. Ozoma; appearing with me is C. Igarubo-Beresibo, for party sought to be joined, we have an application to join the Applicants my lords”

Per: D.O. Ozoma
Legal Firm: G.O. Sodipo & Co
Date: 5th of May, 2014.


(1.3) Surprisingly, on the 2nd of June, 2015, Professor Bankole Sodipo from the legal firm of G.O. Sodipo & Co, said before Honourable Justice Walter Samuel Nkanu Onneghen (JSC) and I quote him verbatim.

‘My name is Professor Bankole Sodipo; with me is my learner friend, Professor Tony Ukam.”

Justice Walter Samuel Nkanu Onneghen (JSC) interrupted him and said to Professor Tony Ukam as follows,

“When they call your name; you get up and take a bow.”

Professor Bankole Sodipo continued the announcement of his appearance, and he said as follows.

“We humbly announce our appearances for the Cross Respondents /Applicants.”

Per: Professor Bankole Sodipo
Legal Firm: G.O. Sodipo & Co
Date: 2nd of June, 2015.


(2.0) Issues Set Aside For Determination

(2.1) The two issues set aside for determination are;

(1) Can a lawyer who represents a party (a party sought to join the appellants) in a legal suit ethically eligible to represent the opposing party (the appellants) in the same suit pending before the Supreme Court of Nigeria in view of Rule 10 (b) of the Legal Practitioners Act, Chapter 207, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria?

(2) Whether the Supreme Court of Nigeria has Inherent Power to restrain a counsel from representing the Appellants/Cross Respondents in a suit where such a counsel had earlier been briefed by the Opponent Party sought to join the Appellants/Cross Respondents?



(3.0) Argument On Ethical Ineligibility Of
Professor Bankole Sodipo To Represent
Comandclem Nigeria Limited In Suit Sc.69/2011

(3.1) Can a lawyer who represents a party (a party sought to join the appellants) in a legal suit ethically eligible to represent the opposing party (the appellants) in the same suit pending before the Supreme Court of Nigeria in view of Rule 10 (b) of the Legal Practitioners Act, Chapter 207, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria?

(3.2) Fundamental Facts Of The Case
(3.2.1) On the 10th day of April, 2014, one Professor Bankole Sodipo, from the legal firm of G.O. Sodipo & Co, filed an application to join one Mr. Oyewo Muideen Adekunle as Appellants/Cross Respondents in an appeal of Rev. Dr. C.J.A. Uwemedimo & Comandclem Nigeria Limited (Appellants/Cross Respondents) versus Mobil Producing Nigeria Unlimited (Respondent/Cross appellant) before the Supreme Court of Nigeria with suit number (SC.69/2011).

(3.2.2) Surprisingly, on the 12th day of June, 2015, the same Professor Bankole Sodipo, from the legal firm of G.O. Sodipo & Co, filed several applications on behalf of Comandclem Nigeria Limited (Applicants/Cross Respondents) in the Supreme Court of Nigeria despite the fact that the Honourable Justices Of The Supreme Court Of Nigeria have not make any categorical pronouncement on the outstanding application to join one Mr. Oyewo Muideen Adekunle as Appellants/Cross Respondents in the appeal he had filed on the 10th of April, 2014.

(3.2.3) The question is

“Can Professor Bankole Sodipo who represents Oyewo Muideen Adekunle in a legal suit ethically eligible to represent the opposing Comandclem Nigeria Limited in the same suit pending before the Supreme Court of Nigeria in view of Rule 10 (b) of the Legal Practitioners Act, Chapter 207, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria?”


(3.2.4) With your due permission, I quote Rule 10 (b) of the Legal Practitioners Act, Chapter 207, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria as follows.

10. Adverse Influences And Conflicting Interests
 
(b) It is unprofessional conduct to represent conflicting interests, except by express consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts. Within the meaning of this rule, a lawyer represents conflicting interests when in respect of one client of whom he presently contends the interests of that client touch or concern confidences of another client to whom the lawyer at the same time, owes a duty of service.


(3.2.5) From the above Legal Practitioners` Act, Professor Bankole Sodipo has violated the codes of conduct for the Legal Profession in Nigeria by representing the interests of two conflicting parties in the same suit pending before the Supreme Court of Nigeria.

(3.2.6) As a result of the above, The Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) and National Judicial Council (NJC) as a matter of necessity and in the interest of the legal profession in Nigeria should call Professor Bankole Sodipo to order so as to respect the prestigious codes of conduct for the legal profession in Nigeria, i.e. Rule 10 (b) of the Legal Practitioners Act, Chapter 207, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria.



(4.0) Power Of The Supreme Court Of Nigeria To Restrain Professor Bankole Sodipo From Representing Comandclem Nigeria Limited In Suit SC.69/2011

(4.1) Whether the Supreme Court of Nigeria has Inherent Power to restrain a counsel from representing the Appellants/Cross Respondents in a suit where such a counsel had earlier been briefed by the Opponent Party sought to join the Appellants/Cross Respondents?


(4.2.0) Fundamental Facts Of The Case

(4.2.1) Having been duly contacted and briefed by Mr. Oyewo Muideen Adekunle (An Antagonist of King Professor CJA Uwemedimo and Comandclem Nigeria Limited), Professor Bankole Sodipo filed an application to join him as an Appellant/Cross Respondent in suit SC.69/2011 on the 10th of April, 2014 in the Supreme Court of Nigeria.

(4.2.2) Surprisingly, the same Professor Bankole Sodipo claimed he was duly contacted and briefed by Comandclem Nigeria Limited which necessitated him to file several applications on behalf of Comandclem Nigeria Limited (Applicants/Cross Respondents) in the Supreme Court of Nigeria on the 12th day of May, 2015.

(4.2.3) The question is

“Whether the Supreme Court of Nigeria has Inherent Power to restrain Professor Bankole Sodipo from representing Comandclem Nigeria Limited in a suit where Professor Bankole Sodipo had earlier been briefed by Mr. Oyewo Muideen Adekunle (An Antagonist of King Professor CJA Uwemedimo and Comandclem Nigeria Limited)?”

(4.2.4) Being the highest court in the land, the Honourable Justices of The Supreme Court of Nigeria have Inherent Powers to restrain Professor Bankole Sodipo from representing Comandclem Nigeria Limited in the Supreme Court of Nigeria in suit SC.69/2011 because Professor Bankole Sodipo had earlier been briefed by an opponent of Comandclem Nigeria Limited.

(4.2.5) The above position of law is supported by the pronouncement of Honourable Justice Uwais (JSC) in the case of Anatogu V. Iweka II (1995) 8 NWLR (Pt.415) 547 where he said and I quote him verbatim.

"Generally, the courts are not to prevent Litigants from employing the services of counsel of their own choice.

However, a person must not be allowed to employ the services of a counsel, nor should a counsel accept a brief where it is clear that the services to be rendered flow out of or are closely connected with the previous services he had rendered to the opposing side.


Clearly the jurisdiction to restrain counsel from acting for the antagonist of his client stems from the principle that a man ought to be restrained from doing any act contrary to the duty that he owes to another, and that the jurisdiction will be exercised at the instance of the former client".

Per :Uwais J.S.C.
Anatogu V. Iweka II (1995) 8 NWLR (Pt.415) 547, at page 582 – 583.


(4.2.6) Furthermore, Honourable Justice Oseji, J.C.A. corroborated the above position of law in the case of Mrs. Mary E. Onyeka & Anor V. Celestine Ogbonna & Ors.when he said and I quote him verbatim.

"In Onyeke V. Harriclem (Nig.) Ltd (1998) 7 NWLR (Pt.556) 64. This court had cause to restrain a counsel Obi Akpudo Esq. or any counsel from his chambers from acting for the respondent (Harriclem (Nig.) Ltd.) against the appellant (Onyeke) in any case involving the subject matter in which he had earlier been briefed and obtained information from the appellant.

In this regard, their lordships per Akpabio, J.C.A. stated at page 72 as follows:-

"Before concluding, I must add by way of emphasis that what is being frowned upon by the court is the idea of a counsel appearing for the party, say the plaintiff, at an early stage of a transaction and their turning around at a later stage of the some transaction to appeal or act for his opponent."

Per:Oseji, J.C.A.(Pp. 24-25, paras. A-F)
Mrs. Mary E. Onyeka & Anor V. Celestine Ogbonna & Ors.
CITATION: (2013) LPELR-20718(CA)
In The Court of Appeal (Makurdi Judicial Division)
On Thursday, the 2nd day of May, 2013
Suit No: CA/MK/22/2011


(5.0) Conclusion

(5.1) Professor Bankole Sodipo has failed totally to uphold and observe the rule of law, promote and foster the cause of justice, maintain a high standard of professional conduct, and has engaged conduct which is unbecoming of a legal practitioner by representing two conflicting parties in the same suit (SC.69/2011) before the Supreme Court of Nigeria.

(5.2) Professor Bankole Sodipo being an officer of the court, he has conducted himself in a manner that has obstructed, delayed, and adversely affected the speedy determination of a fifteen-year-old case between Comandclem Nigeria Limited and Mobil Producing Nigeria Unlimited by causing avoidable adjournment of the appeal to the 19th of October, 2105.

(5.3) In order to respect the code of conducts for the Legal Profession in Nigeria, The National Judicial Council & The Nigerian Bar Association should call Professor Bankole Sodipo to order to refrain from representing two conflicting parties in the same suit SC.69/2011 before the Supreme Court of Nigeria.


CCNL Corporate Reporter
Name: Yusuf Nurudeen (B. Sc., AAT, ACA)
Position: CCNL Marketing Manager
4, Ogudu Road,
Ojota,
Lagos.
+234-703-252-2248
Back to top Go down
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: Patent Right Infringement: CCNL versus Mobil Oil   

Back to top Go down
 
Patent Right Infringement: CCNL versus Mobil Oil
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 1 of 1
 Similar topics
-
» How DVPS (Delivery Versus Payment System) will benefit to CSE.
» Delivery Versus Payment (DVP) on CSE!
» Crypto Colonizing: B of A's Blockchain-Patent Strategy
» Window Dressing and Cooking Books!
» "Judge slashes $1 bn Samsung-Apple penalty in half"

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
CCNL NEWS UPDATE :: Patent Right Infringement Appeal: CCNL versus Mobil Oil-
Jump to: