Update

JITI'S CASE

Newsdiaryonline

FORM 3

General Form of Originating Summons

(O.3, r.9)

IN THE FEDERAL HIGH COURT

IN THE LAGOS JUDICIAL DIVISION

HOLDEN AT LAGOS

SUIT NO: …………………

BETWEEN:

JITI OGUNYE PLAINTIFF

AND

THE REGISTERED TRUSTEES OF THE NATIONAL

ASSOCIATION OF NIGERIAN FOOTBALLERS (NANF)

NIGERIAN FOOTBALL ASSOCIATION, NFA

(Trading under the name and style of The Nigerian Football Federation,

NFF)

ALHAJI AMINU MAIGARI

NIGERIAN PREMIER LEAGUE BOARD

(Trading under the Name and style of the Nigerian Premier League)

DEFENDANTS

MR. DAVIDSON OWUMI, President, Nigerian Premier League Board

THE MINISTER OF SPORTS

THE DIRECTOR-GENERAL OF SPORTS, FED. MIN. OF SPORTS

THE ELECTORAL COMMITTEE, NIGERIAN FOOTBALL

ASSOCIATION

A.U MUSTAPHA

INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE

ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF THE FEDERATION

ORIGINATING SUMMONS

Let the defendants, all of the of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, Nigeria in the Lagos Judicial Division of the Federal High Court, within thirty days after service of this Summons on them, inclusive of the day of such service, cause an appearance to be entered for them to this Summons, which is issued upon the application of the above-named Plaintiff, Legal Practitioner and member of the Legal Profession in Nigeria, who claims that the Order made on the 6^th day of September, 2010 by Honourable Justice O. E Abang of the Federal High Court, Lagos Judicial Division, in Suit No FHC/L/CS/962/10 (The Registered Trustees of the National Association of Nigeria Footballers, NANF v Nigerian Football Association, NFA & 7 Ors), which, among other orders, annulled the elections conducted on 26^th August 2010, by the 1^st, 2^nd 7^th and 8^th Defendants in the said Suit No FHC/L/CS/962/10, is, upon the discontinuance of the Suit, being impudently disobeyed generally by the Defendants herein, and particularly by the Defendants in the said Suit No FHC/L/CS/962/10, in that the 1^st and 2^nd Defendants in the said Suit have reinstated themselves into office and are now carrying out the functions of the 1^st Defendant in the said Suit pursuant to the purported mandate they obtained in the said annulled election; and that as such the actions of the Defendants herein violate the provisions of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, including the principle of separation of powers and the doctrine of the independence of the judiciary on which the Constitution is predicated, assail the integrity of the Federal High Court and the sanctity of its orders, subvert the rule of law, negate the orderly administration of justice in the Federal Republic of Nigeria, impact negatively on his ( Plaintiff” s law practice, and adversely affect the faith of his clients and prospective clients in the inviolability of the orders of courts, for the determination of the following questions:

WHETHER :-

The Order made on the 6^th day of September, 2010 by Honourable Justice O. E Abang of the Federal High Court, Lagos Judicial Division, in Suit No FHC/L/CS/962/10 (The Registered Trustees of the National Association of Nigeria Footballers, NANF v Nigerian Football Association, NFA & 7 Ors), which, among other orders, annulled the elections conducted on 26^th August 2010, by the 1^st, 2^nd 7^th and 8^th Defendants in the said Suit No FHC/L/CS/962/10, into the Board of the Nigeria Football Association has lapsed, become spent or vacated, or same, actually or impliedly, has been discharged invalidated or rendered ineffective by virtue of the discontinuance or withdrawal of the said Suit by the Plaintiff therein, and the consequential striking out of the said Suit by the said Court on 25^th of October, 2010
The said Order made on the 6^th day of September, 2010 by Honourable Justice O. E Abang of the Federal High Court, Lagos Judicial Division, in Suit No FHC/L/CS/962/10 (The Registered Trustees of the National Association of Nigeria Footballers, NANF v Nigerian Football Association, NFA & 7 Ors), which, among other orders, annulled the election that was conducted on 26^th August 2010, by the 1^st, 2^nd 7^th and 8^th Defendants in the said Suit No FHC/L/CS/962/10, into the Board of the Nigeria Football Association was an interlocutory order, the life of which was tied to and dependent on the pendency of the said Suit or a substantive order of mandatory injunction made by the Court, pursuant to its powers under Section 6 (6) [a&b], Section 287(3) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, and the originating and inherent powers of the Court, to enforce its orders and ensure compliance therewith
The Defendants herein or parties to the said Suit, No FHC/L/CS/962/10 can, by mutual consent or agreement amongst them, vary the said order of Court, set it aside or disobey same, without recourse to the Court or to the due process of law, for the judicial discharge, variation or vacation of the said order
Defendants herein are not under a constitutional and legal obligation to continue to obey, observe, carry out and enforce the said order of Court by treating the said election, which was conducted in contumacious and flagrant disobedience to the order of court restraining the election from being held, as having been conclusively annulled, and ensuring that a fresh election is conducted into the Board of the Nigerian Football Association

AND THE PLAINTIFF PRAYS AS FOLLOWS:

1. A DECLARATION that the Order made on the 6^th day of September, 2010 by Honourable Justice O. E Abang of the Federal High Court, Lagos Judicial Division, in Suit No FHC/L/CS/962/10 (The Registered Trustees of the National Association of Nigeria Footballers, NANF v Nigerian Football Association, NFA & 7 Ors), which, among other orders, annulled the elections conducted on 26^th August 2010, by the 1^st, 2^nd 7^th and 8^th Defendants in the said Suit No FHC/L/CS/962/10, into the Board of the Nigeria Football Association is in force, valid, subsisting, operative, effective and binding, regardless of the discontinuance or withdrawal of the said Suit by the Plaintiff therein, and the consequential striking out of the said Suit by the said Court on 26^th of October, 2010

2. A DECLARATION that the said Order made on the 6^th day of September, 2010 by Honourable Justice O. E Abang of the Federal High Court, Lagos Judicial Division, in Suit No FHC/L/CS/962/10 (The Registered Trustees of the National Association of Nigeria Footballers, NANF v Nigerian Football Association, NFA & 7 Ors), which, among other orders, annulled the election that was conducted on 26^th August 2010, by the 1^st, 2^nd 7^th and 8^th Defendants in the said Suit No FHC/L/CS/962/10, into the Board of the Nigeria Football Association was not an interlocutory order, the life of which was tied to and dependent on the pendency of the said Suit but a substantive order of mandatory injunction made by the Court, pursuant to its powers under Section 6 (6) [a&b], Section 287(3) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, and the originating and inherent powers of the Court, to enforce its orders and ensure compliance therewith

3. A DECLARATION that the Defendants herein, or parties to the said Suit, No FHC/L/CS/962/10 cannot, in law, vary the said order of Court, set it aside or disobey same, by mutual consent or agreement amongst them, without recourse to the Court or to the due process of law, for the judicial discharge, variation or vacation of the said order

4. A DECLARATION that the Defendants herein are under a constitutional and legal duty to continue to obey, observe, carry out and enforce the said order of Court by treating the said election, which was conducted in contumacious and flagrant disobedience to the order of court restraining the election from being held, as having been conclusively annulled, and ensuring that a fresh election is conducted into the Board of the Nigerian Football Association

5. AN ORDER OF MANDAMUS compelling the 10^th and 11^th Defendants ( Inspector-General of Police and Attorney-General of the Federation ) jointly and severally to execute paragraph iv of the said order of Court of 6^th September, 2010, by removing any person or group of persons occupying the elective offices of Nigerian Football Association and its Congress acting under the name and style of Nigerian Football Federation anywhere within the Federation ( Nigeria), arising from the purported elections held on 26^th August, 2010

6. AN ORDER OF PERPETUAL INJUNCTION restraining the members of the Board of the 2^nd Defendant herein ( Nigerian Football Association), and the 3^rd Defendant ( Alhaji Aminu Maigari) from occupying the offices of members and officers of the 2^nd Defendant, discharging the duties and functions of those offices or parading themselves as members and officers the 2^ND Defendant’s Board, in any way or manner whatsoever and howsoever, in so far as their respective and joint claim to occupy those offices and discharge the said duties and functions emanate from the said election of 26^th August 2010, which has been annulled by the said Court

7. AN ORDER OF PERPETUAL INJUNCTION restraining all the Defendants herein, either by themselves, their agents, servants and/or privies from further treating the said election of 26^th August 2010 and its purported outcome as valid or recognising or relating to the members and officers of the Board of the 2^nd Defendant purportedly elected on the said date as duly elected officers of members and officers of the Board of the 2^nd Defendant

Dated the ……………… day of November, 2010

Jiti Ogunye, Esq.

Jiti Ogunye Chambers

Plaintiffs’ Counsel

Top Floor, Flat 1

10E Olanrewaju Street

Off Kudirat Abiola Way

Oregun, Ikeja, Lagos State

Tel: 01-76174777, 07029680070, 08023600378

Email-jitilaw@yahoo.com

This summons was taken out by JITI OGUNYE, ESQ, Legal Practitioner for the above-named Plaintiff.

The Defendants may appear hereto by entering appearance personally or by a Legal Practitioner either by handling in the appropriate form duly completed, at the Federal High Court Registry or by sending them to that office by post.

Note:

If the Defendants do not enter appearance within the time and the place above mentioned, such orders will be made and proceedings may be taken as the Judge may think just and expedient.

For Service On:

1. 1^st Defendant

66, Campbell Street

Lagos Island

Lagos State

2. 2^nd Defendant

Plot 2033, Olusegun Obasanjo Way,

Zone 7, Wuse, Abuja, FCT

3. 3^rd Defendant

Plot 2033, Olusegun Obasanjo Way,

Zone 7, Wuse, Abuja, FCT.

4. 4^th Defendant

No. 31 Karaye Close,

Off Amurie Omanze Street,

Garki 11 – Abuja, FCT

5. 5^th Defendant

No. 31 Karaye Close,

Off Amurie Omanze Street,

Garki 11 – Abuja, FCT

6. 6^th Defendant

Federal Ministry of Youth and Sports,

Federal Secretariat, Abuja.

7. 7^th Defendant

Federal Ministry of Youth and Sports,

Federal Secretariat, Abuja.

8 8^th Defendant

C/o A. U. Mustapha & Co.,

Office 20B, East Pavilion,

T. B. S. Complex,

Lagos, Nigeria.

9. 9^th Defendant

A. U. Mustapha & Co.,

Office 20b, East Pavilion,

T. B. S. Complex,

10 10^th Defendant

Force Headquarters

Louis Edet House

Abuja, FCT

Abuja, FCT.

11. 11^th Defendant

Federal Ministry of Justice

Abuja, FCT

IN THE FEDERAL HIGH COURT

IN THE LAGOS JUDICIAL DIVISION

HOLDEN AT LAGOS

SUIT NO: …………………

BETWEEN:

JITI OGUNYE PLAINTIFF

AND

THE REGISTERED TRUSTEES OF THE NATIONAL

ASSOCIATION OF NIGERIAN FOOTBALLERS (NANF)

NIGERIAN FOOTBALL ASSOCIATION, NFA

(Trading under the name and style of The Nigerian Football

Federation,NFF)

ALHAJI AMINU MAIGARI

DEFENDANTS

NIGERIAN PREMIER LEAGUE BOARD

(Trading under the Name and style of the Nigerian Premier

League)

MR. DAVIDSON OWUMI, President,Nigerian Premier

League Board

THE MINISTER OF SPORTS

THE DIRECTOR-GENERAL OF SPORTS, FED. MIN. OF

SPORTS

THE ELECTORAL COMMITTEE, NIGERIAN FOOTBALL

ASSOCIATION

A.U MUSTAPHA

INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE

ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF THE FEDERATION

AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF ORIGINATING SUMMONS

I, Jiti Ogunye, Male, Nigerian Citizen and Legal Practitioner of 10E Olanrewaju Street, Off Kudirat Abiola Way, Ikeja-Lagos State do hereby make oath and state as follows:

1. That I am the Plaintiff herein by virtue of which fact I am conversant with the facts of this Suit.

2. That I am a Solicitor and Advocate of the Supreme Court of Nigeria

3. That since I became a member of the legal profession in Nigeria, I have practiced in and appeared before Magistrate Courts, High Courts, Divisions of the Court of Appeal, and in the Supreme Court of Nigeria.

4. That in particular, I have been handling cases in the Divisions of the Federal High Court of Nigeria

5. That currently my law firm, Jiti Ogunye Chambers, is representing Clients and prosecuting cases in the Federal High Court in the Lagos and other Divisions of the Court.

6. That the 1^st Defendants herein are the Registered Trustees of National Association of Nigerian Footballers (NANF)

7. That the 2^nd Defendant herein is the Nigerian Football Association, a body corporate with perpetual succession and a common seal, established by the Nigerian Football Association Act, Cap N110, Volume 12, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004

8. That the 3^rd Defendant is the purported Chairman/President of the Nigerian Football Association, who claims to have been elected as such on the 26^th of August, 2010 in an election purportedly conducted into the Governing Board (Executive Committee) and Congress of the Nigerian Football Association, acting under the name and style of the Nigerian Football Federation

9. That the 4^th Defendant is the Nigerian Premier League Board, while the 5^th Defendant is the President of the 4^th Defendant

10. That the 6^th Defendant is the Honourable Minister of Sports in the Federal Republic of Nigeria, while the 7^th Defendant is the Director-General of Sports in the Federal Ministry of Sports of the Federal Republic of Nigeria

11. That the 8^th Defendant is the Electoral Committee set up to conduct the said election into the Governing Board (Executive Committee) and Congress of the Nigerian Football Association, which purportedly conducted the said elections, while the 9^th Defendant is a legal practitioner, who acted as the chair of the 8th Defendant, the said Electoral Committee

12. That the 10^th Defendant is the Inspector-General of Police, whose office is created by Section 215(1)(a) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, and under whose command the Nigeria Police Force is placed by virtue of Section 215 (2) of the Constitution

13. That the 11^th Defendant is the Attorney-General of the Federation, who, by virtue of Section 150(1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, is the chief law officer and Minister of Justice of the Federation

14. That I am a member of the Nigerian Bar Association, Ikeja Branch, which I served in the capacity of Assistant Secretary-General in 1994/95.

15. That I was very active in the pro-democracy and human rights movement that fought, along with other groups, against the military dictatorship, leading to the restoration of civil rule to Nigeria in 1999

16. That at several times during the era of military rule, I was a member of the Campaign for Democracy[CD], Joint Action Committee on Nigeria [JACON], and Committee for the Defence of Human Rights[CDHR], which I led as Secretary-General between 1995 and 1999

17. That currently I am the President of Lawyers’ League for Human Rights [LLHR], a lawyers’ non-governmental organization that researches; educates, campaigns, advocates and litigates on human rights, democracy, rule of law and development issues.

18. That by my profession, association and disposition, I am committed to promoting rule of law in Nigeria

19. That naturally, I am particularly jealous of the principles of separation of powers and the independence of the Judiciary, for my very obvious enlightened self-interest, and because of the importance of the preservation of the independence and good health of the Judiciary to the protection of the rule of law and due process, and promotion of the common good

20. That in August 2010, the print and electronic media in Nigeria started reporting court proceedings in Suit No FHC/L/CS/962/10 (The Registered Trustees of the National Association of Nigeria Footballers, NANF v Nigerian Football Association, NFA & 7 Ors), an action which was instituted by the National Association of Nigerian Footballers against the Nigerian Football Association, NFA, and seven (7) other Defendants concerned with the management and administration of Nigerian football

21. That for the purpose of this instant Originating Summons, I applied for and obtained the certified true copies of all the court processes filed and orders that were made in the said action, Suit No FHC/L/CS/962/10 (The Registered Trustees of the National Association of Nigeria Footballers, NANF v Nigerian Football Association, NFA & 7 Ors)

22. That the action, which was brought by the mode of Originating Summons, sought, among other questions, the determination of the question whether, by the provisions of the NFA Statute, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004, the guidelines issued by the Electoral Committee for the 2010 Elections ( of the NFA) is lawful, legal, effective and effectual, especially considering the provisions of the NFF Statute, 2010, as to its composition ( that is composition of the Electoral Committee). Attached hereto and marked Exhibit J1 is a certified true copy of the Originating Summons, filed in the Suit

23. That the Originating Summons also sought the following reliefs, among others, :

1. A DECLARATION of this Honourable Court that the extension of the tenure of the members of the 1^st Defendant herein vide the resolution and all the decisions taken by the First Defendant thereafter are illegal, null and void in that they violate the letter and spirit of relevant statutes.

2. AN ORDER of this Honourable Court restraining the 1^st Defendant herein , whether by itself, servants, agents, privies or representatives from further implementing its resolutions, (including electoral matters) in any manner whatsoever and howsoever, extending the various expired tenures of the 37 states football association members, not being their appointive, selective or elective body.

3. AN ORDER of this Honourable Court restraining the Defendants herein ,whether by themselves, servants, agents, privies or representatives from conducting any election in any manner whatsoever and howsoever into the Congress of the 1st Defendant on 21, August 2010 or any time subsequently except in accordance with the provisions of the governing statutes

4. AN ORDER of this Honourable Court restraining the 1^st Defendant herein, whether by itself, servants, agents, privies or representatives from disturbing and or disrupting the activities of its affiliates in any manner whatsoever and howsoever.

24. That being a lawyer who researches, documents and reviews public interest litigations, who, indeed, has published a law report on public interest litigations ( entitled Nigerian Courts and Public Interest Litigations, Volume 1, Nigerian Public Interest Litigation Reports, 2002), I developed a keen interest in the said action, and I followed its progression, religiously

25. That my keen interest in the Suit was further fired by my belief that organized football in Nigeria is bedeviled by gross mismanagement and corruption, ranging from disappearance of funds ( in foreign currencies) meant for upkeep of players in the national football teams, shoddy and irresponsible preparation for continental and global football competitions, infighting and selfish money-mongering politicking within the national football body, nepotism and cronyism in the choice and selection coaches and managers of our national teams, and of players to represent Nigeria in international football competitions and events; and lack of probity, accountability and transparency in the conduct of the affairs of the Nigerian Football Association.

26. That the said gross mismanagement and corruption have resulted in the dismal performance of Nigeria’s national teams in international football competitions as well as the decline in the quality and fortune of football teams playing or featuring in the football league in Nigeria.

27. That I was, therefore, hopeful that the Suit would help cure some of the problems of Nigeria football, and restore sanity to the Nigeria Football Association.

28. That I was also hopeful that the said action would also enable the court to pronounce on powers or otherwise of Nigerian law enforcement and anti-corruption agencies to investigate and prosecute criminal acts that are committed in the course of administration and management of Nigerian football, in view of the often bandied claim that Nigerian football, under the rubric of the Federation of International Football Associations ( FIFA), is immune to and precluded from interference in any shape or form whatsoever, from national authorities.

29. That I also expected the Court to pronounce on the ambit of, and limits to its powers and jurisdiction to entertain claims pertaining to the affairs and activities of the Nigerian Football Association, a body created by an Act of the National Assembly of Nigeria.

30. That by an Order made on the 18^th of August, 2010, by Hon. Justice O.E Abang of the Lagos Division of the Federal High Court, the Judge to whom the said action was assigned, the Court ordered that the Motion Ex Parte for Interim Injunction, seeking to restrain the Defendants in the Suit from conducting elections into the Governing Board ( Executive Committee) and Congress of the Nigerian Football Association, on the 26^th of August, 2010, be converted to a motion on notice and served on the Defendants. Attached hereto and marked Exhibit J2 is a certified true copy of the said order.

31. That the Honourable Court then adjourned the Motion Ex-Parte ( converted to Motion on Notice) to 20^th August for hearing.

32. That on the 20^th of August, 2010, counsel to the 1^st, 7^th and 8^th Defendants in the Suit ( Nigerian Football Association, A.U Mustapha and the Electoral Committee- the chair of the electoral committee and the committee set up to conduct the elections sought to be restrained) and counsel to the 4^th, 5^th and 6^th Defendants appeared before the Honourable Court, and sought for time to react to the Motion Ex-Parte ( converted to Motion on Notice) seeking an order of injunction

33. That consequently on the said 20^th of August, 2010, Hon. Justice O.E Abang of the Lagos Division of the Federal High Court made an Order in the said Suit, directing parties to the Suit to maintain status quo ante bellum, pending the hearing of the said Motion Ex-Parte; the Court then adjourned hearing of the Motion Ex-parte to 24^th of August, 2010. Attached hereto and marked Exhibit J3 and Exhibit J4 is a certified true copy of the Ruling delivered by the Honourable Court and a certified true copy of the enrolled order of the Honourable Court

34. That on the 24^th day of August, 2010, Hon. Justice M.B Idris of the Lagos Division of the Federal High Court (presiding over the Suit as a vacation Judge) made an order, reiterating the order earlier made by Hon. Justice O.E Abang, to the effect that the parties to the action should maintain the status quo ante bellum, pending the hearing of the Motion Ex-Parte, and thereafter adjourned further hearing in the Suit to 30^th of August, 2010. Attached hereto and marked Exhibit J5 is a certified true copy of the Enrolled Order

35. That the Suit was subsequently adjourned to 6^th of September, 2010

36. That in spite of the said orders of court directing the parties to maintain status quo ante bellum pending the hearing or determination of the 2^nd leg of the Plaintiff’s Motion, dated 6^th day of August, 2010, duly served on the Defendants in the said Suit, the 1^st 2^nd, 7^th and 8^th Defendants ( Nigerian Football Association, Alhaji Aminu Maigari, the Electoral Committee NFA, and A.U Mustapha, Esq. ), went ahead to conduct elections into the Governing Board ( Executive Committee ) and Congress of Nigerian Football Association, acting under the name and style of Nigerian Football Federation; in the said election, the 2^nd Defendant in the Suit claimed to have been elected as the Chairman/President of the Nigerian Football Association.

37. That piqued by the conduct of the said 1^st 2^nd, 7^th and 8^th Defendants ( Nigerian Football Association, Alhaji Aminu Maigari, the Electoral Committee NFA, and A.U Mustapha, Esq ), their agents, servants and privies, and the contestants in the said election, in organizing and participating in an election that had been forbidden by orders of Court, pending the hearing or determination of an application for an order of interlocutory injunction restraining the Defendants from holding or conducting the said election, pending the hearing of the originating summons, the Plaintiff filed an application, dated the 31st day of August, 2010, seeking to commit the said 1^st 2^nd, 7^th and 8^th Defendants and others to prison for their flagrant, contumacious and contemptuous violations of the orders of court.

38. That meanwhile, the 1^st, 7^th and 8^th Defendants, upon receiving the court processes and, in particular, the said orders of Court of 20^th and 24^th of August, 2010, filed a Motion on Notice, dated 25^th day of August, 2010; and they also filed a Notice of Preliminary Objection dated 25^th day of August, 2010, praying the Court to discharge the orders of Court of 20^th and 24^th of August, 2010, respectively, and also challenging the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain the Substantive Suit ( Originating Summons)

39. That after hearing Counsel in the Suit on the order of hearing of the said Applications pending before that Court, that is on the Application to be determined first, the Honourable Court ruled that the Motion on Notice filed by the Plaintiff/ Applicant seeking to commit the 1^st, 2^nd, 7^th and 8^th Defendants and their agents to prison for flouting the Orders of Court would be determined first, and accordingly adjourned the hearing of the Motion on Notice to 21^st of September, 2010, while ordering the Respondents to the Contempt Application to appear before the Court, in person, in view of the criminal nature of the committal proceedings

40. That very instructively, the Court also held and ordered as follows:

“And the Honourable Court having duly considered the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Ebhodaghe V. Okoye (2004) 18 NWLR PT. 905 P. 485 to 502 on this subject, Sections 6 sub Section 6 (a & b) and Section 287/3 of 1999 Constitution as regard the inherent jurisdiction, powers, sanctions of a court of law and enforcement of decisions of this Court in any part of Federation by all authorities and persons;

It is hereby ordered as follows-

………..

(iii) That the Elections conducted by the 1^st, 2^nd, 7^th and 8^th Defendants on 26^th August, 2010 into the Executive Committee and Congress of Nigeria Football Association acting under the name and style of Nigerian Football Federation (NFF) on 26^th August, 2010 at Abuja Federal Capital Territory despite the subsisting Order of this Court dated 20^th August, 2010 that was later restated by this Court on 24^th August, 2010 restraining the Defendants from conducting the said Election, the said Order having not been vacated or set aside before the purported Election was held is hereby nullified. The 1^st, 2^nd, 7^th and 8^th Defendants laboured and acted in vain.

( iv) The Inspector General of Police in exercise of his command in the Nigeria Police Force as regard enforcement of Court’s decision under section 287/3 of 1999 Constitution is hereby Ordered to remove any person or group of persons occupying the elective offices of Nigerian Football Association and its Congress acting under the name and style of Nigerian Football Federation any where within the Federation arising from the purported Elections held on 26^th August, 2010.

(v) That the most senior officer of Nigerian Football Association acting under the name and style of Nigerian Football Federation is to take control and command of the Nigerian Football Association pending when the Elections are conducted.

(vi) That Order is to be served on:

i Inspector General of Police

ii Most Senior Officer in Nigeria Football Association.

Iii Minister of Sports of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.”

Attached hereto and marked Exhibits J6 and J7 is a certified true copy of the Ruling delivered by the Honourable Court and the Enrolled Order of Court

41. That by the said order of Court, the said election that was held in disobedience to the orders of Court was annulled.

42. That upon the said order annulling the said election being made by the Court, the 1^st, 2^nd, 7^th and 8^th Defendants and their agents accepted that the election had been annulled by the Court, and that all persons purportedly elected at the election were not duly elected, and, therefore, could not exercise the duties and functions of the members and officers of the Governing Board (Executive Committee) of the Nigerian Football Association and that of its Congress.

43. That on the 21^st of September, 2010, the Motion for committal was heard by the Court and the Ruling thereon was adjourned to 5^th of October, 2010.

44. That on the 5^th of October, 2010, after the Court restated that the orders of Court forbidding the holding of the said election were violated by the affected Defendants and their agents and privies, the Court dismissed the said Motion for committal, holding, among other reasons, that since Form 49 was not filed and served on the affected Defendants and Respondents to the Motion for committal, before the filing and service of the Motion for committal, the Motion was incompetent.

45. That the Court then adjourned the hearing of the 1^st, 7^th and 8^th Defendants’ Notice of Preliminary Objection, dated 25^th day of August, 2010, praying the Court to discharge the orders of Court of 20^th and 24^th of August, 2010, respectively, and also challenging the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain the Substantive Suit, to the 25^th of October, 2010.

46. That on the 25^th of October, 2010, in a move which surprised me, and which I believe surprised many other Nigerians who keenly were watching how the Suit was going to be resolved, the Plaintiff withdrew the said Suit, by moving a Notice of Discontinuance ( Notice of Withdrawal) filed on the 25^th of October, 2010. Attached hereto and marked Exhibit J8 is a certified true copy of the Notice of Discontinuance

47. That from what I read in the print media, in particular Complete Sports of Tuesday October 26, 2010 at page 7 and Back Page thereof, under the respective captions of “ Do the Right Thing Now” and “Legal Blunder leaves NFF Board in Pains, despite NANF withdrawing Suit from Court,” the Suit was withdrawn based on meetings the Plaintiff had and the undisclosed Agreement the Plaintiff reached with the National Sports Commission (NSC), the House Committee on Sports and Nigeria Football Federation. Attached hereto and marked Exhibit J9 is a copy of the said pages of the said sports newspaper, Complete Sports.

48. That at the time the Court struck out the Suit, upon the withdrawal or discontinuance of the Suit, the orders canceling or annulling the said election had not been varied or discharged.

49. That after the Court struck out the Suit, the persons whose elections into the Board (Executive Committee) and Congress of the Nigerian Football Association (the 2^nd Defendant herein) were annulled by the Court, chiefly on the ground that the said elections were conducted in arrogant and contemptuous disobedience to the orders of Court, especially Alhaji Aminu Maigari ( the 3^rd Defendant herein) have now “ resumed” the exercise of their respective

functions and duties as officers and members of the Board and Congress of the Nigeria Football Association, in total disregard of the orders of Court.

50. That following the striking out of the said Suit, many commentators, including Dr. Joseph Nwobike, SAN, Counsel to the 1^st, 7^th and 8^th Defendants, and one Christopher Green, who is said to be a “, lawyer, Board member of the Nigerian Football Federation, and a former Rivers State Commissioner for Sports” were reported by the print media to have declared that with the withdrawal of the said Suit, the members and officers of the Nigeria Football Association, in the Executive Committee, purportedly elected in the said annulled election could return to their positions, as if the Court never made any such order. Attached hereto and marked Exhibits J10 and J11 are media reports of the said declarations at page 54 of Compass & Guardian Newspaper of Tuesday October 26, the back page of Daily Sun of Tuesday October, 26, 2010, ..and Sporting Life & Daily Trust of 27^th and 29^th October, 2010.

51. That from the said declaration and actions of the 1^st, 2^nd and 8^th Defendants in the withdrawn and struck out Suit, it is clear that the position of the Defendants herein is that with the withdrawal of the said Suit, the results and outcome of the said elections, held in disobedience to orders of Court, results and outcome which were later annulled by the order of Court, have been restored, and that the persons purportedly elected in the said elections automatically have returned to their positions.

52. That, as a lawyer and a citizen of Nigeria, I am greatly bothered that the conduct of the parties ( Plaintiff and Defendants) to the withdrawn and struck out Suit appears to be a deliberate and calculated attempt to ridicule, and denigrate the Judiciary and make it a subject of public scorn

53. That by inviting Hon. Justice O.E Abang and Hon Justice M.B Idris to make an order of injunction ( by way of directing parties to the withdrawn case to maintain status quo ante bellum) restraining the conduct of the election, the disobedience of which resulted in the court annulling the said election in enforcement of its powers, the Honourable Justices of the Federal High Court were encouraged by the Plaintiff to put the integrity of not only the Federal High Court but also that of the Nigerian Judiciary at stake.

54. That by withdrawing the said Suit without applying to the Court to discharge or vacate the said orders annulling the said elections, and later conspiring or agreeing to the disobedience of the said order of court annulling the said election, the Federal High Court, in general, and the two Honourable Judges, in particular, were set up for ridicule and embarrassment.

55. That I fear that because of the conduct of the Plaintiff and Defendants in the said Suit ( some of whom are Defendants herein), the two Judges and other Judges in the Federal High Court may be disinclined to or disinterested in granting orders directing parties to maintain status quo ante bellum, in the cases

I currently conduct and in cases which I may institute in the Federal High Court in the future.

56. That the refusal, neglect or failure of the 10^th and 11^th Defendants herein to ensure that the order of Court annulling the said elections is faithfully and wholly carried out, in a sustained manner, may also weigh heavily against the grant of such orders now and in the future, when I present cases of my clients in the Federal High Court, even when the grant of such orders are warranted by the facts and circumstances of the cases that I present.

57. That I know that Judges do not like their orders being flouted or being treated with disdain and levity

58. That the conduct of the Defendants herein is, therefore, prejudicial to my law practice and the legal interests of my clients and those of my prospective clients

59. That as a lawyer I know that a court of law is enjoined by its law and rules of court to foster reconciliation and out of court settlement amongst parties

60. That I know as a lawyer that terms of settlement, adopted by the court as its judgment or award, are usually filed when parties are settling their cases out of court, not only to bind parties to an enforceable decision of court, but also to preserve the integrity of the courts

61. That a court of law is not a depository of frivolous cases or a trade union platform that issues trade dispute notices or strike action ultimatums and withdraws them as it pleases, as a bargaining chip.

62. That I know that the Court does not engage in a game of hide and seek nor does it lend its weight to actualize the grandstanding of disputants that come before it for adjudication.

63. That I know that the Court does not entertain academic questions or imaginary claims

64. That by Rule 1 (1) of Rules of Professional Conduct for Legal Practitioners, 2007, I have a general responsibility to “ uphold and observe the rule of law, promote and foster the cause of justice, maintain a high standard of professional conduct, and not engage in any conduct which is unbecoming of a legal practitioner”

65. That a definitive pronouncement of this Honourable Court on the question I have submitted to this Honourable Court for determination will help strengthen the rule and the due process of law in the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

66. That the game of football has become so central to the lives of Nigerian youth that many of them, who are victims of cultural imperialism, in the sphere of sports, now engage in partisan violence to demonstrate their supports and loyalties to European football clubs, especially football clubs playing in the English Premier League. Attached hereto and marked Exhibit J12 is a report at page 74 of The Punch of Wednesday November 10, 2010, detailing the violent clash between fans of two English football clubs, following a football match in England, which took place in Rivers State.

67. That in Lagos, and across the Country, violent and fatal clashes, like the one reported in the said Punch Newspaper, are now very rampant.

68. That I believe that if the game of football is properly administered and managed in Nigeria, our young people would no longer be fighting and dying over football matches in Europe, but would die supporting and fighting for Nigerian football teams, if they have to die at all, in supporting football clubs.

69. That it is in the interest of justice if the reliefs sought in this Originating Summons are granted.

70. That I depose to this Affidavit in good faith, conscientiously believing same to be true and in accordance with the Oath Act.

____________________

DEPONENT

Sworn to at the Federal High

Court Registry, Lagos.

Dated this ………….. day of November, 2010.

BEFORE ME

COMMISSIONER FOR OATHS

IN THE FEDERAL HIGH COURT

IN THE LAGOS JUDICIAL DIVISION

HOLDEN AT LAGOS

SUIT NO: …………………

BETWEEN:

JITI OGUNYE PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT

AND

THE REGISTERED TRUSTEES OF THE

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF NIGERIAN

FOOTBALLERS (NANF)

2. NIGERIAN FOOTBALL ASSOCIATION, NFA

(Trading under the name and style of The Nigerian

Football Federation, NFF)

3. ALHAJI AMINU MAIGARI

DEFENDANTS/RESPONDENTS

4. NIGERIANEMIER LEAGUE BOARD

(Trading under the Name and style of the

Nigerian Premier League)

MR. DAVIDSON OWUMI, President,

Nigerian Premier League Board

6. THE MINISTER OF SPORTS

7. THE DIRECTOR-GENERAL OF SPORTS,

FED. MIN. OF SPORTS

8. THE ELECTORAL COMMITTEE, NIGERIAN

FOOTBALL ASSOCIATION

9. A.U MUSTAPHA

10. INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE

11. ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF THE FEDERATION

MOTION ON NOTICE

Brought Pursuant to:

1. Order 26, Rules 1 -7 and Order 28 Rule 1of the Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2009.

2. Inherent Jurisdiction of this Honourable Court.

TAKE NOTICE that this Honourable Court will be moved on ………………….. the ………..day of …………………2010 at the hour of 9 O’clock in the forenoon or so soon thereafter as counsel may be heard on behalf of the Plaintiff/Applicant for the following reliefs.

AN ORDER OF INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION restraining the officers and members of the 2^nd Defendant/Respondent (Nigerian Football Association, acting under the name of Nigerian Football Federation),including the 3^rd Defendant/Respondent herein, either by themselves, their agents, servants or associates, from further conducting, parading, addressing or describing themselves as duly elected members and officers of the Governing Board (Executive Committee) and Congress of the 2^nd Defendant/Respondent, arising from the elections purportedly conducted into the said Committee and Congress on the 26^th of August, 2010,and/or in any way or manner whatsoever and howsoever carrying out any of the duties, functions, works and activities of the said Committee and Congress., pending the hearing and determination of the substantive Originating Summons herein;
AN ORDER OF INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION restraining the Defendants/Respondents herein, either by themselves, their agents, servants or associates, from treating, regarding and relating to the officers and members of the 2^nd Defendant/Respondent (Nigerian Football Association, acting under the name of Nigerian Football Federation),including the 3^rd Defendant/Respondent herein, as duly elected members and officers of the Governing Board (Executive Committee) and Congress of the 2^nd Defendant/Respondent, arising from the elections purportedly conducted into the said Committee and Congress on the 26^th of August, 2010,and/or in any way or manner whatsoever and howsoever participating in or endorsing any of the duties, functions, works and activities of the said Committee and Congress., pending the hearing and determination of the substantive Originating Summons herein;
AND FOR SUCH FURTHER ORDERS OR OTHER ORDERS as this Honourable Court may deem fit to make in the circumstances

Dated this ………………….day of November, 2010

Jiti Ogunye, Esq.

Jiti Ogunye Chambers

Plaintiffs’ Counsel

Top Floor, 10E Olanrewaju Street Off Kudirat Abiola Way Oregun, Ikeja, Lagos State

Tel: 01-76174777, 07029680070, 08023600378

Email-jitilaw@yahoo.com

On Notice:

1. 1^st Defendant/Respondent

66 Campbell Street

Lagos Island

Lagos State

2. 2^nd Defendant/Respondent

Plot 2033, Olusegun Obasanjo Way,

Zone 7, Wuse, Abuja, FCT

3. 3^rd Defendant/Respondent

Plot 2033, Olusegun Obasanjo Way,

Zone 7, Wuse, Abuja, FCT.

4. 4^th Defendant/Respondent

No. 31 Karaye Close,

Off Amurie Omanze Street,

Garki 11 – Abuja, FCT

5. 5^th Defendant/Respondent

No. 31 Karaye Close,

Off Amurie Omanze Street,

Garki 11 – Abuja, FCT

6. 6^th Defendant/Respondent

Federal Ministry of Youth and Sports,

Federal Secretariat, Abuja.

7. 7^th Defendant/Respondent

Federal Ministry of Youth and Sports,

Federal Secretariat, Abuja.

8 8^th Defendant/Respondent

C/o A. U. Mustapha & Co.,

Office 20B, East Pavilion,

T. B. S. Complex,

Lagos, Nigeria.

9. 9^th Defendant/Respondent

A. U. Mustapha & Co.,

Office 20b, East Pavilion,

T. B. S. Complex,

10 10^th Defendant/Respondent

Force Headquarters

Louis Edet House

Abuja, FCT

Abuja, FCT.

11. 11^th Defendant/Respondent

Federal Ministry of Justice

Abuja, FCT

IN THE FEDERAL HIGH COURT

IN THE LAGOS JUDICIAL DIVISION

HOLDEN AT LAGOS

SUIT NO: …………………

BETWEEN:

JITI OGUNYE PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT

AND

THE REGISTERED TRUSTEES OF THE

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF NIGERIAN

FOOTBALLERS (NANF)

2. NIGERIAN FOOTBALL ASSOCIATION, NFA

(Trading under the name and style of The Nigerian

Football Federation, NFF)

3. ALHAJI AMINU MAIGARI

NIGERIANEMIER LEAGUE BOARD DEFENDANTS/RESPONDENTS

(Trading under the Name and style of the

Nigerian Premier League)

MR. DAVIDSON OWUMI, President,

Nigerian Premier League Board

6. THE MINISTER OF SPORTS

7. THE DIRECTOR-GENERAL OF SPORTS,

FED. MIN. OF SPORTS

8. THE ELECTORAL COMMITTEE, NIGERIAN

FOOTBALL ASSOCIATION

9. A.U MUSTAPHA

10. INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE

11. ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF THE FEDERATION

AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION ON NOTICE FOR INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION

I, Jiti Ogunye, Male, Nigerian Citizen and Legal Practitioner of 10E Olanrewaju Street, Off Kudirat Abiola Way, Ikeja-Lagos State do hereby make oath and state as follows:

1. That I am the Plaintiff/Applicant herein by virtue of which fact I am conversant with the facts of this Suit.

2. That the Motion on Notice herein is being filed contemporaneously with the Originating Summons in this action, which I filed on Wednesday, the 24^th of November, 2010

3. That in the Originating Summons, I am challenging the continued exercise of the duties and functions of the members and officers of the Governing Board (Executive Committee) and Congress of the Nigerian Football Association ( the 2^nd Defendant herein) following the annulment and cancellation of the elections wherein they were elected by an order of the Federal High Court

4. That I am a Solicitor and Advocate of the Supreme Court of Nigeria.

5. That since I became a member of the legal profession in Nigeria, I have practiced in and appeared before Magistrate Courts, High Courts, Divisions of the Court of Appeal, and in the Supreme Court of Nigeria.

6. That in particular, I have been handling cases in the Divisions of the Federal High Court of Nigeria.

7. That currently my law firm, Jiti Ogunye Chambers, is representing Clients and prosecuting cases in the Federal High Court in the Lagos and other Divisions of the Court.

8. That the 1^st Defendants/Respondents herein are the Registered Trustees of National Association of Nigerian Footballers (NANF)

9. That the 2^nd Defendant/Respondent herein is the Nigerian Football Association, a body corporate with perpetual succession and a common seal, established by the Nigerian Football Association Act, Cap N110, Volume 12, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004, which is operating under the name and style of Nigerian Football Federation

10. That the 3^rd Defendant/Respondent is the purported Chairman ( President) of the Nigerian Football Association, who claims to have been elected as such on the 26^th of August, 2010 in an election purportedly conducted into the Governing Board (Executive Committee) and Congress of the Nigerian Football Association, acting under the name and style of the Nigerian Football Federation

11. That the 4^th Defendant/Respondent is the Nigerian Premier League Board, while the 5^th Defendant/Respondent is the President of the 4^th Defendant/Respondent.

12. That the 6^th Defendant/Respondent is the Honourable Minister of Sports in the Federal Republic of Nigeria, while the 7^th Defendant/Respondent is the Director-General of Sports in the Federal Ministry of Sports of the Federal Republic of Nigeria

13. That the 8^th Defendant/Respondent is the Electoral Committee set up to conduct the said election into the Governing Board (Executive Committee) and Congress of the Nigerian Football Association, which purportedly conducted the said elections, while the 9^th Defendant/Respondent is a legal practitioner, who acted as the chair of the 8th Defendant/Respondent, the said Electoral Committee.

14. That the 10^th Defendant/Respondent is the Inspector-General of Police, whose office is created by Section 215(1)(a) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, and under whose command the Nigeria Police Force is placed by virtue of Section 215 (2) of the Constitution

15. That the 11^th Defendant/Respondent is the Attorney-General of the Federation, who, by virtue of Section 150(1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, is the chief law officer and Minister of Justice of the Federation.

16. That I am a member of the Nigerian Bar Association, Ikeja Branch, which I served in the capacity of Assistant Secretary-General in 1994/95.

17. That I was very active in the pro-democracy and human rights movement that fought, along with other groups, against the military dictatorship, leading to the restoration of civil rule to Nigeria in 1999

18. That at several times during the era of military rule, I was a member of the Campaign for Democracy[CD], Joint Action Committee on Nigeria [JACON], and Committee for the Defence of Human Rights[CDHR], which I led as Secretary-General between 1995 and 1999

19. That currently I am the President of Lawyers’ League for Human Rights [LLHR], a lawyers’ non-governmental organization that researches; educates, campaigns, advocates and litigates on human rights, democracy, rule of law and development issues.

20. That by my profession, association and disposition, I am committed to promoting rule of law in Nigeria.

21. That naturally, I am particularly jealous of the principles of separation of powers and the independence of the Judiciary, for my very obvious enlightened self-interest, and because of the importance of the preservation of the independence and good health of the Judiciary to the protection of the rule of law and due process, and promotion of the common good

22. That in August 2010, the print and electronic media in Nigeria started reporting court proceedings in Suit No FHC/L/CS/962/10 (The Registered Trustees of the National Association of Nigeria Footballers, NANF v Nigerian Football Association, NFA & 7 Ors), an action which was instituted by the National Association of Nigerian Footballers against the Nigerian Football Association, NFA, and seven (7) other Defendants concerned with the management and administration of Nigerian football.

23. That for the purpose of this instant Originating Summons, I applied for and obtained the certified true copies of all the court processes filed and the orders that were made in the said action, Suit No FHC/L/CS/962/10 (The Registered Trustees of the National Association of Nigeria Footballers, NANF v Nigerian Football Association, NFA & 7 Ors).

24. That the action, which was brought by the mode of Originating Summons, sought, among other questions, the determination of the question whether, by the provisions of the NFA Statute, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004, the guidelines issued by the Electoral Committee for the 2010 Elections ( of the NFA) is lawful, legal, effective and effectual, especially considering the provisions of the NFF Statute, 2010, as to its composition ( that is, composition of the Electoral Committee). Attached hereto and marked Exhibit J1 is a certified true copy of the Originating Summons, filed in the Suit.

25. That the Originating Summons also sought the following reliefs, among others, :

1. A DECLARATION of this Honourable Court that the extension of the tenure of the members of the 1^st Defendant herein vide the resolution and all the decisions taken by the First Defendant thereafter are illegal, null and void in that they violate the letter and spirit of relevant statutes.

2. AN ORDER of this Honourable Court restraining the 1^st Defendant herein, whether by itself, servants, agents, privies or representatives from further implementing its resolutions, (including electoral matters) in any manner whatsoever and howsoever, extending the various expired tenures of the 37 states football association members, not being their appointive, selective or elective body.

3. AN ORDER of this Honourable Court restraining the Defendants herein ,whether by themselves, servants, agents, privies or representatives from conducting any election in any manner whatsoever and howsoever into the Congress of the 1st Defendant on 26^th , August 2010 or any time subsequently except in accordance with the provisions of the governing statutes

4. AN ORDER of this Honourable Court restraining the 1^st Defendant herein, whether by itself, servants, agents, privies or representatives from disturbing and or disrupting the activities of its affiliates in any manner whatsoever and howsoever.

26. That being a lawyer who researches, documents and reviews public interest litigations, who, indeed, has published a law report on public interest litigations ( entitled Nigerian Courts and Public Interest Litigations, Volume 1, Nigerian Public Interest Litigation Reports, 2002), I developed a keen interest in the said action, and I followed its progression, religiously

27. That my keen interest in the Suit was further fired by my belief that organized football in Nigeria is bedeviled by gross mismanagement and corruption, ranging from disappearance of funds ( in foreign currencies) meant for upkeep of players in the national football teams, shoddy and irresponsible preparation for continental and global football competitions, infighting and selfish money-mongering politicking within the national football body, nepotism and cronyism in the choice and selection coaches and managers of our national teams, and of players to represent Nigeria in international football competitions and events; and lack of probity, accountability and transparency in the conduct of the affairs of the Nigerian Football Association.

28. That the said gross mismanagement and corruption have resulted in the dismal performance of Nigeria’s national teams in international football competitions as well as the decline in the quality and fortune of football teams playing or featuring in the football league in Nigeria.

29. That I was, therefore, hopeful that the Suit would help cure some of the problems of Nigeria football, and restore sanity to the Nigeria Football Association.

30. That I was also hopeful that the said action would also enable the court to pronounce on powers or otherwise of Nigerian law enforcement and anti-corruption agencies to investigate and prosecute criminal acts that are committed in the course of administration and management of Nigerian football, in view of the often bandied claim that Nigerian football, under the rubric of the Federation of International Football Associations ( FIFA), is immune to and precluded from interference in any shape or form whatsoever, from national authorities.

31. That I also expected the Court to pronounce on the ambit of, and limits to its powers and jurisdiction to entertain claims pertaining to the affairs and activities of the Nigerian Football Association, a body created by an Act of the National Assembly of Nigeria.

32. That by an Order made on the 18^th of August, 2010, by Hon. Justice O.E Abang of the Lagos Division of the Federal High Court, the Judge to whom the said action was assigned, the Court ordered that the Motion Ex Parte for Interim Injunction, seeking to restrain the Defendants in the Suit from conducting elections into the Governing Board ( Executive Committee) and Congress of the Nigerian Football Association, on the 26^th of August, 2010, be converted to a motion on notice and served on the Defendants. Attached hereto and marked Exhibit J2 is a certified true copy of the said order.

33. That the Honourable Court then adjourned the Motion Ex-Parte ( converted to Motion on Notice) to 20^th August, 2010 for hearing.

34. That on the 20^th of August, 2010, counsel to the 1^st, 7^th and 8^th Defendants in the Suit (Nigerian Football Association, A.U Mustapha and the Electoral Committee- the chair of the electoral committee and the committee set up to conduct the elections sought to be restrained) and counsel to the 4^th, 5^th and 6^th Defendants, appeared before the Honourable Court, and sought for time to react to the Motion Ex-Parte ( converted to Motion on Notice) seeking an order of injunction.

35. That consequently on the said 20^th of August, 2010, Hon. Justice O.E Abang of the Lagos Division of the Federal High Court made an Order in the said Suit, directing parties to the Suit to maintain the status quo ante bellum, pending the hearing of the said Motion Ex-Parte; the Court then adjourned hearing of the Motion Ex-parte to 24^th of August, 2010. Attached hereto and marked Exhibit J3 and Exhibit J4 is a certified true copy of the Ruling delivered by the Honourable Court and a certified true copy of the enrolled order of the Honourable Court.

36. That on the 24^th day of August, 2010, Hon. Justice M.B Idris of the Lagos Division of the Federal High Court (presiding over the Suit as a vacation Judge) made an order, reiterating the order earlier made by Hon. Justice O.E Abang, to the effect that the parties to the action should maintain the status quo ante bellum, pending the hearing of the Motion Ex-Parte, (converted to Motion on Notice) and thereafter adjourned further hearing in the Suit to 30^th of August, 2010. Attached hereto and marked Exhibit J5 is a certified true copy of the Enrolled Order.

37. That the Suit was subsequently adjourned to 6^th of September, 2010.

38. That in spite of the said orders of court directing the parties to maintain the status quo ante bellum pending the hearing or determination of the 2^nd leg of the Plaintiff/Applicant’s Motion, dated 6^th day of August, 2010, duly served on the Defendants in the said Suit, the 1^st 2^nd, 7^th and 8^th Defendants ( Nigerian Football Association, Alhaji Aminu Maigari, the Electoral Committee of the NFA, and A.U Mustapha, Esq. ), went ahead to conduct elections into the Governing Board ( Executive Committee ) and Congress of the Nigerian Football Association, acting under the name and style of Nigerian Football Federation; in the said election, the 2^nd Defendant in the Suit claimed that he was elected as the Chairman/President of the Nigerian Football Association.

39. That piqued by the conduct of the said 1^st 2^nd, 7^th and 8^th Defendants ( Nigerian Football Association, Alhaji Aminu Maigari, the Electoral Committee NFA, and A.U Mustapha, Esq ), their agents, servants and privies, and the contestants in the said election, in organizing and participating in an election that had been forbidden by orders of Court, pending the hearing or determination of an application for an order of interlocutory injunction restraining the Defendants from holding or conducting the said election, pending the hearing of the originating summons, the Plaintiff in the said Suit ( and 1^st Defendant/Respondent herein) filed an application, dated the 31st day of August, 2010, seeking to commit the said 1^st 2^nd, 7^th and 8^th Defendants in the said Suit and others to prison for their flagrant, contumacious and contemptuous violations of the orders of court.

40. That meanwhile, the 1^st, 7^th and 8^th Defendants in the said Suit, upon receiving the court processes and, in particular, the said orders of Court of 20^th and 24^th of August, 2010, filed a Motion on Notice, dated 25^th day of August, 2010; and they also filed a Notice of Preliminary Objection dated 25^th day of August, 2010, praying the Court to discharge the orders of Court of 20^th and 24^th of August, 2010, respectively, and also challenging the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain the Substantive Suit ( Originating Summons)

41. That after hearing Counsel in the Suit on the order of hearing of the said Applications pending before that Court, that is on the Application to be determined first, the Honourable Court ruled that the Motion on Notice filed by the Plaintiff/ Applicant seeking to commit the 1^st, 2^nd, 7^th and 8^th Defendants in the Suit and their agents to prison for flouting the Orders of Court would be determined first, and accordingly adjourned the hearing of the Motion on Notice to 21^st of September, 2010, while ordering the Respondents to the Contempt Application to appear before the Court, in person, in view of the criminal nature of the committal proceedings

42. That very instructively, the Court also held and ordered as follows:

It is hereby ordered as follows-

………..

(v) That the most senior officer of Nigerian Football Association acting under the name and style of Nigerian Football Federation is to take control and command of the Nigerian Football Association pending when the Elections are conducted.

(vi) That Order is to be served on:

i Inspector General of Police

ii Most Senior Officer in Nigeria Football Association.

iii Minister of Sports of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.”

Attached hereto and marked Exhibits J6 and J7 is a certified true copy of the Ruling delivered by the Honourable Court and the Enrolled Order of Court

43. That by the said order of Court, the said election that was held in disobedience to the orders of Court was annulled.

44. That upon the said order annulling the said election being made by the Court, the 1^st, 2^nd, 7^th and 8^th Defendants in the Suit and their agents accepted that the election had been annulled by the Court, and that all persons purportedly elected at the election were not duly elected, and, therefore, could not exercise the duties and functions of the members and officers of the Governing Board (Executive Committee) of the Nigerian Football Association and that of its Congress.

45. That on the 21^st of September, 2010, the Motion for committal was heard by the Court and the Ruling thereon was adjourned to 5^th of October, 2010.

46. That on the 5^th of October, 2010, after the Court restated that the orders of Court forbidding the holding of the said election were violated by the affected Defendants and their agents and privies, the Court dismissed the said Motion for committal, holding, among other reasons, that since Form 49 was not filed and served on the affected Defendants and Respondents to the Motion for committal, before the filing and service of the Motion for Committal, the Motion was incompetent.

47. That the Court then adjourned the hearing of the 1^st, 7^th and 8^th Defendants’ Notice of Preliminary Objection, dated 25^th day of August, 2010, praying the Court to discharge the orders of Court of 20^th and 24^th of August, 2010, respectively, and also challenging the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain the Substantive Suit, to the 25^th of October, 2010.

48. That on the 25^th of October, 2010, in a move which surprised me, and which I believe surprised many other Nigerians who keenly were watching how the Suit was going to be resolved, the Plaintiff withdrew the said Suit, by moving a Notice of Discontinuance ( Notice of Withdrawal) filed on the 25^th of October, 2010. Attached hereto and marked Exhibit 8 is a certified true copy of the Notice of Discontinuance.

49. That from what I read in the print media, in particular Complete Sports of Tuesday October 26, 2010 at page 7 and Back Page thereof, under the respective captions of “ Do the Right Thing Now” and “Legal Blunder leaves NFF Board in Pains, despite NANF withdrawing Suit from Court,” the Suit was withdrawn based on meetings the Plaintiff had, and the undisclosed Agreement the Plaintiff reached with the National Sports Commission (NSC), the House Committee on Sports and Nigeria Football Federation. Attached hereto and marked Exhibit J9 is a copy of the said pages of the said sports newspaper, Complete Sports.

50. That at the time the Court struck out the Suit, upon its withdrawal or discontinuance, the orders canceling or annulling the said election had not been varied or discharged.

51. That after the Court struck out the Suit, the persons whose elections into the Board (Executive Committee) and Congress of the Nigerian Football Association (the 2^nd Defendant herein) were annulled by the Court, chiefly on the ground that the said elections were conducted in arrogant and contemptuous disobedience to the orders of Court, especially Alhaji Aminu Maigari ( the 3^rd Defendant herein) have now “ resumed” the exercise of their respective functions and duties as officers and members of the Board and Congress of the Nigeria Football Association, in total disregard of the orders of Court.

52. That following the striking out of the said Suit, many commentators, including Dr. Joseph Nwobike, SAN, Counsel to the 1^st, 7^th and 8^th Defendants, and one Christopher Green, who is said to be a “, lawyer, Board member of the Nigerian Football Federation, and a former Rivers State Commissioner for Sports” were reported by the print media to have declared that with the withdrawal of the said Suit, the members and officers of the Nigeria Football Association, in the Executive Committee, purportedly elected in the said annulled election could return to their positions, as if the Court never made any such order Attached hereto and marked Exhibits J10 and J11 are media reports of the said declarations at page 54 of Compass & Guardian Newspaper of Tuesday October 26, the back page of Daily Sun of Tuesday October, 26, 2010,and Sporting Life & Daily Trust of 27^th and 29^th October, 2010.

53. That from the said declaration and actions of the 1^st, 2^nd and 8^th Defendants in the withdrawn and struck out Suit, it is clear that the position of the Defendants herein is that with the withdrawal of the said Suit, the results and outcome of the said elections, held in disobedience to orders of Court, results and outcome which were later annulled by the order of Court, have been restored, and that the persons purportedly elected in the said elections automatically have returned to their positions.

54. That as a lawyer and a citizen of Nigeria, I am greatly bothered that the conduct of the parties ( Plaintiff and Defendants in the said Suit) to the withdrawn and struck out Suit appears to be a deliberate and calculated attempt to ridicule, and denigrate the Judiciary and make it a subject of public scorn.

55. That by inviting Hon. Justice O.E Abang and Hon Justice M.B Idris to make an order of injunction ( by way of directing parties to the withdrawn case to maintain status quo ante bellum) restraining the conduct of the election, the disobedience of which resulted in the court annulling the said election in enforcement of its powers, the Honourable Justices of the Federal High Court were encouraged by the Plaintiff in the said Suit to put the integrity of not only the Federal High Court but also that of the Nigerian Judiciary at stake.

56. That by withdrawing the said Suit without applying to the Court to discharge or vacate the said orders annulling the said elections, and later conspiring or agreeing to the disobedience of the said order of court annulling the said election, the Federal High Court, in general, and the two Honourable Judges, in particular, were set up for ridicule and embarrassment.

57. That I fear that because of the conduct of the Plaintiff and Defendants in the said Suit (some of whom are Defendants herein), the two Judges and other Judges of the Federal High Court may be disinclined to or disinterested in granting orders, directing parties to maintain status quo ante bellum, in the cases I currently conduct and in cases which I may institute in the Federal High Court in the future.

58. That the refusal, neglect or failure of the 10^th and 11^th Defendants/Respondents herein to ensure that the order of Court annulling the said elections is faithfully and wholly carried out, in a sustained manner, may also weigh heavily against the grant of such orders now and in the future, when I present cases of my clients in the Federal High Court, even when the grant of such orders are warranted by the facts and circumstances of the cases that I present.

59. That I know that Judges do not like their orders being flouted or being treated with disdain and levity.

60. That the conduct of the Defendants/Respondents herein is, therefore, prejudicial to my law practice and the legal interests of my clients and those of my prospective clients.

61. That as a lawyer I know that a court of law is enjoined by its law and rules of court to foster reconciliation and out of court settlement amongst parties.

62. That I know as a lawyer that terms of settlement, adopted by the court as its judgment or award, are usually filed when parties are settling their cases out of court, not only to bind parties to an enforceable decision of court, but also to preserve the integrity of the courts.

63. That a court of law is not a depository of frivolous cases or a trade union platform that issues trade dispute notices or strike action ultimatum and withdraws them as it pleases, as a bargaining chip.

64. That I know that the Court does not engage in a game of hide and seek nor does it lend its weight to actualize the grandstanding of disputants that come before it for adjudication.

65. That I know that the Court does not entertain academic questions or imaginary claims.

66. That by Rule 1 (1) of Rules of Professional Conduct for Legal Practitioners, 2007, I have a general responsibility to “ uphold and observe the rule of law, promote and foster the cause of justice, maintain a high standard of professional conduct, and not engage in any conduct which is unbecoming of a legal practitioner”

67. That a definitive pronouncement of this Honourable Court on the question I have submitted to this Honourable Court for determination in the Originating Summons I have filed will help strengthen the rule of, and the due process of law in the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

68. That it is in the interest of justice if this Motion on Notice for Interlocutory Injunction is granted.

69. That I know that the substantive Suit involves the determination of serious questions of law.

70. That unless this Application is granted to enable the Court determine the said questions of law, a determination which may take some time, and which, depending on the outcome of the Suit, could lead to an appeal, the Defendants/Respondents the officers and members of the Board and Congress of the Nigeria Football Association will stay in office and continue to discharge the duties and functions of the office, thereby foisting a fait accompli on the Court, on me and on fellow Nigerians.

71. That without an interlocutory order restraining the members and officers of the Executive Committee and Congress of the Nigeria Football Association from continued occupancy of office and exercise of duties of the office, football administration and management in Nigeria will be thrown into a state of confusion, unwieldiness, and disorder, if, after spending considerable time in office and carrying out several activities, this Honourable Court grants the reliefs we seek in the Originating Summons.

72. That it is, thus, neater, better, more just and equitable for this Honourable Court to keep the officers and members of the Board and Congress of the 2^nd Defendant/Respondent herein out of office until the resolution of the dispute between me and the Defendants/Respondents.

73. That my clients and I will suffer irreparable damages if this Honourable Court does not grant this Application.

74. That I am ready and willing to enter into an undertaking to indemnify the Defendants/Respondents in damages should this Honourable Court come to the conclusion, at the final determination of this Suit, that the interlocutory order herein sought ought not to have been granted.

75. That payment of damages will not be an adequate compensation for my loss, if this Application for injunction is refused

76. That the Respondents will not lose anything if this Application is granted.

77. That the balance of convenience is on my side in this case

78. That it is in the interest of Justice to grant this Application

79. That I depose hereto in good faith, conscientiously and in accordance with the Oaths Act.

………………………………………..

DEPONENT

Sworn to at the Federal High Court

Registry, Lagos

This ……………..day of November, 2010

BEFORE ME

COMMISSIONER FOR OATHS

IN THE FEDERAL HIGH COURT

IN THE LAGOS JUDICIAL DIVISION

HOLDEN AT LAGOS

SUIT NO: …………………

BETWEEN:

JITI OGUNYE PLAINTIFF/ APPLICANT

AND

THE REGISTERED TRUSTEES OF THE

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF NIGERIAN

FOOTBALLERS (NANF)

2. NIGERIAN FOOTBALL ASSOCIATION, NFA

(Trading under the name and style of The Nigerian

Football Federation, NFF)

3. ALHAJI AMINU MAIGARI DEFENDANTS/RESPONDENTS

4. NIGERIANEMIER LEAGUE BOARD

(Trading under the Name and style of the Nigerian

Premier League)

MR. DAVIDSON OWUMI, President, Nigerian

Premier League Board

THE MINISTER OF SPORTS

THE DIRECTOR-GENERAL OF SPORTS,

FED. MIN. OF SPORTS

THE ELECTORAL COMMITTEE, NIGERIAN

FOOTBALL ASSOCIATION

9. A.U MUSTAPHA

10. INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE

11. ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF THE FEDERATION

Submitted by

Jiti Ogunye , Esq.,

Jiti Ogunye Chambers

Applicant’s Counsel

Top Floor, Flat 1

10E Olanrewaju Street

Off Kudirat Abiola Way

Oregun, Ikeja, Lagos State.

Tel:234-1-7617477; 07029680070,08023600378

E-mail: jitilaw@yahoo.com

For Service On:

1^st Defendant/Respondent

66 Campbell Street

Lagos Island

Lagos State

2. 2^nd Defendant/Respondent

Plot 2033, Olusegun Obasanjo Way,

Zone 7, Wuse, Abuja, FCT

3. 3^rd Defendant/Respondent

Plot 2033, Olusegun Obasanjo Way,

Zone 7, Wuse, Abuja, FCT.

4. 4^th Defendant/Respondent

No. 31 Karaye Close,

Off Amurie Omanze Street,

Garki 11 – Abuja, FCT

5. 5^th Defendant/Respondent

No. 31 Karaye Close,

Off Amurie Omanze Street,

Garki 11 – Abuja, FCT

6. 6^th Defendant/Respondent

Federal Ministry of Youth and Sports,

Federal Secretariat, Abuja.

7. 7^th Defendant/Respondent

Federal Ministry of Youth and Sports,

Federal Secretariat, Abuja.

8 8^th Defendant/Respondent

C/o A. U. Mustapha & Co.,

Office 20B, East Pavilion,

T. B. S. Complex,

Lagos, Nigeria.

9. 9^th Defendant/Respondent

A. U. Mustapha & Co.,

Office 20b, East Pavilion,

T. B. S. Complex,

10 10^th Defendant/Respondent

Force Headquarters

Louis Edet House

Abuja, FCT

Abuja, FCT.

11. 11^th Defendant/Respondent

Federal Ministry of Justice

Abuja, FCT

1.0.Introduction..

1.0. This Motion on Notice filed on the 24^th day of November, 2010, is brought pursuant to Order 26, Rules 1 -7 and Order 28 Rule 1of the Federal High Court ( Civil Procedure ) Rules, 2009 ; and Inherent Jurisdiction of this Honourable Court

1.1. By this Motion, the Plaintiff/Applicant seeks the following injunctive relief from the Honourable Court:

An Order of Interlocutory Injunction restraining the officers and members of the 2^nd Defendant/Respondent (Nigerian Football Association, acting under the name of Nigerian Football Federation),including the 3^rd Defendant/Respondent herein, either by themselves, their agents, servants or associates, from further conducting, parading, addressing or describing themselves as duly elected members and officers of the Governing Board (Executive Committee) and Congress of the 2^nd Defendant/Respondent, arising from the elections purportedly conducted into the said Committee and Congress on the 26^th of August, 2010,and/or in any way or manner whatsoever and howsoever carrying out any of the duties, functions, works and activities of the said Committee and Congress., pending the hearing and determination of the substantive Originating Summons herein; An Order of Interlocutory Injunction restraining the Defendants/Respondents herein, either by themselves, their agents, servants or associates, from treating, regarding and relating to the officers and members of the 2^nd Defendant/Respondent (Nigerian Football Association, acting under the name of Nigerian Football Federation),including the 3^rd Defendant/Respondent herein, as duly elected members and officers of the Governing Board (Executive Committee) and Congress of the 2^nd Defendant/Respondent, arising from the elections purportedly conducted into the said Committee and Congress on the 26^th of August, 2010,and/or in any way or manner whatsoever and howsoever participating in or endorsing any of the duties, functions, works and activities of the said Committee and Congress., pending the hearing and determination of the substantive Originating Summons herein; and for such further orders or other orders as this Honourable Court may deem fit to make in the circumstances

1.2. The Motion is supported by a seventy-nine (79) Paragraph Affidavit, and an eleven (11) Paragraph Affidavit of Urgency separately deposed to by the Plaintiff/Applicant, by name, Jiti Ogunye Attached to the Affidavit are eleven (11) Exhibits, marked Exhibits “J1-J11 ”. In arguing this Application, The Applicants shall rely on all the averments contained in the Affidavit in support of the Motion and the Exhibits annexed thereto

2.0. Statement of Facts

2.1 The Defendants/Respondents, save the 10^th and 11^th Defendants/Respondents, were parties to Suit No FHC/L/CS/962/10 (The Registered Trustees of the National Association of Nigeria Footballers, NANF v Nigerian Football Association, NFA & 7 Ors). The action was instituted by the National Association of Nigerian Footballers against the Nigerian Football Association, NFA, and seven (7) other Defendants concerned with the management and administration of Nigerian football. Contemporaneously with the Originating Summons, the mode by which the Plaintiff in the Suit commenced the action, the Plaintiff also filed a Motion Ex-Parte for interim injunction, seeking to restrain the Defendants in the Suit from conducting elections into the Governing Board ( Executive Committee) and Congress of the Nigerian Football Association, which, then was slated for the 26^th of August, 2010. The Honourable Court ordered that the Motion Ex-Parte be converted to a motion on notice and served on the Defendants. This was done. Subsequently the Defendants entered appearances and pleaded for time to respond to the Motion Ex Parte for Injunction, as well as to file other processes. The Court obliged the Defendants. While doing so, however, on the 20^th of August, 2010, the Court ( Hon Justice O E Abang ), in order to preserve the res of the Suit, and avoid a situation whereby a fait accompli would be foisted on the Court, ordered that parties to the Suit should maintain the status quo ante bellum. This order was again reiterated on the 24^th of August, 2010 by Hon. Justice M.B Idris.

2.2. Meanwhile, the 1^st, 7^th and 8^th Defendants in the said Suit, upon receiving the court processes and, in particular, the said orders of Court of 20^th and 24^th of August, 2010, filed a Motion on Notice, dated 25^th day of August, 2010; and they also filed a Notice of Preliminary Objection, dated 25^th day of August, 2010, praying the Court to discharge the orders of Court of 20^th and 24^th of August, 2010, respectively, and also challenging the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain the Suit. Thus, there is no doubt, whatsoever, that the Defendants were aware of the orders of Court

2.3 In spite of these orders of Court forbidding the conduct of the said elections, the 1^st, 2^nd, 7^th( who is a legal practitioner, who served as the chair of the electoral committee ) and 8^th Defendants in the Suit went ahead, on the 26^th of August, 2010 to hold the elections and purported to have elected persons into the Executive Committee and Congress of the Nigerian Football Association, operating under the name and style of the Nigerian Football Federation.

2.4 The Honourable Court did not allow the contemptuous conduct of the said 1^st, 2^nd, 7^th and 8^th Defendants to pass. On the 21^st of September, 2010, while ordering the Respondents to the Contempt Application, filed by the Plaintiff in the Suit, to appear before the Court, in person, in view of the criminal nature of the committal proceedings, the Court, in enforcement of its powers, and relying on its inherent powers and Section 287 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, annulled the said elections.

2.5 The Suit was, however, withdrawn or discontinued on the 25^th of October, 2010, prompting the Court to strike out the Suit. In striking out the Suit, the Court did not discharge or vary the order annulling the said election. Upon the Suit being struck out, the persons that were purportedly elected into the Executive Committee and Congress of the Nigeria Football Association have “now returned to their respective offices” to consummate and profit from their disobedience to the order of Court. The Honourable Court that gave the orders annulling the election is now left in the lurch. The Court, surely, is embarrassed and confounded.

2. 5 Consequently, the Plaintiff/Applicant, a legal practitioner and a Nigerian Citizen, who complains that the action of the Defendant/Respondents, in disobeying and not enforcing the orders of Court, is affecting his professional practice has filed an action, by the mode of Originating Summons, contending that apart from having a public right to enforce the order of court that is being flouted, the private injury he will suffer, as a result of the courts being discouraged to granting similar orders in the cases he is conducting in the Federal High Court, entitles him to institute this action.

2.6 The Applicant, therefore, wishes to stop the further disobedience of the said order of court, pending the hearing and determination of the substantive Suit.

3.0. Issue for Determination

3.0. It is respectfully submitted that the sole issue for determination in this Application is:

3.1. Whether in the circumstances of this case the Applicant is entitled to the grant of an order of interlocutory injunction by this Honourable Court, restraining the Respondents, pending the hearing and determination of the substantive Originating Summons?

4.0. Arguments.

4.0. It is trite law that in the determination of an application for interlocutory injunction substantive issues are not to be determined by the court. However, the court has a duty to take a thorough look at the processes filed, especially the Claim before the court, and the sworn depositions in the affidavit in support of the application for interlocutory injunction, in order to come to a just conclusion on whether an interlocutory order of injunction ought to be granted to maintain the status quo ante bellum of the Suit. It is our humble view that if this Honourable Court looked at the processes filed and the averments in the Plaintiff/Applicant’s Affidavit in support of the Application for Interlocutory Injunction, the Court would come to a conclusion that the grant of the Order of Interlocutory injunction being sought is warranted in the circumstances

4.1. In a long line of cases, including Kufeji v. Kogbe (1961), 1 All NLR, 113; Egbe v. Onogun (1972) All NLR 95; Ojukwu v. Governor of Lagos state (1986) 2 NWLR (Pt. 26) 39; Obeya Memorial Hospital v. A. G. Federation (1987) 3 NWLR (Pt. 60) 325 SC.; Commissioner for Works, Benue v. Devcom Ltd. (1988) 3 NWLR (Pt. 83) 407 SC; Williams v. Dawodu (1988) 4 NWLR (Pt. 87) 189; Kotoye v. C. B. N. (1989) 1 NWLR (Pt. 98) 419; Morohunfola v. Kwara Tech. (1990) 4 NWLR (Pt. 145) 506 SC; and Akapo v. Hakeem – Habeeb (1992) 6 NWLR (Pt. 247) 266, 7-UP Bottling Co. Ltd v. Abiola & Sons Ltd (1995) 3 NWLR (Pt. 383) 257 S.C., the Supreme Court has established the principles guiding grant of injunctions, generally. These principles are:

(a) That the Applicant has a legal right, which is threatened, which ought to be protected, pending the determination of the substantive action.

(b) That the Applicant must show that there is a serious question to be tried; that is the Applicant has a real possibility, not a probability of success at the trial, notwithstanding the Defendant’s technical defence (if any).

(c) That the Applicant must show that the balance of convenience is on his side; that is more justice will result in granting the application than in refusing it.

(d) That the Applicant must show that damages cannot be an adequate compensation for his injury, if he succeeded at the end of the day.

(e) That the Applicant must show that his conduct is not reprehensible, for example that he is not, guilty of any delay.

(f) No order for an interlocutory injunction should be made on notice unless the Applicant gives a satisfactory undertaking as to damages, save in recognized exceptions; and

(g) Where a court of first instance fails to extract an undertaking as to damages, an appellate court ought normally to discharge the order of Injunction on appeal.

4.2. Taking the above listed principles seriatim, it is our respectful submission that they apply to the facts of the Applicant’s case. In the Originating Summons, the Plaintiff/Applicant is challenging the legality and the constitutionality of the continued exercise, by the members and officers of the 2^nd Defendant/Respondent ( Nigerian Football Association, acting under the name and style of the Nigerian Football Federation)’s Governing Board ( Executive Committee) and Congress, of the functions and duties of their respective offices, pursuant to their purported election into the said Executive Committee and Congress in an election that was conducted on the 26^th of August, 2010, when, before the conduct of the election, same had been restrained from being held, by an order of Court; and when, after the conduct of the election, in defiance of the order of Court, same was annulled by an Order of Court, in enforcement of the powers of the Court. The Plaintiff/Applicant is also challenging the legality and constitutionality of the conduct of the 10^th and 11^th Defendants/Respondents, who, as enforcers of the laws, the Constitution and orders of Court, are condoning or encouraging the disobedience of the Court’s order of annulment or acting in concert with the other Defendants/Respondents in disobeying the orders of Court.

4.3. The Applicant, a Solicitor and Advocate of the Supreme Court of Nigeria, is not a busy-body or meddlesome interloper. He has shown how he will be affected by the conduct of the Defendants/Respondents. Section 1(1) of the Constitution luminously and categorically provides that, “ this Constitution is supreme and its provisions shall have binding force on all authorities and persons throughout the Federal Republic Nigeria” Thus, the Defendants/Respondents, with due deference, to their exalted positions, would be mistaken to think that the Plaintiff/ Applicant does not have a duty to uphold the provisions of the Constitution. All authorities and persons, who are bound by the provisions of the Constitution, have a corresponding duty to uphold the spirit and letters of the Constitution. It is conceded, however, that some of the Defendants/Respondents, especially the 10^th and 11^th Defendants/Respondents have a higher duty to uphold the provisions of the Constitution and orders of courts, which is why it is an unfortunate irony that they are the ones that are transgressing on the orders of the Court and undermining the provisions of the Constitution

4.4. In several constitutional cases, the Supreme Court has emphasized the pride of place the Constitution occupies in our nation’s jurisprudence. In A-G; Abia State v. A-G; Fed. 2006 16 NWLR (Pt. 1005) 265, at pg. 381, para. C-pg. 383, para A, the Supreme Court, per Niki Tobi, JSC; who delivered the leading judgment said:

“The Constitution of a nation is the fons et origo, not only of the jurisprudence but also of the legal system. In Greek language, it is the alpha and omega. It is the barometer with which all statutes are measured. In line with this kingly position of the Constitution, all the three arms of Government are slaves of the Constitution, not in the sense of undergoing servitude or bondage, but in the sense of total obeisance and loyalty to it. This is in recognition of the supremacy of the constitution over and above every statute, be it an Act of the National Assembly or a law of the House of Assembly of a State.

The supremacy clause is provided for in section 1(1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999. All the three arms of Government must dance to the music and chorus that the Constitution beats and sings, whether the melody sounds good or bad. Regarding the first place section 1 occupies in the Constitution, I regard and christen it as the golden section of the constitution, the adjectival variant of the noun gold. It is the same golden position in sports that the Constitution occupies in any jurisprudence and legal system, including ours.

While I recognize the constitutional right of the legislatures, that is the National Assembly and the House of Assembly of the States, to amend the Constitution, until that is done, they must kowtow ( using the Chinese expression) to the provisions of the Constitution, whether they like it or not. …

As a Judge I am hired to interpret the laws of this Country which include the Constitution and statutes. Where there is infraction of the law, I have a constitutional duty to say so and I must say so

4.5. The first, and perhaps, the most fundamental of the principles to be considered by the Court in the grant of an interlocutory injunction is the issue of the Applicant having a legal right, which is threatened with a breach or which is being breached and which ought to be protected, pending the determination of the substantive Suit. The question, therefore, is, does the Plaintiff/Applicant have a legal right regarding the disobedience of the order of Court, being complained about, here? We argue that the Plaintiff/Applicant does have a legal right in the enforcement of the order of the Court, being flouted.

4.6. Section 287(3) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic, 1999 provides that the “ the decisions of the Federal High Court, a High Court and of all other Courts established by this Constitution shall be enforced in any part of the Federation by all authorities and persons, and by other courts of law with subordinate jurisdiction to that of the Federal High Court, a High Court and those other courts, respectively.

4.7. Under Rule 1 (1) of Rules of Professional Conduct for Legal Practitioners, 2007, the Plaintiff/ Applicant, a legal practitioner in Nigeria, has a general responsibility to “ uphold and observe the rule of law, promote and foster the cause of justice, maintain a high standard of professional conduct, and not engage in any conduct which is unbecoming of a legal practitioner” . And so do the 11^th Defendant/Respondent, the Attorney-General of the Federation, and the Counsel to the other Defendants/Respondents, who represented the Defendants/ Respondents in the Suit, No FHC/L/CS/962/10 (The Registered Trustees of the National Association of Nigeria Footballers, NANF v Nigerian Football Association, NFA & 7 Ors), all of whom are legal practitioners.

4.8. It is, therefore our submission that the Plaintiff/Applicant has a legal right in the obedience to the orders of nullification of elections made in the said Suit, which are being flouted by the Defendant/Respondent. Besides, the Plaintiff/ Applicant has stated in the Affidavit in support of his Originating Summons that if these orders were successfully and perpetually flouted, the courts of the Federal High Court may be discouraged in granting similar orders now, in the cases he is handling, currently, and in the future, in the cases he may institute on behalf of his clients, even when such orders of injunction are warranted. This situation, he has stated, on oath, will prejudice him in the practice of his profession and will also prejudice his clients in the ventilation of their grievances, in Court and in their bid to secure judicial redress for the wrongs that may be done to them.

4.9. We submit further that the case of the Plaintiff/Applicant herein is anchored on two premises. The first is that the Plaintiff/Applicant is a person who, by virtue of Section 287 of the Constitution, is obligated to enforce a decision of a court of law, and that since the Defendants/Respondents herein, who are authorities and persons, are not enforcing the decision of the Court, but, deliberately, are flouting it, the Plaintiff/Applicant has a legal right, a right of action to enforce the said decision of Court, annulling the said election. The Plaintiff’s right of action is further strengthened by his duty under Rule 1 (1) of Rules of Professional Conduct for Legal Practitioners, 2007, to “ uphold and observe the rule of law, and promote and foster the cause of justice”. The second premise of the Plaintiff/Applicant’s case is that he is a legal practitioner practising in the Federal High Court, who conducts and will conduct cases that will be adversely affected by the non-enforcement of the said order of Court, in that when orders that are similar to the one being flouted are sought in the cases he is, and may conduct before the courts, and the grant of such orders are warranted, there is a real likelihood or probability that the courts will not be minded to grant such orders, in view of the manner in which the Court is being treated with contempt by the Defendants/Respondents in this Application. Thus, the Applicant, whose interest is going to suffer, has a special right to enforce in Court, in this action. On either or both of the premises, therefore, the Applicant has a legal right to enforce in the substantive Suit.

4.10. Intertwined with the issue of the legal right of he Plaintiff/ Applicant is the issue of his locus standi to institute this action.

4.11. In the oft-cited case of Senator Abraham Adesanya v The President of Nigeria ( 1981) 2NCLR, 358, which has been severally criticized for its narrow and stultifying treatment of the issue of locus standi, many jurists, legal scholars and lawyers tend to forget that even in that case, the Supreme Court, per Fatayi Williams, CJN, stated, very elaborately, the law on locus standi at pages 372-378 of the Report thus:

In my opinion, this issue of who has locus standi is very crucial to the interpretation and application of the provisions of the 1979 Constitution. I propose, therefore, to deal first with this general issue before dealing with it in relation to the particular facts and circumstances of the instant case.

The term 'locus stand denotes legal capacity to institute proceedings in a Court of Law. It is used interchangeably with terms like 'standing' or 'title to sue'. The questions which, of course, naturally arise are these. If, in a developing country like Nigeria with a written Constitution, a Legislative enactment appears to be ultra vires the Constitution or an act infringes any of its provisions dealing with Fundamental Rights, who has locus standi to challenge its constitutionality? Does (or should) any member of the public have the right to sue? Or should locus standi be confined to persons whose vested legal rights are directly interfered with by the measure, or to persons whose interests are liable to be specially affected by its operation, or to an Attorney-General who is a functionary of the Executive Branch? Experience has shown that different legal systems have offered diverse answers, sometimes experimental answers, to these questions.

Dr. Thio at page 1 of her authoritative book entitled ''Locus Standi and Judicial Review' makes the following pertinent observations:—

'The requirement of locus standi is mandatory in some jurisdictions where the judicial power is constitutionally limited to the determination of a 'case' or 'controversy', or a 'matter' which is defined by reference to criteria which include the legal capacity of the parties to the litigation. In other jurisdictions, the requirement is a product of judicial expedience and public policy.'

She observed further at pages 2 and 3 as follows:—

'The problem of locus standi in public law is very much intertwined with the concept of the role of the judiciary in the process of Government. Is the judicial function primarily aimed at preserving legal order by confining the Legislative and Executive organs of Government within their powers in the interest of the public (jurisdiction de droit objectif), or is it mainly directed towards the protection of private individuals by preventing illegal encroachments on their individual rights (jurisdiction de droit subjectif)! The first contention rests on the theory that the courts are the final arbiters of what is legal and illegal. Since the dominant objective is to ensure the observance of the law, this can best be achieved by permitting any person to put the judicial machinery in motion, like the action popularis of Roman law whereby any citizen could bring such an action in respect of a public delict. Requirements of locus standi are therefore unnecessary in this case since they merely impede the purpose of the judicial function as conceived here. On the other hand, where the prime aim of the judicial process is to protect individual rights, its concern with the regularity of law and administration is limited to the extent that individual rights are infringed, and in the absence of the latter, it does not come into play.

The problem is highlighted in a country with a written Constitution which establishes a constitutional structure involving a tripartite allocation of power to the legislature, the executive and the judiciary as co-ordinate organs of Government. On one hand, the judiciary, as the guardian of the fundamental law of the land has the role of passing on the validity of the exercise of powers by the Legislature and Executive and to require them to observe the Constitution of the land. The situation thus calls for a system of judicial control in favour of jurisdiction de droit objectiff (The italics are mine)”.

With these observations in mind, I take significant cognizance of the fact that Nigeria is a developing country with a multi-ethnic society and a written Federal Constitution, where rumour-mongering is the pastime of the market places and the construction sites. To deny any member of such a society who is aware or believes, or is led to believe, that there has been an infraction of any of the provisions of our Constitution, or that any law passed by any of our Legislative Houses, whether Federal or State, is unconstitutional, access to a Court of Law to air his grievance on the flimsy excuse of lack of sufficient interest is to provide a ready recipe for organised disenchantment with the judicial process.

The framers of our 1979 Constitution had all these factors in mind by providing for the many checks and balances which appear therein. In fact, a close scrutiny of its very detailed provisions will convince anyone that reliance on the decisions, whether British, Canadian, Australian, or American, given in a different social and political context, will only lead to restrictive rules of locus standi which, in the interest of the need for total compliance with the provisions of our Constitution, I find it difficult to accept or countenance. As a matter of fact, what can be discerned from the cases to which we are referred and, indeed, to other cases, is this. The Canadian Supreme Court now takes a liberal view of locus standi; so do the Australian High Court and the Court of Appeal in England presided over by Lord Denning. The House of Lords, on the other hand, takes a more restrictive view. Of course, England does not have a written Constitution.

In view of the scantiness of the language of the American Constitution when compared with ours, and the great opportunities thereby offered to use the American courts for expounding the intentions of the founding fathers through its interpretation one is not surprised that the American courts were so inundated with legal proceedings that access to court had to be restricted through the use of the rules, formulated by the courts themselves, as to the locus standi of a plaintiff.

In the Nigerian context, it is better to allow a party to go to court and to be heard than to refuse him access to our courts. Non-access, to my mind, will stimulate the free-for-all in the media as to which law is constitutional and which law is not! In any case, our courts have inherent powers to deal with vexatious litigants or frivolous claims. To re-echo the words of Learned Hand, if we are to keep our democracy, there must be one commandment — thou shall not ration justice'.

Moreover, as Barwick, C J pointed out in Attorney-General v Commonwealth of Australia (1975) 135 CLR page 1 at page 17:-

'The only true guide and the only course which can produce stability in constitutional law is to read the language of the Constitution itself, no doubt generously and not pedantically but as a whole.' (The italics are mine).

Not so long ago, Sir Udo Udoma, JSC in Nafiu Rabiu v The State (1980) 8-11 SC. 130 at pages 148-149, observed:-

'the function of the Constitution is to establish a framework and principles of government, broad and general in terms intended to apply to the varying conditions which the development of our several communities must involve, ours being a plural, dynamic society, and therefore, mere technical rules of interpretation of statutes are to some extent inadmissible in a way so as to defeat the principles of Government enshrined in the Constitution. And where the question is whether the Constitution has used an expression in the wider or in the narrower sense, in my view, this court should whenever possible, and in response to the demands of justice, lean to the broader interpretation, unless there is something in the text or in the rest of the Constitution to indicate that the narrower interpretation will best carry out the objects and purposes of the Constitution.

My Lords, it is my view that the approach of this court to the construction of the Constitution should be, and so it has been, one of liberalism, probably a variation on the theme of the general maxim ut res magis valeat quam pereat. I do not conceive it to be the duty of this court so to construe any of the provisions of the Constitution as to defeat the obvious ends the Constitution was designed to serve where another construction equally in accord and consistent with the words and sense of such provisions will serve to enforce and protect such ends.'

I only need to add that I am also strongly of the view that when interpreting the provisions of our 1979 Constitution, not only should the courts look at the Constitution as a whole, they should also construe its provisions in such a way as to justify the hopes and aspirations of those who have made the strenuous effort to provide us with:-

'a Constitution for the purpose of promoting the good Government and welfare of all persons in our country on the principles of Freedom, Equality and Justice, and for the purpose of consolidating the Unity of our people.'

Apart from the law relating to locus standi which have their roots in the Common Law, in a country like ours, locus standi is also derived from the Constitution, and the Fundamental Rights provisions in Chapter IV of the Constitution. Indeed, a close scrutiny of our Constitution shows that the flood- gates of litigation have not been left wide open.

At one extreme are the provisions in our Constitution that, in the exercise of its powers, the Federal Civil Service Commission, Federal Judicial Service Commission, the Federal Electoral Commission and the National Population Commission shall not be subject to the direction or control of any other authority or person (Section 145 refers). It is also provided in Section 267 that no civil or criminal proceedings can be instituted or continued against any person holding the office of President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, Vice-President, Governor of a State, or Deputy-Governor, during his period of office. Furthermore, there is provision that no proceedings or determination of the Committee appointed to investigate allegations of misconduct made against the President or Vice-President, Governor or Deputy-Governor, or any matter relating thereto shall be entertained in any court. (Sections 132(1) and 170(10) refer).

In between, and this is crucial because of its restrictive nature, there is provision that any person who alleges that any of the provisions dealing with his Fundamental Rights as enumerated in Chapter IV of the Constitution, has been, is being, or likely to be contravened in any State In Relation to Him may apply to a High Court in that State for redress (see Section 42(1) of the Constitution).

……………………………………………………………

To my mind, it should be possible for any person who is convinced that there is an infraction of the provisions of Sections 1 and 4 of the Constitution which I have enumerated above to be able to go to court and ask for the appropriate declaration and consequential relief if relief is required. In my view, any person, whether he is a citizen of Nigeria or not, who is resident in Nigeria or who is subject to the laws in force in Nigeria, has an obligation to see to it that he is governed by a law which is consistent with the provisions of the Nigerian Constitution. Indeed, it is his civil right to see that this is so. This is because any law that is inconsistent with the provisions of that Constitution is, to the extent of that inconsistency, null and void by virtue of the provisions of Sections 1 and 4 to which I have referred earlier.

In order to make it possible for such a person to exercise this basic civil right and obligation, it is provided, at the other extreme, in Section 6 Subsection 6(b) as follows:-

'The judicial powers vested in accordance with the foregoing provisions of this Section shall extend to all matters between persons, or between Government or Authority and any person in Nigeria, and to all actions or proceedings relating thereto, for the determination of any question as to the civil rights and obligations of that person.' (The italics are mine).

I do not think this particular civil right (as opposed to fundamental right) and obligation should be restricted in any way by technicalities where none is clearly provided for in the Constitution. Section 236 which, in any case, merely provides for the unlimited jurisdiction of the High Court of a State, is subject to the all embracing provisions of Section 6(6)(b). The only restriction which I could discern in Subsection (6) will be found in paragraphs (c) and (d).

Unlike the words used in Section 6(6) (b) of our 1979 Constitution, it is provided in Article III Section 2 of the Constitution of the United States of America that the judicial power of the United States vested in the court shall extend to specified 'cases' or 'controversies'. The words 'cases' and 'controversies' have been turned into terms of art through interpretation by the American courts in order to determine the locus standi of a plaintiff in proceedings before the courts. They have been interpreted either liberally or restrictively as the circumstances demand. Thus, in some instances, a suit known as a 'class-action' is permitted when a litigant has only a minor personal interest but is acting for a large number of persons in a particular situation. Other rulings continued the process of constriction in the right to sue by narrowly interpreting the words and so cutting the ground away from a plaintiffs claim. It is significant, however, that no reference is made in the said Article III to a plaintiffs 'civil rights and obligations' which are used in Section 6(6)(b) of our Constitution.

Since the wording of Section 6(6)(b) of our Constitution places emphasis on the civil rights and obligations of the person suing, the decisions of the American courts based solely on their own interpretation of the words “cases” or “controversies” used in their own Constitution are, in my view, totally irrelevant to the circumstances prevailing in Nigeria

. However, except in the extreme or obvious case of abuse of process, how then can one conceive a judicial process where access to the courts, by persons with grievances, is based solely on the courts' own value judgement in a multi-ethnic country where more than two hundred languages are spoken? I would rather err on the side of access than on that of restriction.

Admittedly, in cases where a plaintiff seeks to establish a 'private right' or 'special damage', either under the Common Law or Administrative Law, in non-constitutional litigation, by way of an application for certiorari, prohibition, or mandamus, or for a declaratory and injunctive relief, the law is now well settled that the plaintiff will have locus standi in the matter only if he has a special legal right or alternatively, if he has sufficient or special interest in the performance of the duty sought to be enforced, or where his interest is adversely affected. What constitutes a legal right, sufficient or special interest, or interest adversely affected, will, of course, depend on the facts of each case. Whether an interest is worthy of protection is a matter of judicial discretion which may vary accordingly to the remedy asked for.

Finally, in the Nigerian context and having regard to the detailed provisions of our 1979 Constitution, the point which, I think, needs to be stressed is that there are explicit provisions therein which deal with the locus standi which is required in order to sustain a claim that there has been an infringement of particular provisions of the Constitution. Consequently, other infractions of the provisions of the said Constitution, to which no restrictions are attached, should not be fettered by the Common Law or the Administrative Law concepts of locus standi. The complainant in such cases should be accorded a hearing subject only to the constitutional restrictions to which I have referred earlier.

4.12. In the case of Fawehinmi v President, FRN, (2007) 14 NWLR, ( Pt.1054 ), 275, while citing, with approval, the decisions of the Supreme Court in Fawehinmi v. Akilu (1987) 2 NWLR(Pt.67), 797, and those of the Court of Appeal in Williams v. Dawodu (1988)4NWLR(Pt.87),pg 189 at 218, and Shell Petroleum Development Co. Ltd &5Ors v. E N. Nwawka &Anor. (2001) 10NWLR (Pt.720) 64 at pg. 82, which widened the scope of the doctrine of locus standi, the Court of Appeal, per Aboki JCA held at pgs 334, paras B-G, and 342, paras. D-F that:

In our present reality, the Attorney-General of the Federation is also the Minister of Justice and a member of the Executive Cabinet. He may not be disposed to instituting an action against the Government in which he is part of. it may tantamount to the Federal Government suing itself. Definitely he will not perform such a duty. Importantly too, there is no provision in the 1999 Constitution for the State to sue itself.Since this Country attained Independence from the British Colonial Administration almost forty seven years ago, I know of no reported case of any superior court in Nigeria where the Attorney-General of the Federation has instituted an action against the Federal Government, or an Attorney-General of a State suing his State Government on account of a violation of the provisions of the Constitution or a legislation contrary to the provisions of the Constitution. I may however be wrong in this historical assessment. The question now is who will approach the court to challenge the Government where it violates or fails to enforce any provisions of the Constitution or the Laws where an Attorney-General will not.

In this country, where we have a written Constitution which establishes a constitutional structure involving a tripartite allocation of power to the Judiciary, Executive and Legislature as the co-ordinate organs of Government, Judicial function must primarily aim at preserving legal order by confining the legislative and executive within their powers in the interest of the public and since the dominant objective of the rule of law is to ensure the observance of the law, it can best be achieved by permitting any person to put the judicial machinery in motion in Nigeria whereby any citizen could bring an action in respect of a public derelict. Thus, the requirement of locus standi becomes unnecessary in constitutional issues as it will merely impede judicial functions……………

I am of the opinion that in the Nigerian context, and particularly under the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, it would be wrong to slam the door of the Courts against complaints on executive excesses and unconstitutionality under the guise of lack of locus standi. Where this is done, the objective of the 1999 Constitution beautifully phrased as freedom, equity and justice may not be attained.

The Constitution or any other law can only be tested in Courts; it is access to the courts for such test that will give satisfaction to the people for whom the Constitution or the law is made

4.13. Instructively, in the case of Fawehinmi v. I.G.P, 2002, 7 NWLR, Pt. 767, 606, at 689 690, para F-C, the Supreme Court had stated, before the Fawehinmi v. President, FRN’s case what the law on locus standi, is while a litigant is applying for an order of mandamus. Held the Supreme Court:

A person who seeks an order of mandamus must, among other things, show that he has a legal right to ensure the performance of a duty. Admittedly, the issue of the locus standi of an applicant for mandamus cannot be said to be free from difficulties, it would appear that such locus standi may depend on two alternative factors in regard to the duty allegedly not performed after demand; that is, either that:-

(a) the applicant must have a specific legal right to enforce, or a specific legal right to the enforcement of, the duty; or

(b) that the applicant has a sufficient legal interest; or an interest more substantial than that of the community or interests of the other members of the community or interest group to which he belongs, or that he is specially aggrieved by the non-performance of the duty than other members of the public generally.

4.14. My Lord, one of the reliefs being sought in the Originating Summons is an order of mandamus, which seeks to compel the Inspector-General of the Police and the Attorney General of the Federation to enforce the order of Court, annulling the election of 26^th August, 2010.

4.15. We urge this Honourable Court to apply the law, as stated in the above cited authorities and hold that not only does the Plaintiff/Applicant have a legal right that is worthy of protection in this Suit, he also possess the requisite locus standi to institute this action.

4.16. There is also no doubt that there is a serious question or substantial issue to be tried and resolved at the hearing of this case. Therefore, the Honourable Court ought to grant an injunction to protect the right of the Applicant and those of others by ordering the maintenance of status quo ante bellum and/or status quo ante litem motam of the Applicant. Once there is a substantial issue to be resolved between the parties at the trial, it would be judicious to order for the maintenance of the status quo pending the determination of the substantive action. This was the decision of the Supreme Court in Oduntan v. General Oil (1995) 4 NWLR (Pt. 387) 1 at 14 – 15 paragraphs G – A, and at 18. Para. G-H.

4.17. We now come to the principle of balance of convenience. It is our respectful submission that the balance of convenience in this case lies on the side of the Applicant. In Oduntan v. General Oil Limited Supra at 13P Para D – F, the Supreme Court, in its consideration of the issue of balance of convenience, examined the totality of the case to know which of the parties will lose more. And once it is established that the Applicant will lose more, the Court will grant injunction in his favour. We further humbly refer your Lordship to UTB Ltd. V. DOl Pharm (Nig.) Ltd. (2002) 28 NWLR) Pt. 770) 726 at 750 Para. F – H ; Orji V Zaria Industry Ltd.(1992) 1 NWLR (Pt.216)124 at 142 – 143 Para. G – H; ACB v Awogboro (1991) 2NWLR (Pt. 176) 711 at 719 Para. B – C.

4.18. In order to determine where the balance of convenience lies, the Court must weigh two matters. The first is to protect the plaintiff against injury by violation of his rights for which he could not be adequately compensated in damages recoverable in the action if the uncertainty were resolved in his favour at the trial. The second matter is the defendant’s need to be protected against injury resulting from his having been prevented from exercising his own legal rights for which he could not be adequately compensated under the plaintiff's undertaking in damages if the uncertainty were resolved in the defendant’s favour at the trial. Where the grant or refusal of an interlocutory injunction will have the practical effect of putting an end to the action, the degree of likelihood that the plaintiff would have succeeded in establishing his right to an injunction if the action had gone to trial is a factor to be brought into the balance by the Judge in weighing the risks that injustice may result from his deciding the application one way rather than the other. The Court is referred to Halsbury's Laws of England, Fourth Edition. Paragraph 856 Pages 450 to 451.

4.19. According to Lord Diplock in American Cyanamid v. Ethicon (1975) 1. ALL ER. 505 at 511

"Where other factors appear to be evenly balanced it is a Counsel of prudence to take such measures as are calculated to preserve the status quo. If the Defendant is enjoined temporarily from doing something that he has not done before, the only effect of the interlocutory injunction in the event of his succeeding at the trial is to postpone the date at which he is able to embark on a course of action which he has not previously found it necessary to undertake; whereas to interrupt them in the conduct of an established enterprise would cause much greater inconvenience to them since they would have to start again to establish it in the event of their succeeding at the trial.

Save in the simplest cases, the decision to grant or to refuse an interlocutory injunction will cause to whichever party is unsuccessful on the application some disadvantage which his ultimate success at the trial may show he ought to have been spared and the disadvantage may be such that the recovery of damages to which it would not be sufficient to compensate him fully for all of them. The extent to which the disadvantages to each party would be incapable of being compensated in damages in the event of his succeeding at the trial is always a significant factor in assessing where the balance of convenience lies and if the extent of the incompensatable disadvantage to each party would not differ widely, it may not be improper to take into account in tripping the balance the relative strength of each party's case as revealed by the affidavit evidence adduced on the hearing of the application."

4.20. Applying the above authorities, it is submitted that the balance of convenience is in favour of the grant of the Application of the Applicant. The Applicant herein stand to lose more if injunction is not granted, for their wilful disobedience to an order of court would, between now and when the substantive Suit may be determined, have caused the Applicant and his clients a lot of hardship, for which no recovery of damages can fully compensate them. The strength of the case of the Applicant also warrants that an order of injunction be granted.

4.21. We now come to the principle of inadequacy of damages as compensation. From the facts, as stated in the Affidavit, it could be seen that damages would not be adequate or enough compensation. The substantive Suit involves the determination of serious questions of law.

4.22. Unless this Application is granted to enable the Court determine the said questions of law, a determination which may take some time, and which, depending on the outcome of the Suit, could lead to an appeal, the Respondents will continue their disobedience of the order of the Court, thereby foisting a fait accompli on the Court and on the Plaintiff/Applicant. Without an interlocutory order restraining the Defendants/Respondents as sought, football management and administration in Nigeria will be thrown into a state of confusion, unwieldiness, and disorder, if, after a while, this Honourable Court grants the reliefs we seek in the Originating Summons. It is, thus neater, better, more just and equitable for this Honourable Court to restrain the Defendants/Respondents from operating and functioning on the basis of the annulled election, until determination and resolution of the dispute between the Applicant and the Defendants/Respondents, on the legality and constitutionality of their stay in “office and power”.

4.23. Unless the material available to the Court at the hearing of the application for an interlocutory injunction fails to disclose that the plaintiff or claimant has any prospect of succeeding in his claim for a permanent injunction at the trial, the Court should go on to consider whether the balance of convenience lies in favour of granting or refusing the interlocutory relief that is sought.

4.24. The justice of this case, therefore, requires that this Court restrain the Respondents and allow the status quo ante bellum to be maintained.

5.0. Summary of Arguments

5.1 We have argued in this Application that the Plaintiff/Applicant be granted an order of interlocutory injunction, against the Defendants/Respondents, pending the determination of the substantive Suit. The argument of the Applicant is summarized as follows:

(a) That he has a legal right, which is being breached, which ought to be protected, pending the determination of the substantive action.

(b) That there is a serious question to be tried at the trial of this Suit

(c) That the balance of convenience is on his side; that is more justice will result in granting the application than in refusing it.

(d) That damages cannot be an adequate compensation for his injury, if he succeeds at the end of the day.

(d) That his conduct is not reprehensible; he is not guilty of any delay,

(e) That he is ready to given an undertaking as to damages

6.0. Conclusion

In conclusion, we urge your Lordship to grant the interlocutory order, sought in this Application.

7.0 List of Authorities

Statutes.

Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999

Federal Hugh Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2009

Rules of Professional Conduct for Legal Practitioners,2007

Cases

1 A-G; Abia State v. A-G; Fed. 2006 16 NWLR (Pt. 1005) 265

2. ACB v Awogboro (1991) 2NWLR (Pt. 176) 711 at 719.

3. Akapo v. Hakeem – Habeeb (1992) 6 NWLR (Pt. 247) 266,

4. Commissioner for Works, Benue v. Devcom Ltd. (1988) 3 NWLR (Pt. 83) 407 SC

5. Egbe v. Onogun (1972) All NLR 95;

5. Kotoye v. C. B. N. (1989) 1 NWLR (Pt. 98) 419;

6. Kufeji v. Kogbe (1961), 1 All NLR, 113;

7. Morohunfola v. Kwara Tech. (1990) 4 NWLR (Pt. 145) 506 SC

8. Ojukwu v. Governor of Lagos state (1986) 2 NWLR (Pt. 26) 39;

9. Obeya Memorial Hospital v. A. G. Federation (1987) 3 NWLR (Pt. 60) 325 SC.;

10. Oduntan v. General Oil (1995) 4 NWLR (Pt. 387) 1 at 14 – 15 Pragraph G – A, and at 18. Para. G-H.

11. ORJI V zaria Industry Ltd.(1992) 1 NWLR (Pt.216)124 at 142 – 143 Pragraph G – H;

12. UTB Ltd. V. DOl Pharm (Nig.) Ltd. (2002) 28 NWLR) Pt. 770) 726 at 750 Pragraph F – H ;

13. Williams v. Dawodu (1988) 4 NWLR (Pt. 87) 189;

14. 7-UP Bottling Co. Ltd v. Abiola & Sons Ltd (1995) 3 NWLR (Pt. 383) 257 S.C

15. Senator Abraham Adesanya v The President of Nigeria ( 1981) 2NCLR, 358

16. Fawehinmi v President, FRN, (2007) 14 NWLR, ( Pt.1054 ), 275

17. Fawehinmi v. Akilu (1987) 2 NWLR(Pt.67), 797,

18. Williams v. Dawodu (1988)4NWLR(Pt.87),pg 189 at 218,

19. Shell Petroleum Development Co. Ltd &5Ors v. E N. Nwawka &Anor. (2001) 10NWLR (Pt.720) 64 at pg. 82,

20. Fawehinmi v. I.G.P, 2002, 7 NWLR, Pt. 767, 606, at 689 690, para F-C,

21. American Cyanamid v. Ethicon (1975) 1. ALL ER. 505 at 511

Dated this ………………….day of November, 2010

IN THE FEDERAL HIGH COURT

IN THE LAGOS JUDICIAL DIVISION

HOLDEN AT LAGOS

SUIT NO: …………………

BETWEEN:

JITI OGUNYE PLAINTIFF/ APPLICANT

AND

1. THE REGISTERED TRUSTEES OF THE

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF NIGERIAN

FOOTBALLERS (NANF)

2. NIGERIAN FOOTBALL ASSOCIATION, NFA

(Trading under the name and style of The Nigerian

Football Federation, NFF)

3. ALHAJI AMINU MAIGARI DEFENDANTS/RESPONDENTS

NIGERIANEMIER LEAGUE BOARD

(Trading under the Name and style of the Nigerian

Premier League)

MR. DAVIDSON OWUMI, President, Nigerian

Premier League Board

THE MINISTER OF SPORTS

THE DIRECTOR-GENERAL OF SPORTS,

FED. MIN. OF SPORTS

THE ELECTORAL COMMITTEE, NIGERIAN

FOOTBALL ASSOCIATION

9. A.U MUSTAPHA

10. INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE

11 ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF THE FEDERATION

AFFIDAVIT OF URGENCY

IN SUPPORT OF MOTION ON NOTICE FOR INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION

I, Jiti Ogunye, Male, Nigerian Citizen and Legal Practitioner of 10E Olanrewaju Street, Off Kudirat Abiola Way, Ikeja-Lagos State do hereby make oath and state as follows:

i. That I am the Plaintiff/ Applicant herein by virtue of which fact I am conversant with the facts of this Suit.

ii. That on Wednesday,, the 24^th of November, 2010, I filed, a Motion on Notice for Interlocutory Injunction against the Defendants/Respondents.

iii. That by the Motion, I am seeking an Order Of Interlocutory Injunction restraining the officers and members of the 2^nd Defendant/Respondent (Nigerian Football Association, acting under the name of Nigerian Football Federation),including the 3^rd Defendant/Respondent herein, either by themselves, their agents, servants or associates, from further conducting, parading, addressing or describing themselves as duly elected members and officers of the Governing Board (Executive Committee) and Congress of the 2^nd Defendant/Respondent, arising from the elections purportedly conducted into the said Committee and Congress on the 26^th of August, 2010,and/or in any way or manner whatsoever and howsoever carrying out any of the duties, functions, works and activities of the said Committee and Congress., pending the hearing and determination of the substantive Originating Summons herein.

iv. That I am also seeking an Order of Interlocutory Injunction restraining the Defendants/Respondents herein, either by themselves, their agents, servants or associates, from treating, regarding and relating to the officers and members of the 2^nd Defendant/Respondent (Nigerian Football Association, acting under the name of Nigerian Football Federation),including the 3^rd Defendant/Respondent herein, as duly elected members and officers of the Governing Board (Executive Committee) and Congress of the 2^nd Defendant/Respondent, arising from the elections purportedly conducted into the said Committee and

Congress on the 26^th of August, 2010,and/or in any way or manner whatsoever and howsoever participating in or endorsing any of the duties, functions, works and activities of the said Committee and Congress., pending the hearing and determination of the substantive Originating Summons herein .

v. That in the Originating Summons, I am challenging the legality and constitutionality of the continued stay in offices, exercise of powers of those offices, and discharge of the functions of those offices by officers and members of the Executive Committee and Congress of the Nigerian Football Association, in disobedience to an order of the Federal High Court, annulling the election, held on the 26^th of August, 2010, on which the occupancy of the office by the members and officers is predicated.

vi. That the elections were held after an order of injunction forbidding same to be held was made by the Court, a ground that made the Court to annul the said election by another order of Court.

vii. That after the said order of annulment, the Suit wherein the orders were made was discontinued, without the order of annulment being discharged or varied, only for the officers and members of the Executive Committee and Congress to return to their respective offices, claiming that with the Suit discontinued and struck out, they have been restored to power.

viii. That I sincerely believe that there is a serious question of law, including constitutional law and enforcement of court powers to be tried by this Court in the Originating Summons

ix. That unless this Application is granted to enable the Court determine the said questions of law, a determination which may take some time, and which, depending on the outcome of the Suit, could lead to an appeal, the Respondents will continue to disobey the said order of Court.

x. That it is in the interest of justice to grant this application.

xi. That I depose hereto in good faith conscientiously believing all facts herein to be true and in accordance with the Oath Act.

.......…………………

D E P O N E NT

Sworn to at the Federal High Court

Registry, Lagos

This ……………… day of November, 2010.

BEFORE ME

COMMISSIONER FOR OATHS

IN THE FEDERAL HIGH COURT

IN THE LAGOS JUDICIAL DIVISION

HOLDEN AT LAGOS

SUIT NO: …………………

BETWEEN:

JITI OGUNYE PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT

AND

1. THE REGISTERED TRUSTEES OF THE NATIONAL

ASSOCIATION OF NIGERIAN FOOTBALLERS (NANF)

2. NIGERIAN FOOTBALL ASSOCIATION, NFA

(Trading under the name and style of The Nigerian Football Federation, NFF)

3. ALHAJI AMINU MAIGARI

DEFENDANTS/RESPONDENTS

4. NIGERIANEMIER LEAGUE BOARD

(Trading under the Name and style of the Nigerian Premier League)

5. MR. DAVIDSON OWUMI, President, Nigerian Premier League Board

6. THE MINISTER OF SPORTS

7. THE DIRECTOR-GENERAL OF SPORTS, FED. MIN. OF SPORTS

8. THE ELECTORAL COMMITTEE, NIGERIAN FOOTBALL ASSOCIATION

9. A.U MUSTAPHA

10. INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE

11. ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF THE FEDERATION

MOTION EX-PARTE

Brought Pursuant to:

1. Order 3, Rule 20, and Order 6, Rule 14 (1&2) and Rule 17 (1&2) of the Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2009.

2. Section 97 of Sheriffs and Civil Process Act, Cap.S6, LFN, 2004

3. Inherent Jurisdiction of this Honourable Court.

1. AN ORDER OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT GRANTING LEAVE to the Plaintiff/Applicant to serve the Originating Summons, filed by him and issued by this Honourable Court, as a Concurrent Originating Summons, and other allied court processes on the 2^nd – 7^th and 10^th and 11^th Defendants/Respondents herein, outside the Divisional Jurisdiction of this Honourable Court, in Abuja, Federal Capital Territory

2. AND FOR SUCH FURTHER ORDERS OR OTHER ORDERS as this Honourable Court may deem fit to make in the circumstances

Dated this ………………….day of November, 2010

Jiti Ogunye, Esq.

Jiti Ogunye Chambers

Plaintiff’s Counsel

Top Floor, 10E Olanrewaju Street Off Kudirat Abiola Way Oregun, Ikeja, Lagos State

Tel: 01-76174777, 07029680070, 08023600378

email-jitilaw@yahoo.com

IN THE FEDERAL HIGH COURT

IN THE LAGOS JUDICIAL DIVISION

HOLDEN AT LAGOS

SUIT NO: …………………

BETWEEN:

JITI OGUNYE PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT

AND

1. THE REGISTERED TRUSTEES OF THE NATIONAL

ASSOCIATION OF NIGERIAN FOOTBALLERS (NANF)

2. NIGERIAN FOOTBALL ASSOCIATION, NFA

(Trading under the name and style of The Nigerian Football Federation, NFF)

3. ALHAJI AMINU MAIGARI

DEFENDANTS/REPONDENTS

4. NIGERIANEMIER LEAGUE BOARD

(Trading under the Name and style of the Nigerian Premier League)

5. MR. DAVIDSON OWUMI, President, Nigerian Premier League Board

6. THE MINISTER OF SPORTS

7. THE DIRECTOR-GENERAL OF SPORTS, FED. MIN. OF SPORTS

8. THE ELECTORAL COMMITTEE, NIGERIAN FOOTBALL ASSOCIATION

9. A.U MUSTAPHA

10. INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE

11. ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF THE FEDERATION

AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION EX-PARTE FOR LEAVE TO SERVE THE 2^ND-7^TH AND 10^TH&11^TH DEFENDANTS OUT OF JURISDICTION OF THE COURT

I, Jiti Ogunye, Male, Nigerian Citizen and Legal Practitioner of 10E Olanrewaju Street, Off Kudirat Abiola Way, Ikeja-Lagos State do hereby make oath and state as follows:

1. That I am the Plaintiff/Applicant herein by virtue of which fact I am conversant with the facts of this Suit.

2. That the Motion Ex-Parte herein is being filed contemporaneously with the Originating Summons in this action, and the Motion on Notice for Interlocutory Injunction, which I filed on Wednesday, the 24^th of November, 2010

3. That in the Originating Summons, I am challenging the legality and constitutionality of the continued stay in offices, exercise of powers of those offices, and discharge of the functions of those offices by officers and members of the Executive Committee and Congress of the Nigerian Football Association, in disobedience to an order of the Federal High Court, annulling the election, held on the 26^th of August, 2010, on which the occupancy of the offices, by the members and officers, is predicated.

4. That the elections were held after an order of injunction forbidding same to be held was made by the Court, a ground that made the Court to annul the said election by another order of Court.

5. That after the said order of annulment, the Suit wherein the orders were made was discontinued, without the order of annulment being discharged or varied, only for the officers and members of the Executive Committee and Congress to return to their respective offices, claiming that with the Suit discontinued and struck out, they have been restored to power.

6. That I sincerely believe that there is a serious question of law, including constitutional law and enforcement of court powers to be tried by this Court in the Originating Summons.

7. While the 1^st, 8^th and 9^th Defendants/Respondents are in Lagos, within the Divisional Jurisdiction of this Honourable Court, the 2^nd-7^th, and the 10^th & 11^th Defendants/Respondents have their headquarters or head offices in Abuja, the Federal Capital.

8. That unless this Application is granted expeditiously, I will not be able to serve and bring all the Defendants to Court.

9. That it is in the interest of justice to grant this application.

10. That I depose hereto in good faith conscientiously believing all facts herein to be true and in accordance with the Oath Act.

…………………

D E P O N E N T

Sworn to at the Federal High Court

Registry, Lagos

This ……………… day of November, 2010.

BEFORE ME

COMMISSIONER FOR OATHS

IN THE FEDERAL HIGH COURT

IN THE LAGOS JUDICIAL DIVISION

HOLDEN AT LAGOS

SUIT NO: …………………

BETWEEN:

JITI OGUNYE PLAINTIFF/ APPLICANT

AND

1. THE REGISTERED TRUSTEES OF THE NATIONAL

ASSOCIATION OF NIGERIAN FOOTBALLERS (NANF)

2. NIGERIAN FOOTBALL ASSOCIATION, NFA

(Trading under the name and style of The Nigerian Football Federation, NFF)

3. ALHAJI AMINU MAIGARI

DEFENDANTS/RESPONDENTS

4. NIGERIANEMIER LEAGUE BOARD

(Trading under the Name and style of the Nigerian Premier League)

5. MR. DAVIDSON OWUMI, President, Nigerian Premier League Board

6. THE MINISTER OF SPORTS

7. THE DIRECTOR-GENERAL OF SPORTS, FED. MIN. OF SPORTS

8. THE ELECTORAL COMMITTEE, NIGERIAN FOOTBALL ASSOCIATION

9. A.U MUSTAPHA

10. INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE

11. ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF THE FEDERATION

Submitted by

Jiti Ogunye , Esq.,

Jiti Ogunye Chambers Applicant’s Counsel

Top Floor, Flat 1

10E Olanrewaju Street

Off Kudirat Abiola Way

Oregun, Ikeja, Lagos State.

Tel:234-1-7617477; 07029680070,08023600378

E-mail: jitilaw@yahoo.com

1.0. Introduction

1.1 This Motion Ex-Parte, filed on the 24^th day of November, 2010, is brought pursuant to Order 3, Rule 20, and Order 6, Rule 14 (1&2) and Rule 17 (1&2) of the Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2009. Section 97 of Sheriffs and Civil Process Act, Cap.S6, LFN, 2004, and Inherent Jurisdiction of this Honourable Court

1.2 By this Motion, the Plaintiff/Applicant seeks the following from the Honourable Court:

AN ORDER OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT GRANTING LEAVE to the Plaintiff/Applicant to serve the Originating Summons, filed by him and issued by this Honourable Court, as a Concurrent Originating Summons, and other allied court processes, on the 2^nd – 7^th and 10^th and 11^th Defendants/Respondents herein, outside the Divisional Jurisdiction of this Honourable Court, in Abuja, Federal Capital Territory; and for such further orders or other orders as this Honourable Court may deem fit to make in the circumstances

1.3 The Motion is supported by a ten (10) Paragraph Affidavit, and a six (6) Paragraph Affidavit of Urgency separately deposed to by the Plaintiff/Applicant, by name, Jiti Ogunye. In arguing this Application, the Applicant shall rely on all the averments contained in the Affidavit in support of the Motion

2.0 Statement of Facts

The facts of this Motion are as concisely stated in the Affidavit in Support of the Motion and the Affidavit of Urgency attached thereto. The 2^nd-7^th Defendants/Respondents, and the 10^th and 11^th Defendants/Respondents are domiciled or they have their headquarters or head offices in Abuja, the Federal Capital Territory. The Plaintiff/Applicant, the 1^st Defendant/Respondent, and the 8^th and 9^th Defendants/Respondents are, however resident and domiciled in Lagos, within the jurisdiction of the Court. This warrants this Motion being brought to obtain leave of Court, as required by the Rules of Court to serve the said Defendants/Respondents outside the jurisdiction of Court

3.0 Arguments

3.1 In a long line of cases, starting from Nwabueze v. Okoye(1988) 4NWLR (Pt.91) 664, the Supreme Court has stated and restated that service of court processes outside the Jurisdiction of Court must be in compliance with statutory prescriptions; and that failure of compliance will rob the Court of Jurisdiction.

3.2 In the circumstances of this Suit and Application, therefore, the Honourable Court is urged to grant the Plaintiff/Applicant Leave to serve the identified Defendants/Respondents outside the Jurisdiction of the Honourable Court.

4.0 Summary of Arguments

4.1 The Honourable Court is vested with powers to grant the leave being sought, in deserving cases. We, thus, urge the Court to grant the orders as prayed, since a deserving case for the grant of leave has been made out in the Application

5.0 Conclusion

5.1 It is in the interest of justice to grant this Application

6.0 List of Authorities

Statutes.

1. Federal Hugh Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2009

2. Sheriff and Civil Process Act

Cases

1 Nwabueze v. Okoye(1988) 4NWLR (Pt.91) 664

Dated this 24^th of November, 2010

Jiti Ogunye , Esq.,

Jiti Ogunye Chambers Plaintiff/Applicant’s Counsel

IN THE FEDERAL HIGH COURT

IN THE LAGOS JUDICIAL DIVISION

HOLDEN AT LAGOS

SUIT NO: …………………

BETWEEN:

JITI OGUNYE PLAINTIFF/ APPLICANT

AND

1. THE REGISTERED TRUSTEES OF THE NATIONAL

ASSOCIATION OF NIGERIAN FOOTBALLERS (NANF)

2. NIGERIAN FOOTBALL ASSOCIATION, NFA

(Trading under the name and style of The Nigerian Football Federation, NFF)

3. ALHAJI AMINU MAIGARI

DEFENDANTS/RESPONDENTS

4. NIGERIANEMIER LEAGUE BOARD

(Trading under the Name and style of the Nigerian Premier League)

5. MR. DAVIDSON OWUMI, President, Nigerian Premier League Board

6. THE MINISTER OF SPORTS

7. THE DIRECTOR-GENERAL OF SPORTS, FED. MIN. OF SPORTS

8. THE ELECTORAL COMMITTEE, NIGERIAN FOOTBALL ASSOCIATION

9. A.U MUSTAPHA

10. INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE

11. ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF THE FEDERATION

AFFIDAVIT OF URGENCY

IN SUPPORT OF MOTION EX PARTE FOR LEAVE TO SERVE CONCURRENT ORIGINATING SUMMONS AT ABUJA, FEDRRAL CAPITAL TERRITORY, OUT OF JURISDICTION OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT

I, Jiti Ogunye, Male, Nigerian Citizen and Legal Practitioner of 10E Olanrewaju Street, Off Kudirat Abiola Way, Ikeja-Lagos State do hereby make oath and state as follows:

1. That I am the Plaintiff/ Applicant herein by virtue of which fact I am conversant with the facts of this Suit.

2. That on Wednesday, the 24^th of November, 2010, I filed, an Originating Summons and a Motion on Notice for Interlocutory Injunction, with an Affidavit of Urgency against the Defendants/Respondents.

3. That the 2^nd-7^th Defendants/Respondents and 10^th and 11^th Defendants herein have their headquarters or head-offices at Abuja, the Federal Capital Territory.

4. That unless this Application is urgently heard and granted to enable me serve the said Defendants/Respondents the Originating Court processes and bring them to Court, the Originating Summons and Motion on Notice that I have filed, to which an Affidavit of Urgency is attached will not be ripe for hearing and the Defendants/Respondents will continue in their willful disobedience of the order of Court, the legality and constitutionality of which I am challenging.

5. That it is in the interest of justice to urgently grant this application.

6. That I depose hereto in good faith conscientiously believing all facts herein to be true and in accordance with the Oath Act.

…………………

D E P O N E N T

Sworn to at the Federal High Court

Registry, Lagos

This ……………… day of November, 2010.

BEFORE ME

COMMISSIONER FOR OATHS

CONCURRENT ORIGINATING SUMMONS

This Originating Summons is to be served out of the jurisdiction of the Lagos Division of the Federal High Court, and in Abuja, the Federal Capital Territory

FORM 3

General Form of Originating Summons

(O.3, r.9)

IN THE FEDERAL HIGH COURT

IN THE LAGOS JUDICIAL DIVISION

HOLDEN AT LAGOS

SUIT NO: …………………

BETWEEN:

JITI OGUNYE PLAINTIFF

AND

1. THE REGISTERED TRUSTEES OF THE NATIONAL

ASSOCIATION OF NIGERIAN FOOTBALLERS (NANF)

2. NIGERIAN FOOTBALL ASSOCIATION, NFA

(Trading under the name and style of The Nigerian Football Federation,

NFF)

3. ALHAJI AMINU MAIGARI

4. NIGERIANEMIER LEAGUE BOARD

(Trading under the Name and style of the Nigerian Premier League)

DEFENDANTS

5. MR. DAVIDSON OWUMI, President, Nigerian Premier League Board

6. THE MINISTER OF SPORTS

7. THE DIRECTOR-GENERAL OF SPORTS, FED. MIN. OF SPORTS

8. THE ELECTORAL COMMITTEE, NIGERIAN FOOTBALL

ASSOCIATION

9. A.U MUSTAPHA

10 INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE

11. ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF THE FEDERATION

Send your comment, NO foul language please.
Name:
Email
Comment::

Force Headquarters

Louis Edet House

Abuja, FCT

Force Headquarters

Louis Edet House

Abuja, FCT

Submitted by

Force Headquarters

Louis Edet House

Abuja, FCT

Submitted by

Dated this 24th of November, 2010

Dated this 24^th of November, 2010