The concept of “receivership” may look so simple on the surface; it simply involves a secured debenture holder appointing a receiver to manage the assets in the receivership. However, its complexity lies in the receiver's managerial power. To what extent can he interfere with the affairs of the company?
@youdontknowmoh@whoisisrablrtz Well, don't forget that a deponent can be put in a box to verify the evidence sir😅 so either way, verification of knowledge go still happen🤣
This is absurd😅
Why would you bring trademark into a defamation case? The bone of contention is not the image; it's the character captured in it. Issue of trademark would only arise if there is a commercial exploitation of a creative image not rightfully yours. People too dey talk for this X o😅 he still con type am like he knows what he's saying
Free advice for all.
Try your possible best to avoid putting personal name on any legal document, whether it's a deed of transfer or any other deed. It exposes you and your assets to lots of risks.
Free advice for all.
Try your possible best to avoid putting personal name on any legal document, whether it's a deed of transfer or any other deed. It exposes you and your assets to lots of risks.
Yess, I totally agree with your position, but as it was rightly put in the original post, the court now excuses the non-compliance with ACJA and admits evidence borne of the non compliance. The main point of distinguishing validity from admissibility is simply to sway the court from interpreting the Evidence Act in isolation. The argument may be weak but you’ll never know the result that it'll yield.