Chidiebere Obi

Attorney⚖| Chief Editor and Founder'MIND EMPIRE VOL.2'
A Shrewd man.
Criminal defense attorney|
Property and Real Estate Law|
Chukwu Okike is the greatest 🙌

[Chidiebere Obi @chidiobi183]

@Omo__Ibadan Its either you say "Contract of sale of land" or "Sale of land Agreement". There's nothing like Contract of sale of land Agreement. Just a reminder counsel.

[Chidiebere Obi @chidiobi183]

@guzu_p Didn't you guys notice smfin?
VDM's silence in this matter! Baba don comot hand 4 anything wey concern woman. 🤣🤣

[BSAT Properties @BSAT_Properties]

Before you buy that land with C of O, know this.

A lot of people get excited when they hear something like, “The land has C of O.” So this is what you need to know about the C of O.

The C of O is a Certificate of Occupancy issued by the government to the original owner (head lessor) for 99 years. Therefore, when you buy from the head lessor, the purchaser gets the unexpired residue of the 99 years.

What this means is this: a landowner obtains a C of O and is granted a 99-year lease by the government over the land. He uses the land for 20 years and then resells it. The new owner has just bought the remaining 79 years of that lease.

So, if that purchaser uses the land for another 15 years and resells it, the current purchaser is buying the land for 64 years. That’s how the years keep reducing. It means that at some point, another buyer may end up buying the land with only 10 years left on the lease.

What this means is that when you buy land with a C of O, you are buying the remainder of the government’s lease, which is why the purchaser must obtain the Governor’s Consent before the title can be legally transferred.

Many people wrongly believe that every buyer gets a fresh 99 years. That is not the law. The 99 years start counting from the date the original right of occupancy was granted, not from the date you bought the land.

However, when the 99-year term eventually expires, the person who is the holder of the right of occupancy at that time can apply to the government for a renewal or the grant of a fresh right of occupancy, subject to the provisions of the law.

A C of O therefore operates like a long-term lease granted by the government. So before you buy land because it “has C of O,” don’t just ask whether it has one, ask when the C of O was issued.

© Law Parlor

[E.P Aninze Esq. @EkeneAninze]

David Umahi is a Minster of Works representing South Eastern people in President Tinubu's cabinet.

You have seen the way he is being consistently dragged by Igbos since this scandal started? That was the exact way Orji Uzor Kalu was also dragged and called out when he was convicted.

That is South East for you. No matter who you are, if you do something that doesn't resonate with the conscience of the people, they will surely drag you.

This is what we consistently beg other regions to do. When someone is not doing well, call him out even though he/she is your kinsman.

Unfortunately, I can't say the same for so many people who would rather drink poison, just because it was served with their tribal cup.

Pathetic.

I am Ekene Aninze Esq.

[Mike Arnold @MikeArnoldTruth]

HE CALLS FOR UNITY AND NONVIOLENCE.
THEY CALL HIM A TERRORIST.

Nigeria’s illegal imprisonment of truth-speaker Nnamdi Kanu

Read the Sokoto Declaration. Then look at the cell.

A man chained in Sokoto just told the world, in writing, that the way forward is strict non-violence. Unity across tribe. Unity across religion. Unity across race. The basic human rights every human being is born with. Those are his words. That is now the record.

That is not a terrorist. That is a conscience.

And that is what the regime in Abuja cannot survive — a prisoner whose only weapon is the truth, and whose truth keeps getting louder the deeper they bury him.

Nnamdi Kanu was illegally abducted from Kenya. Tried under a law that no longer existed. A British dual citizen, convicted for words spoken in London. Shackled 800 kilometers from his family in a cell in the heart of the Caliphate to silence him.

It did not work. It will not work.

The whole charade has collapsed. The man calls for peace and they call him a terrorist. The man calls for unity and they call him a separatist. The man calls for human rights and they call him a threat. They have run out of lies, and the world has finally learned to read.

His only crime is telling the truth about a tryannical regime built on graves.

Release Nnamdi Kanu. Release every prisoner of conscience. Release them today.

The world is watching. History is taking names. And the prisoner of Sokoto has already won.

https://t.co/c7J9Vdht52

#EarthShaker

[Chidiebere Obi @chidiobi183]

Children is not a reason to end the war, my only focus is the unity of the country".

The genocidal act against Biafrans was an organized starvation, imposed starvation, and against primarily the children all for the benefit of Britain 🇬🇧 and its citizens.
We'll never forget!

[Chidiebere Obi @chidiobi183]

I watched the BBC documentary titled; "Surviving Biafra", and to me it is a classical case of the hunter telling the tales of the hunt as against the hunted. Here re my observations from the documentary and the intentional omissions made:

[Chidiebere Obi @chidiobi183]

-The documentary praised the evil acts of colonel. Benjamin Adekunle (Black scorpion) and his men in the killing of innocent industrial workers at umuahia, describing them as rebels who deserved to d*e.

Obafemi Awolowo (may he never rest well) said; "the plight of the starving..

[Chidiebere Obi @chidiobi183]

@se_fola Otu shigbukwa gi na azikiwe

[Chidiebere Obi @chidiobi183]

On this day in 1967, Biafra was created. Its sole purpose was to protect the indigenes of the former eastern region and save lives. This day the 30th of May, we remember our fallen heroes. Live on! 🌄 #biafra #releasemazinnamdikanu

[Chidiebere Obi @chidiobi183]

@engrICO2015 I know him as one who will never rest well!

[Chidiebere Obi @chidiobi183]

So be ready to show the judge (or court depending on the jurisdiction) a 🌽 video 📵 🤣

[Chidiebere Obi @chidiobi183]

Proof of adultery in matrimonial causes may look simple but it poses a problem in practice because many a counsel overlooks the demands...
Apart from cases where the court may infer from the circumstances that intercourse took place, where adultery is alleged, it must be proved..

[Chidiebere Obi @chidiobi183]

Witness- Haaah, lawyer!

Defendant's counsel- Objection, your honor. Counsel must not put words into the Witness' mouth.
Court: Objection sustained!
In proving adultery, where direct evidence of adultery is nt available, d court may infer adultery from circumstances available.

[Fabian Sani Esq @FabianSani8]

To whom it may concern as copied from Taiwo Aromolarn on LinkedIn.

Young lawyers, if you walk into court with these 7 authorities, no objection will take you off guard:

1. Atanda & Ors v. Ajani & Ors (1989)

When to use this:

Opposing counsel tries to introduce evidence or elicit testimony on facts not pleaded in the statement of claim or defence.

Your response:

“My Lord, this evidence goes to no issue. The facts it seeks to establish were never pleaded. We urge the court to discountenance it as it is inadmissible.”

2. Section 1(1) of the Evidence Act

Torti v. Ukpabi (1984), citing Kuruma v. The Queen (1955)

When to use this:

Opposing counsel objects to your evidence on the grounds of how it was obtained e.g., arguing it was improperly or illegally obtained.

You respond:

“My Lord, relevance is the basis of admissibility. Once the evidence is relevant to the matters in issue, it is admissible.

How it was obtained is of no moment at this stage.”

3. Ndu v. State (1990); FRN v. Saraki

When to use this: Opposing counsel discloses information not contained in his pleadings or affidavit from the Bar.

Your response: “My Lord, the law is trite. No matter how brilliant Counsel’s oral address is, it cannot take the place of evidence.

The court of law is a court of facts and facts are established when supporting evidence is adduced.

4. Akpan v. Bob & Ors (2011)

When to use this:

The opposing counsel suggests that your brief is defective and should be struck out.

Your response:

“My Lord, even where a brief is alleged to be bad, the only consequence the court may visit upon it is an adverse comment.

It has no jurisdiction to regard such a brief as no brief at all… It cannot strike it out on the premises of being bad.”

5. NNPC v. Clifco Nig. Ltd. (2011)

When to use this: After winning, opposing party resists a costs order;

Your response:

“My lord, costs follow the event in litigation. A successful party should not be deprived of the fruits of litigation unless there are specific reasons why he should be deprived of his entitlement.”

6. Sodipo v. Lemminkainen & Anor (1986)

When to use this:

Opposing counsel objects to an affidavit because it was deposed to by a lawyer.

How to respond:

“My Lord, an affidavit sworn by counsel is not objectionable in principle.

It is only improper where the subject-matter involves privileged client communication or places counsel in a position of being cross-examined. Neither condition is present here.”

Which of these stood out to you?

P.S: Lawyers, what case law will you recommend as no. 7?👇👇

Save this post for later
Repost for other lawyers

Best legal write up I’ve seen all week.