obiagwu paschal

Enthralled with well worded legal piece. Interested in unraveling issues, more fundamentally, issues of my concern.interested smart and intellingent people

[aloy ejimakor @AloyEjimakor]

BREAKING:
Peter Obi alleges threat to his life, saying: “The way they’re going now, I might not even be alive soon, they’re going after my life. Every single thing I do for a living, this government is deliberately frustrating it. The government is attack!ng me personally.”

[Jobs Region @jobsregion]

Maersk Group Graduate Internship Program 2026

Requirements:
- Currently pursuing or recently completed a Bachelor’s degree
- Strong analytical and problem-solving skills.
- Excellent communication and interpersonal abilities.
- Strong organizational skills with a high level of attention to detail

Location: Lagos | Nigeria

Deadline: Not Specified

Click the link (image) below to apply⤵️
https://t.co/oeIOAZJgHD

Kindly retweet and share to your friends who might be interested

[Vala Afshar @ValaAfshar]

When the world saw a goal, the keeper saw a chance to shine.

[Chidi Anselm Odinkalu, CGoF @ChidiOdinkalu]

When I said here last week that there were plans to use the office of the Attorney-General of the Federation to take over @NigBarAssoc if certain parties did not get their way with the upcoming #NBADecides2026, the usual folks here acted as if that was fable.

Now we have the evidence in black & white under the hand of the Attorney-General of the Federation himself, Lateef Fagbemi.

It is not to be forgotten that the #HAGF is party to the ongoing litigation before @NGCourtofAppeal. If a party to a pending case is proposing terms of settlement, those cannot be "directions." At best, they are proposals for the parties to consider.

It is notable that the #HAGF does not cite any source of legal text as authority or bases for the extraordinary whim that he has chosen to indulge in. The reason is because none can be found in existing law.

If Lateef Fagbemi wants it on his record & as his legacy he was the Attorney-General of the Federation who used his pen to ink the obituary of @NigBarAssoc, he will have a lot of willing helpers.

He wants the #NBADecides2026 to mandatorily use #NIN. But NBA does not produce the Roll. That is with @SupremeCourtNg, which does not have NIN in the records.

Lateef Fagbemi wants to appoint a #SoleAdministrator for @NigBarAssoc. But he has no such powers. The NBA is an NGO with incorporated trustees. Those are the people who have any legal role in the matters of the Association. Fagbemi is an interested party &, to be fair to him, he is not hiding whose interest he serves.

The military tried & failed to take over the #NBA or to turn it into a their plaything. This lot too shall fail.

The #NBA is not a department of the Federal Ministry of Justice.

[Yiaga Africa @YIAGA]

Les communautés ne se transforment pas d'elles-mêmes. Ce sont les gens qui les organisent.

Êtes-vous prêt·e à créer des mouvements, à mobiliser les citoyen·ne·s et à mener le changement là où cela compte le plus ?

Les candidatures pour l'Institut régional d'organisation communautaire 2026 sont désormais ouvertes.

Postulez dès aujourd'hui 👉 https://t.co/On2yKo4R26

[Yiaga Africa @YIAGA]

Communities don’t transform themselves. People organize them.

Are you ready to build movements, mobilize citizens, and lead change where it matters most?

Applications for the Regional Community Organizing Institute 2026 are now open.

Apply today 👉 https://t.co/8jJlEVxsC7

[Aproko Doctor Global @aproko_doctor]

This is what to do if you have ulcer!

[obiagwu paschal @obiagwupaschal]

@NWLRonline please l need an authority that bars efcc from handling Land disputes matters that don't bother on using illicit funds to acquire land or use of forged land documents to obtain money from an unsuspecting buyer. Thank you

[OurFaveOnlineDoc 🇬🇧 🇳🇬 @OurFavOnlineDoc]

The Supreme Court of the USA has just ruled that the 14th Amendment guarantees birthright citizenship to all children born in the USA including those whose parents are in the country unlawfully or even visiting only temporarily.

This ruling overrules Trump’s executive order.

[Katie Buehler @bykatiebuehler]

BREAKING: A 6-3 Supreme Court rules presidents CAN fire members of independent agencies without cause, greenlighting President Donald Trump’s efforts to reshape the federal government. #SCOTUS liberals dissent. https://t.co/cHOqPeRPUF

[Jibrin Okutepa San @sanjsokutepa]

I have resisted the urge to comment on the ruling of Hon Mr Justice Dashen of the Federal High Court sitting in Lokoja on the NDC matter until I read the judgement. Having read the judgement I am just wondering why the learned trial judge agreed to set the judgement his lordship gave in December 2025 wherein INEC the only Defendant in that case was ordered to register NDC as a political party.

That order was obeyed and NDC registered as a political party. Now an association known as Peace Movement Party PMP was never a party to that judgement. So when an application was filed on the 5th May 2026, the application had two prayers. Praye on3 was for extension of time to apply to set aside the said judgement and an order setting aside the said judgment.

The learned trial judge in the ruling under review set out the two prayers in the motion in the ruling but his lordship did not consider at all prayer one that deals with extension of time to apply to have the judgment set aside. Why. Nobody can hadzard a guess. But was his lordship right. I do not think so. The principle of law is well established that where a person seeks extension of time within which to apply to set aside a judgment entered in his absence, the applicant must satisfy two conditions, namely good and substantial reasons for the failure to appear or defend the action; and show that there is a prima facie defence on the merits, usually by exhibiting a proposed statement of defence disclosing triable issues.

These two conditions are conjunctive, not disjunctive. In other words, both conditions must co-exist before the court can exercise its discretion in favour of the applicant. Failure to satisfy either is fatal. The Supreme Court in Williams vs Hope Rising Voluntary Funds Society held that an applicant seeking to set aside a judgment entered in default must: show good reasons for the default; and disclose a defence on the merits.

In fact the first hurdle must be crossed before a consideration can be given to the second question. The discretion of the court is exercised only where both requirements are met. In Nalsa & Team Associates vs. NNPC, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that the applicant must satisfy the court as to:
the reason for the default; and
the existence of a defence raising triable issues. In Skenconsult (Nig.) Ltd. vs Ukey,
even though principally dealing with judgments entered without jurisdiction or without service, the Supreme Court also distinguished cases where the court's discretion to set aside a regular judgment depends upon the applicant satisfying the recognised conditions.

In A.C.B. Plc vs Losada (Nig.) Ltd, the Supreme Court reiterated that a party seeking to set aside a regular judgment must explain the default and show a defence on the merits. In Macaulay vs. NAL Merchant Bank Ltd the court emphasized that both conditions are prerequisites before discretion can be exercised. Are these conditions conjunctive or disjunctive? The authorities consistently state that the conditions are conjunctive, not disjunctive.

The applicant must establish both: good and substantial reasons for the failure to appear; and a defence on the merits. The use of the word "and" in the Supreme Court decisions is deliberate. The courts have repeatedly refused applications where only one condition was established.A commonly quoted statement of the law is that the applicant must show good reasons for his absence and disclose a defence on the merits before the court can exercise its discretion in his favour.

In this ruling, his lordship left out most fundamental judicial function and did not interrogate the reason for failure to apply to have the judgment set aside before INEC obey it. The court did not give us the opportunity what informed its reasons to set aside the judgment when there is no finding on the point why the applicants waited till 4th May 2026 before they apply to set aside the judgment. It appears there are more the public did not know.

[EFCC Nigeria @officialEFCC]

Secure your BVN to avoid gnashing of teeth.

[Chidi Anselm Odinkalu, CGoF @ChidiOdinkalu]

Peter Lifu's judgment in this party de-registration case evinces a degree of criminal dishonesty that points to something extraordinarily pathological:

1. When the defendants tell him that the plaintiff is an "interloper" with no interest in the case, he says the issues will be disposed of at "trial". But this was an originating summons case & there is no trial as such in originating summons proceedings. If there is need for one, then it is no longer originating summons case.

2. He is shown evidence that the parties that he seeks to de-register have won seats in @nassnigeria & local elections respectively. He claims - without citing any authority or justifying his wistfulness - that victories envisaged by Section 225A of the Constitution exclude persons who have defected from the parties. There is nothing of the sort in the text or texture of the provision.

3. It is brought to his attention that there is an order of @NGCourtofAppeal staying proceedings in the case. He claims no one can arrest his judgment!!🤑🤑🤑

[Owolabi Adeshina Adeniyi @adeniyi_owolabi]

He might need to carefully read the provision of Section 225A of the 1999 Constitution as amended, as the use of the word "shall" in that section creates a mandatory obligation. In the case of Onochie v. Odogwu (2006) 6 NWLR (Pt. 975) 65, the Supreme Court stated that the word "shall" is used to express a command or exhortation, or what is legally mandatory. Its use in a statute or court rules makes it compulsory for the rule or provision to be observed.

[LawPavilion @LawPavilion]

When determining whether to grant bail, should the court focus solely on the rights of the accused?

Or should equal weight be given to the seriousness of the allegations, the strength of the evidence, and the broader interests of justice?

The Court of Appeal addressed these

[LawPavilion @LawPavilion]

circumstances under which the interest of justice may justify a refusal of bail.

We'll be discussing the decision this Saturday, June 20, 2026, 11 AM WAT
https://t.co/K7BUMqq27h

[ROBA & ASSOCIATES LLP @AssociatesRoba]

🚨 BREAKING: The Court Has a Message for Brothers Who Want Sisters Left Out of Inheritance.

One of the most enduring beliefs in many Kenyan homes is that once a daughter gets married, her father's land ceases to be her concern. In the Estate of Kimani Gaturu, that belief exploded into a bitter family war that lasted nearly two decades. The deceased left behind sons and daughters, but the sons insisted that their father had verbally allocated land to them before his death and that the daughters, having married and left home, should receive little or nothing from the estate. The daughters pushed back, arguing that the land remained in their father's name and that the law did not distinguish between a son who stayed and a daughter who got married.

The High Court was confronted with a question that cuts across countless Kenyan families: Can sons inherit more simply because they remained on the ancestral land while daughters got married? The answer was an emphatic NO. The Court held that alleged oral gifts, family understandings, and informal allocations could not defeat the law where no valid transfers had been completed during the deceased's lifetime. More significantly, the Court reaffirmed that under Section 38 of the Law of Succession Act, read together with the Constitution, daughters and sons stand on equal footing. Marriage is not a legal disqualification from inheritance, and cultural practices that substantially disadvantage daughters cannot override constitutional guarantees of equality.

The implications are profound and uncomfortable. Many estates across Kenya are being occupied, developed, and controlled based on assumptions that daughters have "already benefited elsewhere" through marriage. This decision signals that such arrangements can be challenged years later, potentially reopening distributions families considered settled. It is a wake-up call to parents, administrators, and beneficiaries alike: if you intend to distribute your property differently, do it lawfully and transparently while alive. Otherwise, the law will intervene, and when it does, it will ask a simple question that many families have avoided for generations: Who said a daughter stopped being a child of the family the day she became someone's wife?

Kindly REPOST widely🙏🙏

[OurFaveOnlineDoc 🇬🇧 🇳🇬 @OurFavOnlineDoc]

Wow. So thoughtful. So insightful.

If you are a young man. Pls watch this.

[BSAT Properties @BSAT_Properties]

Sued His University to the Supreme Court and Won ₦20,000,000!

Case: Victor v. F.U.T.A. (2026) 8 NWLR (Pt. 2044) 33

Imagine graduating, knowing your grades were wrongly calculated, but being handed a lower class of degree than you earned. Most students would accept "fate" and move on.

Mr. Adebayo A. Victor refused to back down.

What makes this story incredible? Victor was a layman (not a lawyer), yet he personally prosecuted this case through the entire hierarchy of courts for nearly two decades.

The 19-Year Battle for a 2:1
In 2007, Victor graduated in Mechanical Engineering from FUTA, receiving a Second Class Lower.

Convinced his scores were wrongly recorded, he spent four years begging the university to re-mark 10 specific courses. The university ignored him.

In 2011, he sued. The journey was brutal:
2013: The trial court dismissed his case on a technicality. Victor appealed and won a retrial.
2017: The High Court finally ordered FUTA to re-mark his scripts. FUTA refused and appealed.

2022: Under Supreme Court pressure, FUTA finally complied and re-marked the scripts.

The Plot Twist: Victor was right all along. The independent re-marking officially upgraded his degree to a Second Class Upper. His correct certificate was physically handed to him in open court at the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court Defends Student Rights
With the degree secured, the Supreme Court turned its attention to the university’s conduct.

Led by Justice Helen Moronkeji Ogunwumiju, JSC, the apex court established a massive precedent:
The Duty of Care: While universities have academic autonomy, they owe a "Duty of Care" to their students. They must provide fair assessments and transparent complaint procedures.

The Penalty: By ignoring Victor for years and causing him to lose international scholarship opportunities, FUTA breached that duty.

The lower court had awarded Victor a mere ₦500,000. The Supreme Court threw that out as too small and reviewed the awards upward:
₦18,000,000 in General Damages for emotional distress.

₦2,000,000 in Litigation Costs.

Total Takeaway: Victor walked away with his rightful Second Class Upper degree and ₦20,000,000 in compensation.

The Big Insight
"Justice is not a fencing game where one party seeks to outsmart the other." Whether you run a university or a business, you cannot hide behind institutional bureaucracy to ignore legitimate complaints.

Huge respect to Mr. Adebayo Victor for his unmatched resilience!

Could you have held on for 15+ years to defend your academic rights? Let’s map it out in the comments!

© Law Parlor