LegalEdge

The commander of anti-government forces in Tripoli says he wants an apology from Britain and America for his transfer to a prison in Libya in 2004.

Abdel Hakim Belhaj, then a terror suspect, says he was tortured after being arrested in Bangkok.

He says he was taken to Libya by a CIA and MI6 operation, allegedly confirmed by documents sent to Gaddafi's regime.

The Foreign Office said the government had a "long-standing policy" not to comment on intelligence matters.

Mr Belhaj told the BBC: "What happened to me and my family is illegal. It deserves an apology. And for what happened to me when I was captured and tortured.

"For all these illegal things, starting with the information given to Libyan security, the interrogation in Bangkok."

According to the Guardian, these documents were discovered in an abandoned office building in Tripoli by staff from Human Rights Watch.

Mr Belhaj said that MI6 and the CIA did not witness his torture at the hands of the former Libyan regime, but did interview him afterwards.

Letter of thanks

Sir Mark Allen, formerly MI6's director of counter-terrorism, has been reported to be the author of a letter to Moussa Koussa, thanking him for a "delicious" gift of dates and oranges, which was found among the recovered documents.

RATIO:

1. ‘The rules of our appellate procedure relating to formulation of grounds of appeal are primarily designed to ensure fairness to the other side. The application of such rules should not be reduced to a matter of mere technicality, whereby the court will look at the form rather than the substance.’ Per Edozie J.S.C

1. ‘the expression “or any other (Tribunal) by the Federal or State Government” appearing in section 66 (1) (h) of the 1999 Constitution must be interpreted to be restricted to the Tribunals of Inquiry or bodies mentioned in the section which were set up to investigate a person of allegations of embezzlement or fraud and whose report of indictment of such person in that regard has been accepted by the Government. It seems to me that by this interpretation, the aforesaid Bendel State Local Government Election Tribunal is not contemplated firstly, because though set up under a Decree or Act of the Federal Government, it was set up to hear election petition and not allegations of embezzlement or fraud, and more relevant, its decision is not subject to Government acceptance by virtue of its enabling law.’ Per Edozie J.S.C

Cases mentioned

Aderoumu v. Olowu (2000) 4 N.W.L.R. (Pt.652) 253 at pp. 265 to 266

Chidak v. Laguda (1964) N.M.L.R. 123 at p.125;

Nwadike v. Ibekwe (1987) 4 N.W.L.R. (Pt66) 718 at 744

Nteogwuija & Ors. v. Ikuru & Ors.

Obodo v Olomu (1987) 3 N.W.L.R. (pt. 59) 111 at 123-124,

Osafile v Odi (No.1) (1990) 3 N.W.L.R. (pt.137) 130

Awolowo v Shagari (1979) 6-9 SC 51,

Adejumo v Military Governor Lagos State. (1972) 3 SC 45,

 A.G. Bendel State v A.G. of the Federation (1982) 3 N.C.L.R.1

Statutes referred to

The Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999

OLAIDE IBRAHIM V. S.A. OJOMO (NOW DECEASED)

LER [2004] S.C 249/2000

2004) 1 S.C. (PT. II) 136 

AADMINISTRATION OF ESTATE LAW – BURDEN OF PROOF

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The appellant entered into the property in dispute in the estate of the deceased to develop same based on an agreement which was not consented to by all the administrators of the estate.

HELD: The court held that there was no evidence of concurrence of the Administratrix to the Agreement and therefore appellant’s entry into the premises was trespassory because the Lease Agreement was void ab initio for lack of consent.

ISSUE: Was the Court of Appeal right in holding that Exhibit D. 11 was void on the ground that there was no concurrence of all the former Administrators/Administratrix in the execution of the document having regard to the provisions of section 4(2) Cap 2 Administration of Estates law Laws of Lagos State 1973 and thereby adjudging the entry of the Defendant on the property in dispute trespassory?

RATIO:

1. ‘the expression “concurrence therein” appearing in subsection 4(2) of the Administration of Estates Law Cap 2, Laws of Lagos State supra means the agreement or consent of all the personal representatives in the conveyance of the real estate of the deceased.’ Per Edozie J.S.C

1. ‘In civil cases, the burden of proof is cast on the party who asserts the affirmative of a particular issue.’ Per Edozie J.S.C

1. ‘since the right and interest of the administrators or administratrixes of any estate is joint in the estate, they must operate together and the giving out of such right or interest by some of them to any one does not bind the others who do not give their consent thereto.’ Per Edozie J.S.C

Cases mentioned

Ekeogu V. Aliri (1991)3 N.W.L.R. (Pt.179) 258;

Okumagba V. Egbe (1965) 1 N.M.L.R 62,

African Newspaper of Nigeria Ltd & 2 ors V. The Federal Republic of Nigeria (1985) 2 N.W.L.R. (Pt.6) 137

Ojokolobo V. Alamu (1987) 3 N.W.L.R. (Pt.61) 377