KADUNA BUSINESSMAN DRAGS EX FIANCEE’S FATHER TO COURT, DEMANDS DOWRY REFUND. (PHOTO).

-
Image
Kaduna businessman drags ex fiancee’s father to court, demands dowry refund A businessman, Nasiru Dayyabu, on Wednesday, dragged the father of his ex-fiance, Mallam Sani Direba, to Shari’a Court II sitting at Magajin Gari, Kaduna over N260,000 dowry. The complainant had joined Direba in the suit against two brothers demanding a refund of N250, 000 dowry and N10,000 introduction money he paid to marry his daughter. Represented by his counsel, Mr Sani Sunusi, the complainant told the court that he sent his people from Karaye, Kano State to Kaduna in 2025, to seek for the defendant’s daughter’s hand in marriage. “We paid the dowry and the introduction money (kudin gausuwa) and were waiting for them to set a date for the wedding,” he said. “Unfortunately, the lady’s father called to inform us that they have cancelled the marriage.” The counsel said the complainant had asked for the refund of his money since Sept. 2025 but all the efforts he made proved abortive. He claimed that his client ...
Post a Comment

N466M POLARIS BANK FRAUD: COURT TO RULE ON JURISDICTION MARCH 29,2019.{PHOTO}.#PRESS RELEASE.

-
No photo description available.
      Justice P. Mallong of the Federal High Court sitting in Kaduna has fixed March 29, 2019 to rule on an application filed by Rabiu Aliko Lawal, seeking for the transfer of his N466, 000, 000 (Six Hundred and Sisty Six Million Naira) fraud case to a State High Court.
Lawal, who is the fourth defendant, is being prosecuted by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC, along with Bashir Abdullahi Mohammed, Oche Ogenyi, Adefila Taofile Kayode and Mmadu Mathew Onyekachi for defrauding Polaris Bank (formerly Skye Bank) of N466 million.
His counsel, M.K. Aondoakaa, SAN, on March 19, 2019 moved the application on behalf of his client, arguing that the charges were similar to the one before Justice Mohammed Tukur of a Kaduna State High Court, which according to him, has the jurisdiction to entertain the case.
“The State High Court has the jurisdiction to hear money laundering matters, and there is another charge pending at a State High Court,” he said.
Prosecuting Counsel, J. Saidi, however, opposed the application arguing that, cases are not tried on convenience of parties, but “based on the jurisdiction of the court as the law provides”.
While urging the court not to grant the application, Saidi, said, “What the defendants seek is their convenience.”
The trial judge thereafter, adjourned to March 29, 2019 to rule on the application.
No photo description available.

Comments

Post a Comment