Jurisdiction

The Supreme Court reiterated that a High Court cannot invoke its judicial jurisdiction to rule on “highly controversial questions of fact”. Indira Banerjee and V. Ramasubramanian said. The case arises out of a dispute between the owner and a …

The Supreme Court reiterated that a High Court cannot invoke its judicial jurisdiction to rule on “highly controversial questions of fact”.

It is not for the High Court to benchmark conflicting technical reports and decide which one is acceptable, Judges Indira Banerjee and V. Ramasubramanian said.

The case arose out of a dispute between a landlord and a tenant concerning the repair of an old building. The Bombay High Court, in a written petition filed by a tenant, issued the order granting freedom to begin wall removal work with the help of architects, at its own risk and expense. The motion for brief was filed to challenge the notice issued by the municipality under section 354 of the Municipal Corporation Act.

In the owner’s appeal, the Apex court found that the High Court erred in ordering the removal of a wall when there were conflicting reports, including an earlier report from the Technical advisory committee based on opinions from other architects. , declaring the building of category C-1.

“26. It is well established that the High Court, exercising its extraordinary judicial jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, does not rule on highly controversial questions of fact. It is not for the High Court to benchmark conflicting technical reports. and decide which one is acceptable. “, the bench observed.

The court said that in the order under appeal, the High Court did not explain how it was convinced that the stability of the building could be restored by repairs in the prescribed manner. The judiciary therefore allowed the appeal.

Case: Shubas Jain v Rajeshwari Shivam [ CA 2848 OF 2021]

Coram: Judges Indira Banerjee and V. Ramasubramanian

Reference: LL 2021 SC 343

Click here to read / download the judgment

The Lakshadweep administration, which has faced numerous protests from the island population against some of its policies, has raised a proposal to move its legal jurisdiction from the High Court of Kerala to the High Court of Karnataka, said officials.

The proposal was initiated by the administration after several disputes were brought before the High Court of Kerala against decisions taken by the new islands administrator Praful Khoda Patel.

These decisions included revising standard operating procedures for appropriate behavior at Covid, introducing the “goonda law” and demolishing fishermen’s huts for road widening.

Patel, who is the administrator of Daman and Diu, was given the additional charge of the Union territory of Lakshadweep during the first week of December last year, when former administrator Dineshwar Sharma is died of a brief illness.

This year, up to 23 claims, including 11 petitions, were filed against the administrator of Lakshadweep and also against the alleged bossy police or local government of the islands.

However, for reasons best known to the island’s administration, which is in the spotlight on its handling of these matters, it has proposed to move its legal jurisdiction from the high court of Kerala to Karnataka.

Efforts to solicit comments from administrator advisor A Anbarasu and Lakshadweep collector S Asker Ali were unsuccessful.

The letters sent to their official emails and WhatsApp messages did not elicit a response to a question asking for the rationale for the proposed transfer of legal jurisdiction.

The jurisdiction of a high court can only be displaced by an act of Parliament, in accordance with the law.

“The Parliament may, by law, constitute a high court for a territory of the Union or declare any court in such a territory as a high court for all or part of the objectives of this Constitution”, in accordance with article 241 of the Constitution.

Section 4 of the same article mentions that “nothing in this article derogates from the power of Parliament to extend or exclude the jurisdiction of a high court for a State to or from a territory of the Union or part of it. -this “.

Speaking to the PTI by telephone, Mohammed Faizal PP, member of Lok Sabha, said: “This was his first attempt (from Patel) to move judicial jurisdiction from Kerala to Karnataka”.

“Why was it so special to transfer it… it is totally a hijacking of post. The native language of the inhabitants of these islands is Malayalam,” he said.

“It should be remembered that the name of the high court is Kerala and Lakshadweep High Court. This proposal was conceived during his first visit to the islands,” Faizal said and asked if this was necessary and how could he justify the proposal.

Faizal said there were 36 directors before Patel and no one had that kind of idea.

“However, if this proposal comes to fruition, we will oppose it tooth and nail on the floor of Parliament as well as in the courts,” said Lok Sabha member of the Nationalist Congress Party.

He said the Save Lakshadweep Front (SLF) appealed to the Center to change the administrator as soon as possible.

“The SLF is a nonviolent popular movement which has asked the central leadership to replace Patel with someone who can be an administrator of the people,” he added.

Lakshadweep legal experts said that Malayalam is the spoken as well as the written language in both Kerala and Lakshadweep and therefore the process could be streamlined.

The relocation of the jurisdiction of the High Court will change the entire judicial system of the islands as all judicial officers are sent by the High Court of Kerala due to the common language and script.

Lakshadweep’s prominent lawyer CN Noorul Hidya said she had heard about the change of jurisdiction issue.

“But that’s not the right decision. How can they change the jurisdiction when we share the language link and court documents are only accepted in Malayalam,” Hidya told PTI by phone from Lakshadweep.

She said most people would oppose such a move because it would practically lead them to a denial of justice.

“You have to understand that the high court of Kerala is only 400 km away while that of Karnataka is more than 1000 km away with no direct connection either,” Hidya said.

Legal experts also felt that the change of the High Court would also mean an additional burden on the public treasury, as all cases, which are currently pending, would have to be reconsidered.

July 27, 2021 – The recent United States Supreme Court ruling in Ford Motor Company v. Montana Eighth Judicial District Court has rekindled interest in the importance of personal jurisdictional disputes. Previously, when it came to product liability and mass tort cases, the rules of the game were seen to be tilted in favor of defendants, with recent rulings restricting jurisdiction over defendants outside the court. ‘State. As a result, plaintiffs had been more reluctant to use all available resources to prosecute these defendants out of state, seeking to avoid sinking resources into an inevitably unfavorable outcome.

With the Ford ruling, the Supreme Court has provided new certainty about defendants’ efforts to further thwart places where they can be sued. The judgment in the case dealt with the connection between the plaintiffs’ product liability claims arising from car accidents in various states and whether Ford’s actions in those states were sufficient to warrant specific jurisdiction in the states. respective state courts since the vehicles involved in the crashes were manufactured and sold elsewhere.

In an 8-0 opinion written by Judge Elena Kagan, the court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, stating “When a company like Ford serves a market for a product in a state and that product causes injury in the State to any of its residents, the state courts can hear the resulting action. “

In the aftermath of this decision, it is important to return to the fundamental legal questions at stake in matters of personal jurisdiction. The difficulties of prosecuting defendants out of state, while increasingly complicated in some ways, have also been overestimated, with the best approaches requiring a return to basics.

In the world of complainants, we are used to seeing how companies structure their subsidiaries to escape their liability. But a business structure that seems impenetrable may not be.

Since the general jurisdiction only applies to companies incorporated or having their principal registered office in a certain state, it cannot be used in all cases. A specific jurisdiction, which allows an out-of-state defendant to be held liable if their actions led to the conduct in the local jurisdiction, should also be considered. Specific competence is often difficult to prove because the parent company is kept separate from its subsidiaries, but difficult does not mean impossible.

For example, the long gun laws of some states allow the exercise of specific jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant where a plaintiff’s claim “arises” from acts in a non-resident’s state that , in person or through an agent, carries on business, performs work, enters into contractual agreements, causes tort by acts and omissions, regularly does and solicits business, earns income and has a interest in, use and own real estate.

At first glance, a parent company may appear to have done everything to avoid the liability of its subsidiaries in other states. But it is possible that the corporate culture has undermined its corporate structure. Upon further investigation, lawyers may discover that the management of companies has a stake in major decision-making or that the boards of directors of “separate” companies are almost identical, rendering the structure in place meaningless. to protect the business.

The discovery of jurisdiction involves a request from the defendant for proof that the defendant engaged in conduct in a jurisdictional forum that contributed to the cause of action. It is typically used to oppose Defendants’ Rule 12 (b) (2) defeat motions.

Too often, however, lawyers do not exercise their right to find jurisdiction, as it can be costly and time consuming. In a case in which the authors’ companies represented plaintiffs alleging that wastewater management and disposal practices by a chicken processing plant had polluted the community of Millsboro, Delaware, the discovery of the jurisdiction enabled the parties obtain valuable information such as board meeting minutes, local tax records, and flight records from a local airstrip for members of parent company management. Cuppels et al. v Mountaire Corporation et al., Civil Action # S18C-06-009 CAK, Delaware Superior Court (resulting in a $ 205 million settlement, approved April 12, 2021).

While it is not uncommon to be thwarted by an “object, obstruct, delay” defense for months and even years, over time, through relentless practice of the movement, it is possible to gain access to evidence that shows the parent company was making decisions about how subsidiaries operated and how money flowed between them.

Without going through the process of finding personal competence, however, lawyers will not be able to sue the parent company and will likely see a much less positive outcome.

When arguing against a large corporation, lawyers often want the “smoking gun” that will help establish defendant liability. While this does of course sometimes exist, more often than not a case is built based on foundational documents that tell the story of the defendant’s misconduct.

As part of the discovery of jurisdiction, one must first consider the importance of the basic documents that companies are required to keep: minutes of board meetings, agendas and financial records. This more traditional discovery, with the help of forensic accounting experts, highlights the direct financial channels between companies.

For example, these types of records can show how money earned by an affiliate was sent directly to the parent company; whereas the parent company has effectively combined its own assets and the assets of its subsidiaries to guarantee loans intended to finance its operations; and that the parent company paid the remuneration of the management team of its subsidiary. They can also show cross pollination of executives both in the parent company and its subsidiaries. This can be a key element in demonstrating a company’s knowledge of the wrongdoing and the decision-making that led to it.

In short, while discovery often involves examining tens of thousands of emails, an initial examination of elementary business documents can reveal the jurisdictional story.

Government documents available to the public, especially at the state level, can also be a tremendous resource, especially when starting an investigation or when the discovery gets bogged down.

For starters, searching the property records may show that the parent company owns or mortgages property within the jurisdiction of the court. FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) requests can be submitted to places like local airstrips where business executives have entered and exited the state. By combing through political campaign finance and lobbying records, one can demonstrate how much the parent company has spent to influence state policy. Combined, these types of details help describe to the court why it has jurisdiction over the parent company in question.

If a company’s corporate structure has failed to shield it from liability, any information uncovered upon discovery can go a long way in proving that the parent company is managing and running the business in the state. , that its subsidiaries are not really separated. , and in reality, it functions as a single entity. It will also help satisfy the agency theory of a senior managing agent to take certain actions. Many of our experiences have served as important reminders not to reflexively believe that a structure works as it looks on paper.

Time is a big factor in proving personal competence, and it can seem daunting to invest years in part of the litigation that doesn’t seem to go to the heart of the claims. But that’s often the difference between business success and failure. By focusing on this usually mundane part of the case before you even draft the complaint based on what’s on the public record, you can lay the groundwork for overcoming this powerful – but not overwhelming – defense.

A report listing objections raised by experts to the jurisdictions of the Krishna and Godavari River Management Boards, as defined in a recent notification to the Official Gazette, will be submitted to the Union Water Resources Ministry on Wednesday, said on Monday. BJP State President Somu Veerraju.

The report is submitted to ensure that disputes between Andhra Pradesh and Telangana over water sharing do not escalate again, Veerraju said.

“The BJP is in favor of building non-controversial irrigation projects and connecting several rivers. Political parties should refrain from politicizing disputes over river water sharing, lest people, especially farmers, face problems in the future, ”Veerraju said in a statement. roundtable on “Water resources and challenges” here Monday.

The BJP leader said the party will also form a task force to undertake an in-depth study of the projects on the Krishna and Godavari rivers so that they can come up with suggestions on sharing water between the upper and lower riparian states.

He claimed that the gazette notification of KRMB and GRMB would facilitate an amicable settlement of disputes between AP and Telangana and bring justice to Rayalaseema and the coastal districts.

“Placing projects on the Krishna and Godavari rivers under the responsibility of the respective councils would prevent illegal water withdrawals by neighboring states,” said Veerraju.

About Polavaram

Mr Veerraju criticized the state government for allegedly neglecting the thousands of families facing the displacement of the Polavaram project. He regretted that they were forced to live in unsanitary shelters without electricity or clean water due to the alleged failure of the government to properly implement the relief and rehabilitation program.

“The government is obsessed with the Polavaram project while projects like Handri-Neeva, Velugonda, Telugu Ganga, Vamsadhara, Thotapalli, Nagavali and Bahuda remain unfinished decades after their launch,” said Veerraju.

Retired chief engineer U. Narayana Raju said the Polavaram project was crucial in meeting the drinking water needs of the people of Visakhapatnam, and observed that Telangana was making false claims about the watersheds of some rivers.

Former MPP Byreddi Rajasekhara Reddy said Rayalaseema would only be saved if a minimum water level of 854 feet was maintained in the Srisailam project, and asked how the government proceeded with the elevator irrigation project in Rayalaseema without having a reservoir component. The Tungabhadra River was Rayalaseema’s lifeline, he added.

BJP State Party Co-Head of State Sunil Deodhar, Secretary General S. Vishnuvardhan Reddy, MLC PVN Madhav and Vakati Narayana Reddy, Former Minister Ch. Adinarayana Reddy and Rayalaseema Chairman Neeti Sadhana Samiti, Dasaradharami Reddy, attended the roundtable.

British Columbia is gradually implementing a new policy to expand access to a supply of prescribed and safer drugs.

British Columbia is the first province in the country to introduce this public health measure

The change comes as illicit drug overdose deaths remain high in British Columbia after a string of record months amid the COVID-19 pandemic.

“When fully implemented, more people who use drugs can be prescribed a wider range of options,” said Minister of Mental Health and Addictions Sheila Malcolmson.

“British Columbia is leading the way as the first province to allow prescribed safe supply. “

At least 160 British Columbians died of overdoses during the month of May, the second-highest monthly total on record.

May, the last month for which data are available, marked the 15th consecutive month with more than 100 suspected deaths from illicit drug toxicity in British Columbia.

The provincial government has allocated up to $ 22.6 million to health authorities to implement the change.

0:33
Five men found overdosed on Vancouver beach

The pandemic has led to an increase in the number of illicit drug-related deaths as more users have used illicit drugs alone while the toxicity of street illicit drugs has worsened amid tight international borders.

“This is a tool within a comprehensive response to the overdose crisis as we also continue to build a treatment system so that everyone can get the care they need,” said Malcolmson .

“There is more to do, and we will not stop working until we turn this crisis around.”

The government of British Columbia declared a provincial health emergency six years ago related to the illicit drug overdose crisis.

Once fully implemented, drug alternatives will be covered by pharmacare, including a range of opioids and stimulants as determined by programs and prescribers.

0:30
One million naloxone kits distributed in British Columbia

“With more than 7,000 lives lost to toxic illicit drugs, we need new measures to connect people to the supports they need to stay safe,” said Dr. British Columbia.

“Reducing the harm to people who use drugs is the right thing to do. The introduction of this new policy to expand the safer prescribed supply is a big change for the BC healthcare system.

The new safer prescribed procurement policy will be rolled out in a phased approach, starting with implementation through existing health authority funded programs that are currently prescribing alternatives to illicit drugs.

The first phase of this new policy is expected to be in place for 18-24 months as data is collected to evaluate the approach.

1:15
Five years after the declaration of a public health emergency in the drug overdose crisis in British Columbia

Province says phased implementation ensures patient and prescriber safety, while providing opportunity for rigorous monitoring and evaluation as British Columbia builds body of evidence that will lead to clinical advice .

“We also know that this toxic drug supply puts people who use drugs at increased risk of death. An increase in the secure supply will save lives. It’s another way to connect people to other parts of the system, the health care system, housing or getting a meal, ”said Henry.

“There is no single measure that will get us out of the toxic drug supply crisis.”

The Telangana Bharatiya Janata party on Saturday asked the Union Water Resources Ministry to inform the jurisdiction of the Krishna River Management Board (KRMB) to protect the legitimate interests of the state regarding their legitimate share. in the waters of the Krishna River.

In a communication to Jal Shakti Minister Gajendra Singh Shekawat, Bandi Party Chairman Sanjay Kumar explained that the Krishna Water Dispute Tribunal (KWDT-I) awarded 811 TMC of water to be used by United Andhra Pradesh while that KWDT-II (Brijesh Kumar Tribunal) issued a new sentence in 2010, but has not yet been released as the case is pending before the Supreme Court.

At present, usage is in accordance with KWDT-I attribution only. The PA Reorganization Act (APRA) -2014 ensured that the KRMB and the Godavari River Management Board (GRMB) maintain the projects and regulate water distribution for both states. However, the competence of these two councils has not yet been notified by the Center.

After the bifurcation, the two states had worked out a temporary arrangement for the distribution of water from the 811 TMC and it was there that the chief minister of Telangana, K. Chandrasekhar Rao (KCR) had “totally failed to protect the interests of Telangana and his people ”, as he agreed for 299 TMC and 512 TMC for AP, while he was eligible to get 555 TMC because 68.5% of the watershed of Krishna basin is in Telangana, (68.5% of 811 TMC).

Mr. Sanjay Kumar said the orders issued by AP for the construction of the Rayalaseema Elevator Irrigation System (RLIS) were to pump 3 feet TMC of water, upgrade the Pohireddypadu head regulator canal system to tap 80,000 cusecs of water, both from the foreshore of the Srisailam reservoir and other improvement works in the existing canal system of the Galeru-Nagari project to draw an additional 70,000 cusecs of water from Srisailam are “highly. reprehensible, illegal and violate the water allocations made by KWDT-I ”.

AP did not bother to get approval from the Apex Council and KRMB while KCR had also “failed to act in time” and allowed the work to continue by “deliberately not attending a meeting. meeting called to discuss it ”and now 50% of RLIS is complete, he charged.

“KCR and AP CM Jaganmohan Reddy are both hand in hand and just trying to capitalize on these issues. They don’t care about solving problems and protecting the interests of their people. The KCR is trying to pick up on these issues only to gain political momentum, ”Karimnagar MP said.

He also pointed out that KCR took six years to withdraw the case against the KWDT court in SC, otherwise he would have heard the case already. TS’s interests could only be protected when the new KWDT-II or new tribunal award is issued to regulate water allocation, the communication adds.

Online retailer Ocado was denied an interim injunction to prevent Autostore from referring to 2018 without prejudice to discussions between the parties (or any related document) at a U.S. International Trade Commission hearing ( “ITC”) which is due to take place in August of this year. The case is interesting both because it arose in the context of a multi-jurisdictional litigation with ongoing settlement negotiations and for the discussion of the relevant burden on granting an interim injunction in the circumstances. . In this note, we present some practical advice given that the judge ruled that there was a high burden of proof on Ocado to justify his claim.

The application was filed in infringement proceedings relating to six UK-designated European patents which Autostore claims are infringed by Ocado warehouse technology – this English action itself being part a series of patent litigation between these parties spanning multiple jurisdictions. In the related US ITC proceeding, AutoStore alleges that Ocado infringed three equivalent US patents. These patents relate to a central cavity (adapted to contain a storage bin) in robots of the type of those which handle goods in a warehouse.

One of the defenses advanced by Ocado in the ITC proceedings is an equitable estoppel defense. Ocado maintains that AutoStore has given assurances that Ocado has not infringed the central cavity patents and that AutoStore is now barred from asserting an infringement. AutoStore wishes to respond to this defense by relying on a specific document relating to the 2018 discussions between the parties. Autostore claims that this document supports the claim that Ocado was fully aware of AutoStore’s position on infringement, thereby ruling out an estoppel defense.

At the interim injunction hearing, Ocado made its case on the grounds that during the 2018 meetings it was contractually agreed that neither party should use the 2018 discussions or related documents. in the context of legal proceedings. (A fair duty of trust was also raised but Ocado dropped this point.)

It was agreed by the parties that in these circumstances the relevant charge was not the usual charge established by the House of Lords in American cyanamide ([1975] AC 396), namely whether there is a “serious question” to be judged. Ocado argued that since this was a case in which the interim injunction would likely terminate the action, the court should consider the underlying merits of the parties’ respective cases. They further argued that the judge should follow the decision by Araci vs. Fallon [2011] EWCA Civ 668 in which Jackson LJ, with whom Elias LJ agreed, said:

“When the defendant proposes to act in flagrant violation of a negative undertaking, i.e. to do something that he has promised not to do, there must be special circumstances (e.g. restriction of trade contrary to public order) before the court exercises its discretion to refuse an injunction.“

AutoStore, on the other hand, relied on the right to freedom of expression in relation to the publication of a document and on section 12 (3) of the Human Rights Act 1998. man to suggest that the appropriate charge is whether Ocado is likely to succeed in trial. to establish a breach of contract. AutoStore also relied on anti-prosecution injunction authorities, as their position was that Ocado’s request was, for all intents and purposes, an anti-prosecution injunction.

Decision of Hacon HHJ

In assessing AutoStore’s reliance on Section 12 (3) of the Human Rights Act 1998, Hacon HHJ conducted a brief review of the relevant case law. In doing so, he found that Article 12 covered threatened publications in the sense that they were made available to the general public. When the communication is made to a limited number of recipients and on a confidential basis, the article would not apply. Therefore, in ITC proceedings where the document in question is subject to a protection order and has not been made available to the public at large, Article 12 (3) no. was not involved.

However, Hacon HHJ accepted the argument that the authorization of the interim injunction would be decisive on the contentious issue as the ITC trial was imminent. An interim injunction would therefore mean that the ITC would not be informed of the relevant document. On the other hand, if the request were denied, the issues of Autostore’s right to rely on the document would then be referred to the ITC judge and Ocado would have the opportunity to persuade the ITC judge to should not consider this document in accordance with the relevant rules. as they apply to ITC. Hacon HHJ acknowledged that the circumstances were an inaccurate parallel to the anti-suit injunction case law, but noted that the injunction would interfere with the conduct of foreign proceedings. As such, “circumspection” was required, which meant that the threshold test for an injunction was whether Ocado had a high degree of likelihood of success at trial.

At Ocado Araci point Hacon HHJ stated that, as the existence of the relevant contractual obligation was disputed by the parties, the Araci principle would only apply if it could be satisfied (without the aid of a full trial) that AutoStore would be in flagrant violation of the contract if it were to disclose the document in question to ITC.

Hacon HHJ admitted that it was likely that the parties created (at their 2018 meetings) an implied agreement that neither party could disclose these discussions, but questioned whether it was correct to say that the parties orally agreed that the English without prejudice rule also covers matters subject to US law (such as the document in question).

An attendance note produced by Ocado’s lawyers and provided to Autostore during the 2018 discussions or shortly thereafter was the only contemporary evidence of the parties’ discussions and their agreement:

“SA said this meeting was a continuation of the confidential and without prejudice discussions between Ocado and AutoStore (AS) and that all discussions on U.S. law should be governed by Rule 408 of the Rules of Evidence.“

The Ocado case was advanced by a witness statement from the Chief Intellectual Property Council of Ocado (who attended the meeting) seeking to explain this memo. some participants.

In Hacon HHJ’s view, a simple reading of the attendance note indicated that discussions of US law should be governed by Rule 408 of the US Federal Rules of Evidence (and not in addition to English rules without prejudice ). He could not exclude, without suggesting dishonesty, that the memories of the witnesses were colored by the realization of the problem which arose between the parties.

Therefore, Hacon HHJ found that there was no clear indication as to which part was more accurate. Since he was unable to say (with any degree of certainty) that Ocado would succeed on this point at trial, Hacon HHJ concluded that Ocado’s case did not meet the condition precedent to granting the award. an interim injunction.

Further, he concluded that the balance of irreparable harm clearly tipped in favor of not granting an interim injunction because (in the absence of an injunction) Ocado would still have the right to challenge the admissibility of the document before ITC. On the contrary, an injunction (if it later turns out to be wrongly granted) would leave Autostore without adequate remedy – the ITC hearing would have already taken place and the damage would have been done to AutoStore.

Conclusion

This judgment serves as a warning for the parties to be clear about the legal regimes and protections they intend to cover in settlement discussions, especially when simultaneously invoking the protections offered by the rules of foreign jurisdictions. In addition, the parties should carefully consider how verbal agreements reached in meetings between the parties are to be evidenced.

Case: Autostore Technology AS v Ocado Group Plc & Ors [2021] EWHC 1614 (Pat) (June 11, 2021)

The federal government says the suspension of Twitter operations in Nigeria is not a right recognized by any treaty enforceable by the ECOWAS tribunal.

The government said this in a preliminary objection filed Tuesday to challenge the continuation of the Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) and 176 concerned Nigerians, regarding his directive to prosecute those who violated the suspension.

Depending on the costume that was, however, fired, the government argued that the court had no jurisdiction to “determine the criminalization of an act under Nigerian laws”.

He said Twitter is a microblogging site and not “a member state organization”.

“The right to freedom of expression is completely different from the freedom of access. The suspension of Twitter does not fall under the provisions of Article 8 and the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, ”he said.

“The suspension of Twitter in Nigeria is not a right recognized by any treaty enforceable by this Court.

“In the unlikely event that this Honorable Court agrees with SERAP that suspending Twitter is a fundamental right, the dissolution or liquidation of Twitter as a for-profit entity may also open a floodgate and give users the rights to an existing lawlessness.

“Twitter is a for-profit entity which may be banned / terminated under all national laws. The forced closure of an entity cannot be characterized as a violation of fundamental rights by this Honorable Court.

“The suspension of Twitter in Nigeria complies with the provisions of Articles 420, 419 of the Criminal Code [Northern Nigeria]; Federal Provisions Act and section 58 of the Criminal Code Act. The operation of Twitter is in violation of Nigerian national law.

“Second ground: this Court does not have jurisdiction to determine the criminalization of an act under Nigerian laws.

“The subject matter of the SERAP prosecution borders on the criminalization of Operation Twitter in Nigeria under the Penal Code and the Penal Code.

“The use and exploitation of Twitter in Nigeria constitutes the offense of importing prohibited publications under sections 420 and 421 or the offense of possession of seditious articles under section 419 of the federal provisions of the Penal Code.

“In any event, there is a right of action conferred on the suspension of Twitter in Nigeria, said right is vested directly on Twitter and not on individual Twitter users. This is especially since the Twitter accounts of individual users were not tempered but only the functioning of Twitter.

The government said that “Nigerians and SERAP have no cause of action,” adding that the suspension of Twitter is supported by the provisions of the Companies and Related Affairs Act 2020.

The Special Criminal Court rejected arguments that it had no jurisdiction to hear the trial of four men accused of causing serious harm to Quinn Industrial Holdings director Kevin Lunney.

Michael O’Higgins SC, on behalf of one of the four defendants, said the court has become a “permanent and perpetual” structure that is not authorized by the legislation that created it.

He said the democratic process “has been canceled and replaced with an ad hoc extension” whereby the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), an official, decides who should be tried in the three-judge tribunal without a jury.

Presiding Judge Tony Hunt, along with Judge Gerard Griffin and Judge David McHugh, dismissed the arguments, saying the court’s jurisdiction is established by law and the documents the DPP relied on to translate the men before the special criminal court were in order. .

He further found that arguments suggesting that the Oireachtas did not reconsider the issue of the 1972 proclamation, which created the Special Criminal Court, cannot be dealt with by the court.

He added: “It invites us into the political thicket where we are not allowed to go and it can be argued that no court is allowed to go.”

He said the court’s jurisdiction has been established and the trial will proceed in the ordinary manner tomorrow morning.

Luke O’Reilly, 67, with an address in Mullahoran Lower, Kilcogy, Co Cavan; Darren Redmond, 27, of Caledon Road, East Wall, Dublin; Alan O’Brien40, of Shemalier Road, East Wall, Dublin, and a fourth accused man aged 40 are all charged with forcible confinement and causing grievous harm to Mr Lunney in Drumbrade, Ballinagh, Co Cavan on September 17 2019.

The fourth man cannot be appointed by court order as he has to be tried on other unrelated cases.

Mr Lunney, 51, a father of six, was abducted near his home in Co Fermanagh on the evening of September 17.

The businessman’s leg was broken, he was sprayed with bleach, and the letters QIH were engraved on his chest during the two-and-a-half-hour ordeal before he was thrown over the edge of the room. ‘a road to Co Cavan.

In comments made on behalf of the anonymous defendants and adopted by the other three, Mr. O’Higgins said that the fact that the DPP now decides whether a person should be tried in the special tribunal “inadvertently leads to a result where the ‘Oireachtas no longer applies his mind “to the question.

The government and the Oireachtas, he said, withdrew from the process as when the tribunal was first considered it was recognized by the government that it would be a “gap. serious and significant compared to the norm ”.

The council added that in 1972, the Oireachtas enacted the State Offenses Act 1939 to create the Special Criminal Court as a temporary emergency measure that would be used “from time to time.”

That has now changed, Mr O’Higgins said, as the tribunal “has grown organically on an ad hoc basis” for nearly 50 years.

There is, he said, no reason to believe it will not last another 25 to 50 years. The lawyer added: “By giving words their ordinary meaning, it is now a permanent structure.

He said that such a permanent structure is not permitted by the legislation that created the court and, therefore, his client is not legally in court.

Mr O’Higgins continued: “The tribunal cannot function permanently, and if it accepts that it is permanent and has changed from the temporary emergency legislation, then it has no legal basis for a trial. “

There should be, he said, a new proclamation of the Oireachtas if the Special Criminal Court is to continue hearing cases.

In response, Seán Guerin SC for the DPP said that the legislation that created the Special Criminal Court does not use the word “temporary”.

He also argued that the decision to pass a law creating the court is a “political power” and does not fall within the jurisdiction of any court. Mr. Guerin submitted documents to the court which showed, he said, that the requests to bring the men to the special criminal court had been made in accordance with the law.

In an order issued yesterday, the Supreme Court dismissed a motion filed by the state of Texas for leave to file a lawsuit against the state of California over a California law that prohibits travel funded or sponsored by the state in any state whose laws do not meet specified standards of discrimination.

In an interesting dissent (pp. 12-21 here) which does not touch on the substance of California law, Justice Alito, joined by Justice Thomas, argues that the statutory mandate of Congress that the “Supreme Court will have original jurisdiction and exclusive on all controversies between two or more states ”obliges the court to allow Texas to file its complaint. Noting that the Court’s action “is in accordance with a practice which the Court has followed for the past 45 years”, Alito objects that the Court “has never provided a convincing justification for this practice”.

I’m sure judges give themselves the luxury of choosing which cases they want to decide, but when it comes to a state-to-state complaint, hopefully they will provide a rationale. convincing to act in apparent disregard of the Congressional Mandate.