Casefiles

Who owns Nigeria’s offshore oil wealth: the states along the coastline or the federation itself? This #Casefiles entry examines Attorney-General of the Federation v. Attorney-General of Abia State & 35 Ors. (2002), the landmark Supreme Court decision that reshaped derivation, resource control, and fiscal federalism in Nigeria.

What happens when a government ignores its own courts? This #Casefiles entry explores Military Governor of Lagos State v. Ojukwu (1986), the landmark Nigerian Supreme Court decision that affirmed that even the government, under military rule, remains bound by the rule of law.

Can your bank freeze your account without first obtaining a court order? This #Casefiles entry examines Ecobank Nigeria Ltd v. Osunde Ehirement Clement, the Court of Appeal decision that reshaped Nigerian banking law on account restrictions, fraud prevention, and compliance powers.

A dispute over maritime levies escalated into one of Nigeria’s most significant energy-sector legal battles, complete with statutory guarantees, regulatory confrontation, and the blockade of LNG vessels. This Casefiles entry examines NLNG v. NIMASA (2026) and what the Supreme Court’s decision means for investor confidence, regulatory power, and the sanctity of government assurances in Nigeria.

A stabbing victim refused a lifesaving blood transfusion because of her religious beliefs, and the man who attacked her argued that her decision, not his actions, caused her death. This Casefiles entry explores R v Blaue (1975) and the criminal law principles of causation, responsibility, and the “thin skull rule.”

A son poisoned his mother intending to kill her, only for the court to discover she died from something entirely different. This Casefiles entry explores R v White (1910) and the criminal law principle of causation, asking whether bad intentions alone are enough for murder.

Can a person legally consent to being harmed? This Casefiles entry examines R v Brown (1993), the controversial English criminal law case that tested the limits of consent, bodily autonomy, and the state’s role in regulating private conduct.

A flooded coal mine in Victorian England gave rise to one of the most important principles in tort law. This #Casefiles entry explores Rylands v Fletcher (1868) and how it established the doctrine of strict liability for dangerous things that escape onto another person’s property.

A procedural oversight during the removal of a bank CEO led to one of Nigeria’s most significant corporate law decisions. This #Casefiles entry examines Bernard Longe v. First Bank of Nigeria (2010) and how the Supreme Court reinforced the importance of due process, statutory rights, and corporate governance.

Sean “Diddy” Combs faced some of the most serious allegations in modern entertainment law, including racketeering and sex trafficking charges that carried the possibility of life imprisonment. This piece breaks down the legal issues, witness testimony, and verdict, while examining why the jury rejected the most severe counts.

Can a person create a company so separate from themselves that they can effectively sue themselves? This Casefiles entry explores Salomon v. A. Salomon & Co. Ltd. (1897), the landmark case that established the principle of separate legal personality and shaped modern company law.

A dead snail in a bottle of ginger beer gave rise to one of the most important legal principles in modern history. This #Casefiles entry explores Donoghue v. Stevenson (1932) and how it established the modern law of negligence and the famous "neighbor principle.

Stranded at sea with no food or water, two sailors killed and ate a cabin boy to survive. In this #Casefiles entry, Mide Alabi examines R v Dudley & Stephens (1884), the infamous English case that tested the limits of morality, survival, and the defense of necessity in criminal law.

A pair of 18th-century highway robbers went to court over an unfair split of stolen loot and accidentally helped shape one of the most enduring principles in contract law. In this first #casefiles entry, Mide Alabi revisits Everet v. Williams (1725), the bizarre English case that established why courts refuse to enforce illegal agreements and why that principle still matters today.

Can a bank be blamed for sending your money too quickly or for refusing to send it at all? This piece explores the Quincecare duty, the legal principle requiring banks to act on suspicious transactions, and the difficult balance between protecting customers and interfering with their financial autonomy.