May 24, 2017

Edichart: Court awards N36.53m against Pharmacists Council, others


Judicial symbol

By Innocent Anaba

lagos—A Federal High Court sitting in Lagos, has awarded N36.53 million as damages, in favour of Edichart Investments Limited, Mr Samuel Edih and Mr Alezander Ani Eton, against Pharmacists Council of Nigeria, Lagos State Task Force on Counterfeit Processed Food and others over the unlawful sealing and looting of the plaintiffs pharmacy on 45, Olorunlogbon Street, Anthony Village, Lagos.

Trial judge, Justice Okon Abang, in the three and half hours judgment, also held that the defendants reason for failing to register the plaintiffs’ pharmacy was not tenable.

The judge, had before delving into the judgment, resolved that the judgment was within the 90 days required of a judge to give judgment from the day the case was concluded. At the judgment, the defendants were not represented by a counsel, but the plaintiffs’ counsel informed the court that the defence counsel were aware of the new date for the judgment.

Judicial symbolCourt

In the judgment, Justice Abang agreed with the plaintiffs that the defendants acted outside their powers by sealing, raiding and carting away the plaintiffs’ drugs and also failing to grant their pharmacy licence, as they (defendants) failed to establish the proximity of another pharmacy to 45, Olorunlogbon Street, Anthony Village, Lagos, which is where the plaintiffs’ pharmacy is situated.

The court awarded N35.53 million in favour the plaintiffs against the defendants as special damages and N1m as general damages.

The plaintiffs had dragged Pharmacist Council of Nigeria, Lagos State Task Force on Counterfeit Processed Food, Mrs G.O. Balogun, Mrs Adeoye and Attorney General of Lagos State, to court on November 23, 2010, over the defendants’ raid on Edichart Investments Limited pharmacy and carting away its drugs and closing the place.

The plaintiffs had told the court that the failure of Pharmacist Council of Nigeria to show or tender the purported document which showed that the plaintiffs’ premises is less than 200 or 50 metres from all alleged registered premises amounts to withholding evidence.