The United states court of Appeals Second Circuit, New york has vacated the judgment of the district court in Obama’s case, BarristerNG can authoritatively report.

The  court in its judgment with Appeal No: 22-1253 between Ikemefuna Stephen Nwoye V. Barack Hussein Obama & Michelle LaVaughn Robinson Obama also remanded the matter ‘for further proceedings consistent with this order’.

BarristerNG reported that Mr. Nwoye sued the former United states President, Barack Hussein Obama for breach of contract, quantum meruit, and unjust enrichment.

Delivering its judgment yesterday, 25th January, 2023 the appeal court noted that the fact that the district court dismissed Nwoye’s complaint is not evidence of bias.

The court however held that Nwoye was not giving notice and an opportunity to be heard before his complaint was dismissed by the district court.

Read the full judgment of the court below

BarristerNG recalls that the United states court of Appeals Second Circuit, New york on January 13th, 2023 heard the said Appeal and adjourned for judgment.

Below is the full Transcript of the Proceedings of 13^th January 2023 before Panel B (Courtroom 1505) obtained by BarristerNG 

JUDGE 1(Presiding): We’re going to hear from Mr. Nwoye…am I pronouncing your name correctly  Correctly sir…Nwoye? okay, thank you so much. You have five minutes on the clock.

APPELLANT (PRO SE): With profound respect to this honourable court, Ikemefuna Stephen Nwoye (pro se appellant). Your Honour, I’d like to say, that reflecting on this case, there are basically two considerations; one is the substantive consideration of the need to protect the contract, the need to protect commerce and trade, pact sunt servanda (stand by the agreement), there is also a procedural consideration that the policy of this court would be to abide by its rules. The rules of the court govern the very process through which the adjudication process is conducted. Reading my appellant’s brief, I had raised primarily three issues on why the court should reverse the decision of the lower court. But importantly, I think I should highlight a very significant point that was not included there and that is the standard of where in a case, the decision is clearly erroneous. If we look at Rule 52 of the Court Rules…

JUDGE 2: um, I have a question…

APPELLANT (PRO SE): yeah

JUDGE 2: …The court dismissed your case, on its own without giving you notice…

APPELLANT (PRO SE): Notice, yes, Your Honour

JUDGE 2: …had they given you notice that they were dismissing for the grounds they said, when they did, what would you have said?

APPELLANT (PRO SE): if the court had given…

JUDGE 2: yeah, I mean, you now had notice and you’re here. So, tell us what you would have done if they had given you a chance to speak.

APPELLANT (PRO SE): …if the court had given me an opportunity to speak on the ground that the conducts were all official conducts, I would respectfully disagree with the court and said- The very first premise of the party’s relationship started from a pro bono project organised by the supposed intermediary, Sidley Austin. It’s entirely private, there was nothing government all about it, there was nothing official about it. That was the premise upon which every other arrangement was built. So, if the court says to me that all acts are official conducts therefore, they enjoy absolute immunity, I would want to point out that this is an exception, so if we have four transactions, essentially the first one, the very foundational transaction was different, it was entirely a private arrangement and conversation. And then on the point that there was no sufficient cause of action against the Second Appellee, I would respectfully disagree with the court by saying – even though on the record, there is none, at best the parties still have the right to still amend, it is something that ordinarily they should file their answer and

JUDGE 1: So, um…so, if I may just because your time is limited…

APPELLANT (PRO SE): yeah…

JUDGE 1: …I think um if you could focus on.. if you…what would you have put in the complaint that you didn’t, what facts are out there that you think help establish an agent-principal relationship with Sidley Austin or that the Obamas knew who you were, what specific facts.

APPELLANT (PRO SE): okay, what facts I would have done was to plead documents, documentary evidence, email correspondents between me and employees of Sidley Austin, where we clearly went on the premise that  whatever service was being rendered legal or consultancy service was rendered because the first and second Appellees requested for it. I went from that premise and I had legitimate grounds to proceed from that grounds because I was told that and there were other emails correspondences that also built up to that

JUDGE 1: So, are those emails, those emails would support the allegations in the complaint of what you were told

APPELLANT (PRO SE): Yeah the general circumstances of the case and the documentary evidence would definitely support the case

JUDGE 1: was it the current complaint?

APPELLANT (PRO SE): the current complaint

JUDGE 1: the current complaint. That’s what you say you would have…

APPELLANT (PRO SE): Yes. So, on the surface to say, there’s a prima facie case, you know, whether the jury or the trial judge agrees with the prima facie case is something left for trial, but it shouldn’t be enough premise to say the case is unmeritorious or supported by unsustainable legal theory because the law appreciates oral contracts. The law agrees that there is agency relationship and for a reputable law firm to hold that its employees that said that Mr. A asked me to act on their behalf is something worth probing into if indeed that was the case. So, but in a nutshell, I would almost respectfully say that there is still room for amendment, it is not a ground to say the case is worthless and is thrown out of the window if it wasn’t properly pleaded or pleaded by way of amendment to give room for those facts to come in. But significantly on the clearly erroneous principle, if we all agree that the very first transaction is one that involves private parties, private entities, then the only obvious answer for this Honourable Court is a remand, given the precedents, given the rules of court, particularly Rule 52(a)  and the Supreme Court decision in the United States and United States Gypsum & Co, would agree with me that sending the case back for a retrial is the most appropriate decision, I respectfully submit.

JUDGE 2: Thank you so much. We will take the case under advisement.