A certified true copy of a court document made available to newsmen has confirmed that Justice Jude O. Okeke of a Federal High Court in Abuja on October 8, 2019 ordered that “status quo” be maintained in respect to the subject matter of a suit filed by Chief Derin Adebiyi-led faction of the All Progressives Congress (APC) in Ogun State, pending the hearing and determination of some applications.
Derin Adebiyi-led APC executive in Ogun had in 2018 filed a suit to challenge its dissolution by the National Chairman of the APC, Adams Oshiomhole for alleged anti-party activities.
Oshiomhole had replaced the elected executive, loyal to former Governor Ibikunle Amosun, with a three-man caretaker committee led by Yemi Sanusi.
Saga Gist reported on Thursday that loyalists of Ogun State Governor, Prince Dapo Abiodun, and those of his predecessor, Amosun, renewed their rivalry as they battle for who controls the state chapter of the All Progressives Congress (APC).
While Amosun’s faction claimed that the court has recognised and reinstated the dissolved Derin Adebiyi-led executive, party members loyal to Abiodun, insisted that the court never made such pronouncement.
Meanwhile, a court document on the case with suit number: FCT/HC/363/2018, showed that the court resumed sitting on October 8 with the claimants and defendants absent. They were, however, represented by their counsels.
It was seen from the court document that Akinola Afolarin, I. Damisa and M. Egbinine appeared for the claimants; while N. A. Ojile appeared for the first to fifth defendants, holding brief for Wale A. Ajayi. There was no legal representation for the sixth defendant – the Independent national Electoral Commission (INEC).
In his words, counsel to the claimant, Afolarin, recalled that the court, on June 20, 2019, had granted the claimants leave to amend their processes and join the third to sixth defendants; he informed the court that the amendment was effected and served.
The defendants in the suit were the All Progressives Congress (APC); APC National Chairman, Adams Oshiomohle; Yemi Sanusi; Ayo Olubori; Tunde Oladunjoye (Chairman, Secretary and Publicity Secretary of the said Ogun APC Caretaker Committee respectively) and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC)
Afolarin told the court that the defendants have served his clients a counter affidavit in opposition to the originating summons – a preliminary objection and an application for extension of time.
He told the court that they would not be able to proceed with the substantive matter that day, in view of the fact that the claimants needed time to react to the preliminary objection and counter affidavit filed by the defendants in opposition to the originating summons.
Afolarin said the claimants filed motion number M/8514/2019 for interlocutory injunction and motion number M/8533/2019 for interim injunction; to prevent the defendants from interfering with the subject matter of the case.
He, however, applied to withdraw the motion for interim injunction and proceeded with the motion for interlocutory injunction in respect of which he said the defendant have filed a counter affidavit; adding that the notice was served on INEC against the October 8 fixture.
Reacting, counsel to the defendants, Ojile, said the defendants did not object to the application for adjournment to enable the claimants react to process served on them on October 7.
But Ojile, however, objected to the hearing of the motion on notice with number M/8514/2019 on the ground that the defendant already have a notice of preliminary objection to be taken and determined first.
In his submissions, Justice Okeke said: “The settled position of the law is that a challenge to jurisdiction is a threshold issue which should be heard and determined promptly once raised. In this case, however, the claimant has complained that the defendants are interfering with the subject matter of the suit and on account, therefore, seeks to restrain them via a Motion on Notice for Interlocutory Injunction to this proceeding. In the light of this, the court is minded to consolidate the hearing of both applications. It is so ordered.
“As the claimants need time to react to defendants preliminary objection, both application shall be heard on the next date.”
“In the interim, parties are directed to maintain the status quo as at today with respect to the subject matter of the suit pending the hearing and determination of the above application.
“The claimants motion with number M/8533/2019, having been withdrawn, is struck out.
“The case is adjourned to 26th November 2019 for consolidated hearing of the defendants preliminary objection and claimants Motion on on Notice with number: M/8514/2019.”
“Hearing notice to be served on the 6th defendant.”
0 Comments