Odiana Eriata esq in Court 4 Federal High Court Abuja. 25/11/2020
FHC/B/74/20; APC & ANOR. VS. GODWIN OBASEKI & ORS.
Sitting commenced about 10:41am.
Col. David Imuse representing APC.
G.O. OBASEKI not in court & No representation for the PDP
Akin Olujimi SAN led 2 other SAN (, Roland Otaru SAN, ..Akinlolu Kehinde .SAN) , F, S Ojealaro esq and over 18 Lawyers for the Plaintiffs.
.J O..Odubela SAN & Olusegun Jola-Owo (SAN) plus 2 other lawyers for the 1st Defendant.
R. O Isenalumen leading kingsley Idahosa for the 2nd Defendant.
M. A. Bawa esq appeared alone for the 3rd Defendant.
The case was fixed for the 1st Defendant's counsel reply on points of law to the Plaintiffs argument in response to the 1st Defendant's motion dated 4th November 2020 to strike out the Plaintiffs Reply (filed 2nd October 2020) to their Statement of Defence for being incompetent, repetitive, inconsistent and abuse of court process.
OR.
Alternatively for the court to strike out paragraphs ...4,5,6,8,11,12,14 &15 of the reply.
In specific response the 1st Defendant's counsel, Mr. J.O. Odebela SAN recalled the argument of the Plaintiffs' counsel Chief. Akin Olujimi SAN on section 115 of the EA 2011 as it relates to paragraph 3 of the 1st Defendant's affidavit in support of their motion which he (A. Olujimi SAN) argued extensively that the paragraph s, offends section 115 of the Evidence Act 2011.
The learned silk J O. Odebela SAN submitted that the plaintiff counsel cannot raise such issue or point of law since it was not contained in the written argument/ address in support of their counter affidavit. He cited Court of Appeal authorities to buttress his point, though the learned silk (A. Olujimi SAN) has argued earlier that the court could also raise such issues suo moto even though he decided not to raise it in the first place. The 1st Defendant's counsel urged the court to discountenance the plaintiff counsel argument.
The 1st Defendant's Counsel also urged the court to grant their application even though the paragraphs offends section 115 of the EA, since the grounds unpon which the application is brought and the the written argument can sustain the application.
Odebela SAN also recalled the argument in respect of Or. 17 and Order 13 Rule 11 of the federal High Court civil procedure Rules and insisted that their application is well founded and same is connected or related to situation where pleadings of a party is inconsistent, contrary to the Plaintiffs counsel argument that the application was brought under the wrong law or rules of court. He submitted that the order is the most consistent in the circumstances and finally urged the court to grant the application.
The learned silk also argued in respect of order 20 (1)(b) of the rules of court and urged the court to strike out the Plaintiffs pleadings as contained in their Reply.
He also cited authorities and closed his reply on points of law.
Before the court could adjourn the case: the Plaintiffs counsel pray the court to accommodate his application for leave to front load additional document which was already pleaded before the court, but that was vehemently opposed by the 1st and 2nd Defendants counsel. The court delivered bench rulling that the decision in the motion already argued must be delivered before any other applications would be entertained.
The court adjourned to the 2nd December 2020 for rulling and further hearing if need be!.
However, parties must be concerned about the 180 days time life -span of all pre-election cases. I hope the court is conscious of this too!. The court has powers to consolidate all applications before it and determine same one way or the other before delving into the substantive matter. I pray the court takes care of all pending applications in due course to allay the fears of the parties.
Comments
Post a Comment