Court Dismisses Motion Challenging Jurisdiction to Hear ex-INEC REC’s N5b Suit
Justice Vestee Eboreime of the Edo High Court sitting in Benin City, yesterday ruled that she had jurisdiction to continue to entertain the case between the former Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), Resident Electoral Commissioner (REC) in Akwa-Ibom, Mike Igini and the former Edo State Chairman of the All Progresives Congress (APC), Col. David Imuse (rtd).
Justice Eborieme gave the ruling on a motion by Imuse’s counsel, Austin Osarenkhoe, who challenged the jurisdiction of the court to entertain the matter following the transfer of the presiding judge, Justice Eboreime, to the Okada Division of the Edo High Court.
Igini, had in 2020 dragged Imuse, before the court over alleged libelous publications authored against him during Edo State 2020 governorship election and demanded for N5 billion as aggravated damages from Imuse
Also joined in the suit as defendants are African Newspapers of Nigeria PLC, publishers of the Tribune Newspapers and the Sun Publishing Ltd, publishers of the Sun Newspapers.
At the resumed hearing on Tuesday, Imuse Counsel, Osarenkhoe argued that the judge having been transferred to Okada Division of the High Court, she could not continue with the case, especially when the matter had not entered defence.
According to Osarenkhoe, “By general practice when matters are at defence stage, the case could be continued by the judge so transferred. But this morning we contended that this matter before the transfer of the judge was not at defence stage and therefore can’t continue the case”
On his part, Igini’s lawyer, Clement Onwuwuenor (SAN), argued that Edo State had only one High Court division and that the issue of transfer of a judge from one High Court division to another doesn’t affect the case and had nothing to do with the jurisdiction of the court.
He said: “the Claimant closed his case in 2023 and that the first defendant filed his statement of defence and hid it until after the Claimant had closed his case”
He added that the cases Imuse’s counsel cited were more of territorial jurisdiction and could not be relied upon to stop the case
Ruling on the motion, Justice Eborieme said she had looked at the records of the case before the Court and found out that the Claimant had closed his case and that the first defendant had already filed statement of defence over a year ago.
“Therefore, this Court has jurisdiction over this case and it is covered by the warrant of the Chief Judge of Edo State,” she said.
The Judge then granted an order recalling the Claimant to reopen his case in response to the first Defendant’s statement of defence.
But the defence counsel thereafter told the Court that his client advised him to apply to be excused from the recalling of the claimant to reopen his case in the light of the issue of jurisdiction earlier raised.
In her reaction, Justice Vestee said: “If you want to withdraw, please do, stop using English to confuse the Court.
“I am fed up. All the shenanigans and antics are becoming appalling. I see this an attempt to frustrate the case.”
With the ruling on jurisdiction, the Claimant, Igini, was recalled to the witness box to adopt his statement on oath as his further response to the 1st defendant’s statement of defence.
Thereafter, with the 1st defendant’s plea that he should be allowed to brief his client on the outcome of the day’s proceeding, the court ruled that no party could hold the court to ransom, and ordered the 2nd and 3rd defendants to enter their defence.
The 2nd and 3rd defendants thereafter called their only witness each and closed their defense.
In her final ruling of the day, Justice Eboreime adjourned the matter to August 2, 2024 for the 1st defendant to enter his defence if he so wished.
Commenting on the proceedings, Igini’s lawyer, Onwuwuenor (SAN), commended the court for being resolute on all the issues canvassed in the court.
The senior lawyer hinted that if by the next adjourned date, the 1st defendant had still not opened his defence, he might ask for foreclosure.
Also speaking, Igini reiterated his resolve to follow the matter to the end in a bid to redeem his image, which he said the 1st defendant damaged maliciously.
In his reaction, counsel to the 1st defendant, Osarenkhoe, debunked the claim that he had been the one delaying the matter.
He added that the 1st defendant was ready and had two witnesses to call to testify in support of his defence.
