Court adjourns suit by 13 CSOs on NDDC until May 7

The Federal High Court, Abuja on Tuesday adjourned until May 7 hearing in a suit filed by 13 civil society organisations, urging the court to remove the interim management committee of the Niger Delta Development Commission (NDDC).

Justice Ahmed Mohammed ruled that the adjournment is to allow counsel to the plaintiffs, Kingdom Okere, serve the fifth and sixth defendants’ counsel, Alex Ejesieme (SAN) properly.

The suit marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/1597/2019 has Minister of Justice and Attorney General of the Federation, Abubakar Malami, minister of Niger Delta Affairs, Sen. Godswill Akpabio, NDDC interim management board and Senate as second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh defendants respectively.

At the resumed hearing, Okere told the court that the bailiff has served the processes on the defendants.

“We have served on the defendants originating summons and motion on notice and they are entitled to respond. They are also entitled to file their protest in form of counter affidavit. They are also entitled to counter the originating summons.

“We urge you to issue hearing notice on the first, second and seventh defendants,” he said.

Counsel to the third and fourth defendants, Isyaku Saleh, told the court that though he was served on March 6, he intends to oppose the applications.

Attempted felony: Man sentenced to 30 days community service

“We intend to file counter-affidavits for both the motion on notice, interlocutory injunction and originating summons,” he said.

Also arguing, counsel to the fifth and sixth defendants, Alex Ejesieme (SAN) told the court that he was appearing on protest.

Ejesiemebbb also said that he was only served with the processes by the court bailiff on Tuesday morning, saying that “for now, we have not been properly served. My learned friend cannot call for hearing date because the issue of service has not been properly done.”

He argued that in the conditional memorandum of appearance served on the applicants’ counsel and before the court, he had stated that he was appearing for the fifth and sixth defendants.

The counsel therefore, hinted that he was only served the processes for a defendant and not two.

The lawyer, who urged the court to give an order for proper service to be made in his office, said not until then, the matter should not be called for mention, adding that “certainly, we will challenge them.”

However, Okere countered the argument. According to him, when a party is properly represented in whatever name or nomenclature whether in protest or conditional appearance, the party can no longer said to be improperly served.

He urged the court to discountenance Ejesieme’s submission which he said was based on unnecessary technicality that could end up wasting the judicial time.

Justice Mohammed after hearing the arguments of parties then adjourned the matter until May 7 for mention. He also held that the hearing notices be issued on the first, second and seventh defendants.