A Federal High Court sitting in Abuja has adjourned till November 17 hearing on the substantive suit brought before it by Aminu Tambuwal, the speaker of the House of Representatives, alongside notice of preliminary objection filed by the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), challenging the jurisdiction of the court to entertain the matter.
The suit was earlier adjourned for the defendants to show the cause why the reliefs being sought in pursuant to Order 26 rules 12 and 13, Order 56 (1) of the Federal High Court rule 2009 should not be granted.
At the resumed hearing of the matter on Friday, Tambuwal drove himself into the court premises without any security detail and was accompanied by Segun Oni, Inua Abdulkadir, who represented the All Progressives Congress (APC), and Abike Dabiri Erewa.
Lateef Fagbemi (SAN), lead counsel to the plaintiffs who led other 67 legal luminaries to the court, had in his argument said that based on the order of the court at the last adjourned date, the defendants were supposed to “show cause through an affidavit and a written address”.
According to him, they are supposed to report to the plaintiff’s written address contained in its motion ex parte. He averred that there is no gain saying in replying on the points of law. “Points of law must be embedded in the written address”, he said.
In his submission, Fagbemi said that the position of the inspector general of police and the attorney general of the federation on the issue of raising point of law if it is an invitation or request “we will turn it down, what they are saying is that there is no cause to be shown”.
READ ALSO: Updated: Nigeria’s central bank projects economy to grow 2.0% in 2021
Ustaz Usman (SAN), counsel to the PDP, argued that there are two ways to show cause: “to give evidence to contradict evidence in the ex parte application or bring another fact or law to show why that order should not be made, this is what rule 14 Order 26 provides”.
He, thereafter, informed the court about its notice of preliminary objection challenging the jurisdiction of the court and had filed documents in response to the effect that the “first plaintiff is not supposed to be there either in the House or as a speaker”.
These, according to him, are enough facts to show particularly as regards the issue of jurisdiction that the court cannot give any order until the issue of jurisdiction has been decided.
Lateef Fagbemi in his reply said that the entire Order 26 is segmented and this is seen in how the order is set out. Referring to paragraph 5 under the Order 26, he argued that the appropriate order is Order 26 rule 13 etc and that come under per se, which is a special procedure that is taken away from the general cause.
He argued that the hearing of the substantive suit had not been reached for the PDP to contest the jurisdiction of the court over the matter.
The presiding judge, Justice Mohammed in his ruling thereafter agreed that the case of jurisdiction is to be determined first, but that the court has the right to inquire into it.
He later adjourned the matter to November 17 for hearing on the substantive suit alongside the jurisdiction notice, directing all parties to maintain the status quo till the issue of jurisdiction is resolved.
