By Ibrahim Hassan-Wuyo
The case between the founder of the New Nigeria Peoples Party,NNPP, and Kwankwasiya held at the Kano State High Court 4, has been adjourned to March 27th 2024 for further proceedings.
The presiding judge,Justice Usman Mallam Na’abba., has directed that all pending motions before the court would be heard.
At the court session,counsel representing NNPP Kwankwasiyya group, Robert Hons Esq., was directed by the court to file his motion for committal and gave the respondent’s counsel, Aminu Abdulrasheed Esq., opportunity to respond to the allegation of whether the 1st to 17th respondents were in contempt of the court order or not.
During the proceedings, there were diverse submissions and arguments on points of law, with both counsels, especially those representing the parties, presenting their arguments on whether the business of the day was for the respondent’s contempt proceeding. Ultimately, the court agreed with the learned counsel for the 1st to 17th Respondents that the business of the day was not for committal. The court therefore, adjourned the matter to March 27th, 2024.
Recall that the Court earlier issued an interim injunction on September 4th, 2023, against the respondents, including INEC, listed as the 18th Respondent in Suit No. K/M1157/2023 between NNPP and Chief Dr. Boniface O. Aniebonam and 17 others via Originating Summons.
The injunction sought to restrain the founder of NNPP, the Board of Trustees, and Excos from parading themselves, issuing press releases, or granting interviews as leaders or members of NNPP, pending the hearing and determination of the motion on notice.
However, the 1st to 17th respondents, through their counsel Aminu Abdulrasheed, Esq., filed a notice of preliminary objection challenging the jurisdiction of the Kano High Court on several grounds, including that all the respondents are not residents of Kano, the actions took place outside the territorial jurisdiction of Kano State High Court, the action sought to stop was already concluded, and the suit amounted to forum shopping, thus depriving the Kano State High Court of the requisite jurisdiction to entertain it.
On the other hand, another counsel for the 1st to 17th Respondents, Mr. Peter O. Ofikwu, Esq.,filed a notice of appeal before the Court of Appeal Kano against the interim order granted by Kano State High Court No. 4 and also a motion for a stay of execution of the said order.
In an nterview with the Counsel for the 1st to 17th Respondents , Barrister Aminu Abdulrasheed, he said, “when a matter is pending before the general public, caution should be exercised to restrain from subjecting or prejudging the matter because it amounts to sub judice. However, what transpired is what you witnessed. …”
“At this juncture, I need to advise my colleague that whenever a matter is pending before the Court of law, the truth should be said on what actually transpired.
The truth is that there are pending applications before the Court whereby the judge granted the interim injunction against the Respondents. That order was granted on September 4th, last year. An interim order, which is granted via expert application, does not give the Respondents an opportunity to give their own version, and the order only lasts for 14 days. So, if the order is granted on September 4th, 2023, then the lifespan of that order expired on September 18th, 2023.”
“So, the order already expired. Even before the expiration of the order, we filed a motion on notice challenging the jurisdiction of the Honourable Court, to which the Counsel of NNPP Kwankwasiyya filed a counter. That means we joined issues. After we joined issues, they are, by equity, ought to come for their motion on notice. Because when you file an application for interim injunction, you must file a motion on notice along with it, where the Respondent will respond and argue before the court on whether the court shall make that interim order an interlocutory one or not because at the expiration of 14 days, the force of that order and validity had elapsed.
It can be renewed upon showing valid reasons, which the Applicant did not go to court and apply for the extension of the lifespan of that order beyond the 14 days. And the said order is appealed before the Court of Appeal. These are the things before the court,” he said.
Source: Vanguard