Governor, Mr. Segun Oni,
Anayo Okolie â€¨
A Federal High Court sitting in Abuja has granted a motion by ousted Ekiti State Governor, Mr. Segun Oni, seeking the leave of the court to serve all the originating processes in a suit in which he is accusing MTN Nigeria Limited of doctoring the call data records of suspended Court of Appeal President, Justice Ayo Salami.
The court gave the order after hearing Oni’s counsel, Mr. Segun Ilori, moved the motion in which he urged the court to grant the reliefs being sought by his client.
According to a certified true copy of the court order made available to THISDAY yesterday, the court, in a ruling delivered last Tuesday, granted the order that Oni, who is the plaintiff in the suit, should serve the originating processes in the suit against MTN, the first defendant, at its Ikoyi, Lagos office, which is outside the jurisdiction of the court. It also ruled that “an order is granted deeming such service as good service.” The court adjourned the case till February 25 for mention.
Oni, in an ex-parte motion dated December 10, 2012 but filed on December 19, 2012, had prayed the court for three reliefs which include an order of the court to serve the court processes on MTN at its Lagos headquarters and for the court to hold that such service is deemed as good service.
The motion was backed by an affidavit sworn to by Miss Bridget Azego, a secretary residing in Abuja.
Oni in his statement of claims, accused MTN of “deliberately frustrating” the National Judicial Council (NJC) during the investigation of his petition in which he accused Justice Salami of rigging the judgment that ousted him from office as Ekiti State governor in favour of the Action Congress of Nigeria (ACN) and its governorship candidate in the 2007 election, Dr. Kayode Fayemi.
According to him, this, MTN did this by “providing inadequate and incomplete call data records to the law enforcement and security agencies, which, the latter, in turn, transmitted to the Special Investigative Panel of the National Judicial Council and thus manipulated same.
“The plaintiff further averred that the first defendant also refused to provide the call data records spanning the period under investigation; particularly, the call data records for the months of September, October and November 2010; on the excuse that its network capability or capacity for call data storage does not extend beyond three months.”