Alex Enumah in Abuja
The Nigerian National Petroleum Company (NNPC) Limited has appealed the refusal of Justice Inyang Ekwo to hear and determine its motion for a stay of proceedings before hearing the substantive suit against it and President Muhammadu Buhari.
Senator Ifeanyi Araraume had instituted a N100 billion suit against President Buhari, over his alleged unlawful removal as Non-Executive Chairman of the newly-incorporated NNPC.
President Buhari, the NNPC and the Corporate Affairs Commission (CAC) are the first, second and third defendants, respectively.
At its proceedings of January 23, Justice Ekwo directed parties to identify and adopt their processes as their brief of argument in the matter.
Reacting, the lead lawyer to the NNPC, Prof. Koyinsola Ajayi, (SAN), drew the court’s attention to a motion for a stay of proceedings over the January 11 proceedings of the court, wherein the court had declined to take the NNPC’s motion of preliminary objection to the substantive suit.
Ajayi believed that the application for stay be taken and the court takes a decision one way or the other before progressing with the case.
Responding, Justice Ekwo declined, insisting that the court would take all motions together, including the substantive suit.
After several attempts to make the judge take the application for stay first failed, Ajayi while observing that the position of the court had placed him in an uncomfortable position, asked the judge for permission to withdraw from the proceedings.
Responding, Ekwo reminded the lawyer that he was not the one who engaged him and as such the senior lawyer was at liberty to take whatever decision he deemed good.
At this juncture, Ajayi withdrew from the proceedings and walked out of the court and was followed by Etigwe Uwa (SAN), who represented NNPC at the January 11 proceedings.
However, Justice Ekwo held that the processes filed by NNPC are deemed adopted even if they were not taken.
Justice Ekwo subsequently fixed March 28 for ruling or judgment shortly after other parties adopted all their processes as their brief of arguments.
Dissatisfied, the NNPC accordingly went to the appellate court to challenge the decision.
The appellant faulted the order of the trial court consolidating the hearing and determination of all applications it filed, including interrogatories filed on January 19, and the motion for stay of proceedings filed on January 20, with the substantive amended Originating Summons dated November 11, 2022.
In ground one of the appeal, the NNPC claimed that the lower court, “erred in law when he failed to hear and determine the appellant’s application for stay of proceedings pending appeal, filed on January 20, first before deeming all processes filed in respect of the substantive amended Originating Summons and all other applications in the action as having been adopted and argued, thereby occasioning a miscarriage of justice on the appellant”.
The appellant also in ground two stated that the lower court erred in law when it decided to proceed to hear and determine the substantive suit without first allowing the appellant to receive a response to the appellant’s interrogatories filed on January 19, and issued to the 1st respondent and therefore occasioned a miscarriage of justice on the appellant”.
The appellant further claimed that the trial court breached its right to a fair hearing without affording it an opportunity to strengthen its defence before proceeding to hear and determine the substantive suit and therefore occasioned a miscarriage of justice on the appellant.
The appellant is therefore asking for “An Order of this court setting aside the entirety of the proceedings conducted by Justice E. I. Ekwo on January 23, 2023, in Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/1621/2022 – Senator Ifeanyi Godwin Araraume v. The President, the Federal Republic of Nigeria & 2 Ors; and an Order directing the Chief-Judge of the Federal High Court to re-assign Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/1621/2022 – Senator Ifeanyi Godwin Araraume v. The President, the Federal Republic of Nigeria & 2 Ors to another Judge of the Federal High Court for determination.
