….As claimant, 2nd, 3rd defendants describe move as unprofessional
A new twist has been introduced to the N5 billion libel suit instituted by the former Resident Electoral Commissioner (REC) for Akwa Ibom State, Mr. Mike Igini, against the immediate past Edo State Chairman of the All Progressives Congress (APC), Col. David Imuse (Rtd), over the latter’s claim at a press conference that Igini was seen in Benin city collecting money from Governor Godwin Obaseki to rig the September 2020 governorship election in the state.
The new twist, which the lawyers to the claimant and other two defendants in the matter said to be in realms of the confirmation of the aphorism that “Justice delayed is justice denied”, is the new petition written by Imuse, through his counsel, Austin Osenrokon, to the Edo State Chief Judge (CJ), Justice Daniel Iyobosa Okungbowa, to order the case to start de novo, following the transfer of the presiding judge, Justice Vestee Eboreime, from the Benin division of the Edo State High Court to the Okada Division.
Imuse’s latest petition is coming four years after the case opened and the claimant and the two co defendants: African Newspapers of Nigeria Plc, Publishers of the Tribune Titles, and the Sun Newspaper, who are 2nd and 3rd defendants respectively, had opend and closed their defences.
The office of the Edo CJ has since been flooded with letters from the Claimant, Igini, and the two Co-defendants, drawing the attention of the Chief Judge and appealing to him not to grant the unwarranted request of Col. Imuse his call for starting “de novo” (meaning start over again) of the N5 billion libel suit that had been on for four years when the Claimant, lgini had closed his case
The lawyers pointed out the hardship that such a request (de novo), if granted, would have on them in terms of the huge financial cost they had incurred already such as hotel expenses and traveling cost from Oyo and Enugu States respectively, whenever the matter came up in Benin.
They drew attention to the fact that the 1st defendant and counsel resides in Benin and that the numerous adjournments that this case had suffered were orchestrated by the 1st defendant lawyer whose only aim is to frustrate the case from going on.
According to the Claimant lawyer, for three years, Col. Imuse (Rtd) refused to file a defence and waited for the claimant, lgini to close his case before filing his defence and raised further allegations that the Claimant needed to be recalled to clarify. The move to recall the Claimant was opposed by Imuse and arguments were taken and ruling slated for July 16, 2024, Imuse to open his defence.
Surprisingly Imuse lawyer Austin Osenrokon stood up and wanted to arrest the ruling arguing that the Judge could no longer preside over the matter having been transferred to Okada division.
The learned counsel to Igini, Clement Onwewunor (SAN), countered the argument with recent Supreme Court authority that Edo High Court is one and that the 1979 old authority cited had to do with elevation of a Judge to a higher court and even at that, such elevation must have been gazetted before such a judge could be precluded from handling cases from the previous court of elevation.
The SAN further argued that the trial judge in this case was never elevated to Appeal Court, but a routine administrative transfer that had no effect on this case and could not be a reason for the 1st defendant not opening his defence and that the judge was covered by the warrant of the CJ.
The court ruled that it was covered by the CJ warrant and went ahead to deliver its ruling whether Igini could be recalled by his lawyer to clarify new allegations raised by Col. Imuse in his statement of defence not filed and served the Claimant until after lgini had closed his case.
The court ruled that it was only fair and just for the Claimant to be recalled by his lawyer to the witness box to clarify the issues raised in the 1st defendant statement of defence that was not served the Claimant and had no opportunity of responding to the new issue raised before he closed his case.
Immediately after the ruling Col. Imuse lawyer rose up and told the court that he would not participate in the proceeding because of the ruling recalling the Claimant until further instruction by his Client (Col. Imuse.)
The proceedings went on with the Claimant recalled and answered two questions from his lawyer and was discharged and thereafter both the 2nd defendant (Tribune) and 3rd defendant (Sun) opened their defences by calling witnesses that were crossed examined by the lawyer of Claimant, lgini as well as Col. Imuse lawyer, who crossed examined his co-defendants witnesses and both 2nd and 3rd defendants closed their cases that day and only 1st defendant was left to open his defense for the next adjourned date of August 2, 2024, that was overtaken by the national protest.
While counsel were waiting for a new date, information filtered in that Col. Imuse and his lawyer had written another petition like the previously dismissed one by the immediate past CJ, to the current CJ against the trial judge over this case as he had done in 2022. But this time seeking a “de novo trial” after four years of his inability to defend his libelous allegations and never appeared in court in person.
Again, as in the previous petition, seeking the removal of the trial Judge over admissibility of pleaded and relevant documents duly certified, the counsel to Imuse did not copy other parties in the matter.
The office of the then CJ copied all Counsel involved in the matter and were able to respond to the lies and fabrications made against the trial judge about whom they had boasted of enjoying favourable support to frustrate the case because the Judge is of Esan speaking ethnic group with Col. Imuse.
Though Imuse filed an appeal against the ruling, he failed to pursue it; instead, he would rather have the trial Judge, who had indulged him so much, perhaps, to avoid accusation of bias to the extent that a motion for extension of time to file a defence after three years was granted without actual copy of statement of defence attached to the motion, and no evidence of filing fees receipt, yet it was granted despite the opposition of the Claimant’s lawyer, removed from handling the matter. he same Trial judge
The latest move is to use the office of the respected CJ, Justice Okungbowa, to have the matter commenced over again to frustrate the case because the Claimant was recalled to clarify new allegations col. Imuse raised in his defence deliberately filed after Barr. Mike lgini had closed his case. Instead of appealing the ruling, Col. Imuse wants the matter to start all over again by writing a petition to the Chief Judge to use the recent posting of judges to frustrate the matter.
Responding to the new dangerous twist in the libel suit instituted to frustrate the case after four years, the 3d defendant lawyer’s petition to the CJ accused Col. Imuse of causing deliberate delay of this case saying, “It is due to the antics of the counsel to the first defendant that his client has not given evidence up till date when the Claimant, the 2nd and 3rd defendants have all closed their cases.”
Continuing the 3d defendant stated thus “For the four years this matter has been pending, l have not set my eyes on the 1st defendant. He has not appeared in court in these four years during proceedings.”
Also in his response to the latest petition, counsel to the 2nd Defendant (Tribune), Edema Femi Jarrett, said, “For a counsel who had been in the matter ab initio to just wake up overnight and demand for a de novo trial is totally unacceptable to us as such application lacks no human feelings, lacks no merit, lacks no justifiable ground and above all, is pure abuse of court process.”
