| NEWS
|
National
Metro
Africa
World
Business
|
|
|
| OPINION
|
Editorial
Columnists
Contributors
Letters
Cartoons
Discussions
Outlook
|
|
|
| SPORTS
|
Home
Abroad
Golf Weekly
Results
|
|
|
| FEATURES
|
Focus
Policy & Politics
Arts
Media
Science
Natural Health
Law
Education
Weekend
Friday Review
Executive Briefs
Fashion
Food & Drink
Auto Wheels
Friday Worship
Saturday Magazine
Sunday Magazine
Ibru Ecumenical Centre
Agro Care
|
|
|
|
|
Court rejects Ekiti's objection to suit by ex-officials
From Ifedayo Sayo, Ado-Ekiti
THE Court of Appeal sitting in Ilorin, Kwara State, has rejected a request by Ekiti government to stop the case instituted against it by former members of the state Civil Service Commission.
The court also castigated the state Attorney General and Commissioner for Justice, Chief Duro Ajayi, for his "poor outing" before it.
Ruling in an appeal filed by the state government against a ruling of an Ado-Ekiti High Court over the sack of former members of the state Civil Service Commission, Justice Aboyi John Ikongbeh said Ajayi had not shown any regard for the cause of justice.
He added that the appeal was "frivolous and should not have come out from any lawyer's office, not to mention coming from the office of the chief law officer of the state".
Former members of the state Civil Service Commission including the Chairman, Chief Ibidapo Awojolu, Chief Gabriel Babalola, Mr. Jonathan Adeyemi Alade, Mr. Samuel Oluwole Ojo and Prof. Akinola Fatile, had sued the appellants, seeking declaratory and injunction orders against them.
In a notice of preliminary objection, the attorney-general claimed that:
- the suit was incompetent since the writ was not filed without obtaining the leave of court which is a condition precedent before such a step could be taken;
- that the court lacked the jurisdiction to entertain the suit as there was no proper service of the writ of summons; and
- as there was no certificate of service of the writ of summons endorsed by the bailiff.
But the court over-ruling the objection, noted that the service of the court process was the statutory responsibility of the sheriff and bailiffs and other court officials over whose activities the plaintiff had no control. It added that it would run counter to good reasoning and justice to penalise them.
Dissatisfied with the ruling, the defendants went to the Court of Appeal, Ilorin and formulated four grounds of appeal, which were argued by the state attorney-general and commissioner for justice.
Upholding the ruling of the lower court, the Court of Appeal said the case should have been allowed to go to trial on merit, thereby saving time and resources.
The court said: "It is calculated to thwart the plaintiffs in the pursuit of what they perceived to be their legal rights. The preliminary objection and the ensuing appeal are clearly designed to shut the plaintiff out, at least to delay them as long as possible in their quest.
"Such objectionable tactics should never be associated with the office of the attorney-general who is the chief priest in the temple of justice. It detracts from the reasons for designating his ministry, the Ministry of Justice.
"The learned attorney-general ought to know that the mere showing of the occurrence of non-fundamental irregularity in procedural steps, without at the same time showing the miscarriage of justice, does not move the court to nullify proceeding".
Justice Ikongbeh, whose ruling was supported by Justices Muhammad Muntaka Coomasie and David Adedoyin Adeniji, also ordered the appellants to pay costs to the tune of N10,000 to the respondents.
|
|
|
|
|
| BUSINESS SERVICES
|
Property
Appointments
Money Watch
Market Report
Capital Market
Business Travels
Maritime Watch
Industry Watch
Energy Report
Insurance
Compulife
|
|
|
|
|
