Tag: Rotimi Amaechi

•‘PDP’s fresh motion for service strange’
Adamawa State Governor Murtala Nyako and his Sate counterparts in Rivers, Sokoto, Kano and Kwara states, Rotimi Amaechi, Aliyu Wamakko, Rabiu Musa Kwankwaso and Abdulfatah Ahmed, yesterday asked a Federal High Court in Abuja to set aside the service of processes on them on the suit brought against them by the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP).

They also prayed the court to set aside the ex-parte order of December 13, last year, in which it granted leave to the PDP to serve the processes on them by pasting the documents on the walls of the headquarters of the All Progressives Congress (APC) at 6 Bissau Street, Abuja.

The governors argued that court was misled by the PDP into granting the order because the address given, and on which basis the court granted the order, was wrong. They contended that “6 Bissau Street” was not the office of the APC.

The governors urged the court to refuse a motion on notice by the PDP, seeking the leave of the court to serve them through substituted means by serving the processes on the liaison offices of the governors’ states in Abuja.

They described the fresh motion as strange to legal procedures.

Their lawyers – John Baiyeshea (SAN) for Nyako; Fidelis Oditah (SAN) for Amaechi; Awa Kalu (SAN) for Wamakko; Yusuf Ali (SAN) for Kwankwaso and Akin Olujinmi (SAN) for Ahmed – made the requests while arguing their applications before the court yesterday.

The PDP is seeking to sack the governors, who defected to the APC last year from the ruling party.

Baiyeshea argued that since the address provided the court was wrong, “there cannot be said to be a valid order for substituted service”.

The lawyer averred that PDP’s claim that the address was supplied by the court’s bailiff was immaterial.

“What we are saying is that as December 13 (2013), when the court granted the order ex-parte for substituted service, the address of the given for service was wrong,” he said.

Baiyeshea urged the court to set aside the service and the order on which the service was made.

Oditah argued that the conflict in the address contained in the order of December 13 and the fact that the court’s bailiff, who made the service, claimed to have served it on 40 Valentine Street, was an admission that the service was not effected as ordered by the court.

The lawyer said PDP’s decision to file a new motion for substituted service on the states’ liaison offices in Abuja was an admission that the earlier service was wrong.

He contended that it was wrong for the court to have granted an order for a substituted service on his client, who neither resided nor lived within the court’s jurisdiction.

Oditah faulted the PDP’s claim that it served the processes on the defendants by pasting them on the last known office of the APC.

The lawyer averred that the suit, which sought to remove his client from office, was directed at him in person and not any political party.

He contended that the proper place for service of processes on his client was the Government House in the state, where the governor lived and performed his official responsibilities.

Oditah argued that the preconditions needed for an order of substituted means were not met by the plaintiff.

The lawyer prayed the court to vacate the order made wrongly on December 13, last year, set aside the purported service of processes on his client and to refuse the PDP’s fresh motion on notice for a substituted serve.

Kalu urged the court to void service effected on his client on the ground that by the information contained in the affidavit of service filed by the court’s bailiff, it was obvious that the bailiff served on a wrong address different from that ordered by the court. He argued that the bailiff’s action amounted to a disobedience of the court’s order.

Ali and Olujimi also argued in similar manner and prayed the court to also refuse a fresh motion on notice by the PDP for leave to effect substituted service on the defendants through their states’ liaison offices in Abuja.

They argued that the fresh motion was an admission by the plaintiff that their earlier service was wrongly done. They argued that the plaintiff’s claim that their motion was intended to effect additional service was strange and amounted to an abuse of court’s process.

But the plaintiff’s lawyer, Damian Dodo (SAN), argued that the earlier service on the defendants were in order.

The lawyer said the service, having been duly effected on the defendants, the plaintiff’s fresh motion for substituted service was an addition to serve the defendants.

He argued that his client ought to be commended for taking the extra step to effect additional service on the defendants, who are protesting earlier service.

Dodo prayed the court to disregard the arguments by the defendants that their fresh application was strange and that it ought to be by an ex-parte application.

The lawyer averred that there was nothing “esoteric or ritualistic about service”.

He said the service was only intended to inform the defendant about the pendency of a case against him/her in court and the need for him/her to enter defence.

“Our motion on notice is a deft reaction to the peculiar situation we have found ourselves,” Dodo said.

The lawyer argued that there is not a known legal authority to prove that they were in error by taking such steps.

He said although he agreed with the defendants’ argument that they live outside Abuja, the plaintiff has shown that the governors’ states have liaison offices in Abuja though which they could be served court processes since they receive other correspondences through the same means.

He urged the court to hold that proper service has been effected on the defendants.

He also urged the court to grant the plaintiff’s fresh application for service on the defendants through their liaison offices in Abuja.

Justice Gabriel Kolawole adjourned ruling on the matter till May 23.