INAUGURATION OF NDDC BOARD: Abuja Court Adjourns Hearing of Suit By 13 CSO’s To May 7.

"Remove Interim Management Committee of the NDDC", 13 CSO's Begs Court".

A Federal High Court, sitting in Abuja, the nation’s capital has on Tuesday 10^th March 2020, adjourned until May 7 hearing in a suit filed by 13 Civil Society Organizations (CSOs).

The 13 CSO’s had in their suit, urged the court to remove the Interim Management Committee of the Niger Delta Development Commission (NDDC).

Justice Ahmed Mohammed ruled that the adjournment was to allow counsel to the plaintiffs, Kingdom Okere, serve 5th and 6th defendants’ counsel, Alex Ejesieme, SAN, properly.

The suit marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/1597/2019 has Attorney General of the Federation (AGF), Minister of Niger Delta Affairs, Sen. Godswill Akpabio, NDDC, Interim Management Board NDDC and Senate as 2nd, 3rd, 4th,5th, 6th and 7th defendants respectively.

At the resumed hearing, Okere told the court that the bailiff had effected service of the processes on the defendants.

“We have served on the defendants originating summons and motion on notice and they are entitled to respond.

“They are also entitled to file their protest in form of counter affidavit, etc. They are also entitled to counter the originating summons.

“We urge you to issue hearing notice on the 1st, 2nd and 7th defendants,” he said.

Counsel to the 3rd and 4th defendants, Isyaku Saleh, told the court that though he was served on March 6, he intended to oppose the applications.

“We intend to file counter-affidavit for both the motion on notice, interlocutory injunction and originating summons,” he said.

Also arguing, counsel to the 5th and 6th defendants, Alex Ejesieme, SAN, told the court that he was appearing on protest.

Ejesieme also said that he was only served with the processes by the court bailiff on Tuesday morning, saying that “for now, we have not been properly served.

“My learned friend cannot call for hearing date because the issue of service has not been properly done”, he said.

He argued that in the conditional memorandum of appearance served on the applicants’ counsel and before the court, he had stated that he was appearing for the 5th and 6th defendants.

He, therefore, hinted that he was served the processes for a defendant and not two.

The lawyer, who urged the court to give an order for proper service to be made in his office, said not until then, the matter should not be called for mention.

“Certainly, we will challenge them,” he added.

However, Okere countered the argument.

According to him, when a party is properly represented in whatever name or nomenclature you choose; whether in protest or conditional appearance, you can no longer said to be improperly served.

He urged the court to discountenance Ejesieme’s submission, which he said was based on unnecessary technicality that could end up wasting the judicial time.

“We seek the court leave to serve the senior counsel with the originating motion and motion on notice here in the court,” he said.

“In my years of service, I haven’t seen this kind of submission coming from my learned friend.

“I said I am representing two defendants in this suit.

“My lord, in order not to waste the judicial time of the court, I urge you to adjourn so that proper service can be made,” Ejesieme told the court.

Justice Mohammed, then, adjourn the matter until May 7 for mention.

He also held that the hearing notices be issued on the 1st, 2nd and 7th defendants. (NAN)