Appeal Court To Decide Gadzama’s Case January 25

The Court of Appeal sitting in Abuja has fixed January 25, 2017 for hearing and determination of an interlocutory appeal filed by dissatisfied former Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) presidential candidate, Chief Joe-Kyari Gadzama (SAN).

Though the matter came up for the first time at the Appeal Court on December 13, 2016 the court urged parties to go and put their house in order for the January 25 hearing date.

While Chief Emeka Ngige (SAN), lead counsel to Gadzama, had given a background to the appeal and sought to move the Appellant’s motion for accelerated hearing of the appeal, some of the Respondents raised issues of service of the motion, arguing that the motion was not ripe for hearing.

Meanwhile, both the 9th and 10th Respondents have written to the Appellant’s counsel requesting to be availed with the processes filed at the Appeal Court. The 9th Respondent is Mr. Oluwaseun Ajoba who is also the Secretary of the Electoral Committee of the NBA (ECNBA) while Hajia Safiya Balarabe is the 10th Respondent.

In letters both dated 2nd December, 2016 and with similar title, “Non-service of Notice of Appeal and Record of Appeal on the 9th Respondent in Joe-Kyari Gadzama (SAN) OFR vs. Alhaji Abdullahi Ibrahim (SAN), CON & Ors,” Mr. Mubarak Abdulraheem and Prof. Wahab Egbewole for the 9th and 10th Respondents respectively stated that they have the instructions of the Respondents to represent them in the appeal.

In the letters addressed to Ngige, they also complained that no Notice of Appeal, Record of Appeal or Appellant’s Brief had been served on them, and requested that the processes “and other subsequent processes” be served on the Respondents through them.

Both Respondents were not represented at the Appeal Court proceedings. CITY LAWYER Magazine gathered that the letters were served on the Appellant on December 14, 2016, a day after the proceedings.

While Ngige led Sebastine Hon (SAN), Gabriel Tsenyen, Mrs. Ozioma Izuora and 11 other lawyers for the Appellant, former NBA General Secretary, Mr. Olumuyiwa Akinboro (SAN) led another team of lawyers for the 1st to 6th Respondents.

Miss C. Ndeokwelu represented the 7th Respondent while NBA Chief Prosecutor, Mr. Jibrin Okutepa (SAN) led other lawyers for the 13th Respondent. The 14th respondent was represented by Mr. N. I. Nta while Mr. Paul Erokoro (SAN) represented the 15th Respondent. There were no legal representations for the 8th to 12th Respondents.

The Appellant had on Wednesday, 7th December, 2016 filed an Affidavit of Urgency alongside an application to the Presiding Justice of the Court of Appeal seeking assignment and hearing of the appeal.

It is recalled that Gadzama had headed to the Appeal Court following rejection of his plea to the lower court for consolidation of the substantive suit with the preliminary objections filed by the Respondents. Justice Yusuf Halilu of the FCT High Court had on 8th November, 2016 held that the applications on preliminary objections would be heard first before possibly hearing the substantive matter.

In a Notice of Appeal brought pursuant to Order 6 Rule 2 of the Court of Appeal Rules 2011, the appellant raised three grounds of appeal upon which the ruling of the trial judge is being contested.

According to Gadzama, “The Appellant’s suit is neither unworthy nor fruitless as to warrant being terminated at infancy without considering the substance of the suit.” He also contended that “Having observed that the issues raised and the authority of AMADI VS NNPC (2000) 10 NWLR (pt. 674) 76 cited to him was ‘ordinarily in the interest of justice to avoid unnecessary waste of time,’ the court ought to have followed the salutary principle of law enunciated in the said decision which is binding on it.”

The appellant further asserted that “A trial or intermediate court confronted with a preliminary objection to the competence of the suit in a matter of which time is of essence is required in the interest of justice to consolidate the hearing of the objections with the substantive suit and deliver a composite decision comprising of the ruling on the objection as well as judgement on the substantive matter.”

According to Gadzama, “Having classified the Appellant’s counsel’s submissions as ‘very useful,’ the court ought not to have departed from the course of doing substantial justice by succumbing to ‘dogged submissions’ of Respondents’ counsel in the realm of arid legalism.”

He further noted that the trial judge “erred in law when he dismissed the appellant’s application for the consolidation of the preliminary objections with the substantive suit, despite the perishable nature of the subject matter of the suit,” adding that “The 15th Respondent (Mr. Abubakar Mahmoud, SAN) has already been sworn in as the President of the Nigerian Bar Association for a single term of two years from August 2016 to August 2018 despite the service on him of a motion on notice before the trial court seeking to restrain his swearing-in.”

On the reliefs being sought, the Notice of Appeal states that the appellant is seeking “an order setting aside the decision of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory contained in the ruling delivered by Hon. Justice Y. Halilu dated 8th November, 2016.”

Gadzama is also seeking “An order directing the consolidation of all pending preliminary objections/applications filed by the Defendants/Respondents with the substantive suit in this matter” as well as “An order directing accelerated hearing of the matter at the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory.”

“Having regard to the insinuation made by the trial judge that the Appellant’s case was unworthy or fruitless deserving of being nipped in the bud,” the appellant also seeks “an order of this Honourable Court directing the Chief Judge of the High Court of Federal Capital Territory, Abuja to transfer the suit to another judge of FCT High Court for the hearing of all pending preliminary objections along with the substantive suit.”

NBA President, Mr. Abubakar Mahmoud (SAN) was declared winner of the controversial NBA election with total 3055 votes while Gadzama polled 2384 votes. But Gadzama rejected the result. In a 102-paragraph Statement of Claim, Gadzama is urging the court to declare that “the Defendants jointly and/or severally are bound by the provisions of the Constitution of the Nigerian Bar Association amended and adopted in August 2015 and must in all matters relating to, connected with the business and or affairs of the Association obey and give effect to the provisions thereof.”

He also claimed that “contrary to the result declared by the 8th Defendant, at the close of voting, at 12:00 midnight on Sunday, 31st July, 2016, the result of the 2016 Nigerian Bar Association Election as it relates to the office/position of the President, as collated from and contained on the official voting domain/platform was as follows: Joe-Kyari Gadzama – 2,963; Abubakar B. Mahmoud -2,465.” This was as deduced by his ICT experts who conducted forensic audit of the poll.

The defendants in the suit are NBA trustees including Alhaji Abdullahi Ibrahim (SAN) CON, Chief Wole Olanipekun (SAN) OFR, Chief Thompson Joseph Onomigbo Okpoko (SAN) OON, Chief (Mrs.) Priscilla Kuye, Alhaji Murtala Aminu OFR and Chief Anthony O. Mogboh (SAN). They are listed as 1st to 6th Defendants while The Incorporated Trustees of Nigerian Bar Association is the 7th Defendant. Mr. Kenneth Mozia (SAN), Chairman of the ECNBA is the 8th Defendant while Mr. Oluwaseun Ajoba who doubles as the Secretary of the committee is the 9th Defendant.

Others are Hajia Safiya Balarabe, Mrs. Amaka Ezeno, and Mrs. Eucharia Pepple – all members of the Electoral Committee – as 10th, 11th and 12th Defendants while NBA’s ICT Partner, Grace Infotech Limited is the 13th Defendant. Mr. Augustine O. Alegeh (SAN), former NBA President, is the 14th defendant while Mahmoud is the 15th Defendant.