The National Judicial Council (NJC), at its 109th meeting held on Wednesday and presided over by the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Kudirat Kekere-Ekun, cautioned the Chief Judge (CJ) of Edo State, Justice Daniel Okungbowa, over “abuse of his judicial discretion in Suit No B1/555/2020.
![](https://thenigerialawyer.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/idrinstitute.png")
![](https://thenigerialawyer.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/TheNigerialawyer-WhatsApp-Channel1.jpg")
In addition, the NJC “advised” Justice Okungbowa “to exercise his discretion judicially and judiciously in future.”
The caution and advice by the Council to the Edo CJ stemmed from a petition written by the former Akwa Ibom State Resident Electoral Commissioner (REC), Mr. Mike Igini, who is the claimant in the Suit No B1/555/2020, he instituted against the immediate past Edo State Chairman of the All Progressives Congress (APC), Col. David Imuse (RTD), over the libellous statements the latter issued in September 2020, at the wake of the gubernatorial election in Edo State against Igini.
In the petition, Igini faulted the attempt of the Edo CJ to start the suit de novo, while it is on court records that the claimant had opened and closed his case and the second and third defendants had opened and closed their defense, while the first defendant, on whose action the matter had suffered greatly for four years, was the one seeking to start the matter afresh; a request the Edo State CJ granted
Imuse had, while addressing a press conference in Auchi, headquarters of Etsako West local Government Area of Edo State, claimed among other allegations that Igini, who was then the Akwa Ibom State REC, was spotted leaving the private residence of the then Governor Godwin Obaseki, at around 3:00am alongside the governor’s associates carrying a ‘Ghana-Must-Go’ bag filled with money.
The retired Colonel-turned politician, further claimed at that press conference that Igini was given the alleged money to facilitate the rigging of the September 21, 2020, governorship election in favour of Obaseki, who had to leave the APC for the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), when his former party, the APC, denied him the governorship ticket for his second term.
Angered by the allegations, Igini wrote to Imuse to retract the libellous materials and offer apology, failure which he would seek redress in court.
When the demands for retraction and apology were rebuffed by Imuse, the former REC filed Suit No B1/555/2020 at the Edo State High Court against Imuse and joined the Sun Newspapers and the African Newspapers of Nigeria Plc, publishers of the Tribune Titles, as second and third defendants respectively.
In the suit, the claimant demands for a retraction of the allegations against him, an apology from the first defendant (Imuse), and N5 billion as damages. The case was assigned to Justice V.O. Eboreime of the High Court of Edo State for hearing.
The claimant opened his case and testified as the Claimant Witness 1 (CW1), and was discharged on September 26, 2022, after which he called two other witnesses, with the last one testifying and was cross examined on November 23, 2023.
While that lasted, the first defendant did not file his statement of defense. But when the claimant closed his case on November 23, 2023, three years after the case started, the first defendant served his statement of defense on all parties.
That development led to the claimant’s counsel, Clement Onwuenwunor (SAN), moving a motion to recall the claimant to further testify based on the new issued the first defendant raised in his statement of defense.
The trial judge, Justice Eboreime, after listening to the counter motion opposing the recall of the claimant and the argument of the learned SAN, ruled that in the interest of justice and fairness, the claimant should be recalled.
In his petition to the NJC, Igini said among other things that: “I regret to inform your Lordship that it was only after I had closed my case and it was adjourned for the defence that I was served with the 1st defendant’s Statement of Defence, which he filed on September 27, 2022, but maliciously delayed serving on me for over a year. In response, my lawyers filed a Reply and sought an order for recall. However, the 1st defendant’s counsel opposed this request, despite it stemming from its own failure to file a defence for three years, waiting until I had closed my case. Arguments were heard on May 22, 2024, and the matter was adjourned for ruling.
“On July 16, 2024, the 1st defendant again sought to delay proceedings, arguing that the trial judge had been transferred to a nearby Okada division and could no longer preside over the matter. Arguments were taken by counsel to all the parties, including co-defendants that vehemently opposed the submission, after which the trial judge ruled that she was authorized by the Chief Judge’s warrant to continue presiding over the matter. She granted my recall based on the belated defence filed by the 1st defendant in the interest fair hearing and I was subsequently cross-examined after adopting my additional Statement on Oath.
“The case was magnanimously adjourned on July 16, 2024, at the request of the 1st defendant’s counsel, to August 2, 2024, to allow him to open his defence, as his witnesses were unavailable on the initial date. With the consent of all counsel and upon application to the Court, the 2nd Defendant, The Sun, called its sole witness (Mr Ayodele Oluwasuyi- sic) from Enugu. After cross-examination by both parties, the 2nd Defendant closed its case. Similarly, the 3rd Defendant, Tribune, opened its defence by calling its sole witness (Mr. Lukeman Olabiyi-sic) from Ibadan. Following cross-examination, which included active participation from Col. Imuse’s (Rtd) counsel, the 3rd Defendant also closed its case, leaving only Col. David Imuse (Rtd), the 1st defendant, residing in Benin, to present his defence.”
Alleging “denial of justice and frustration of the suit”, Igini further petitioned that “On August 7, 2024, around 9:00 a.m., I contacted the Registrar of Hon. Justice Eboreime’s Court to inquire about the new adjourned date for this suit, as the Court could not sit on August 2, 2024, due to the nationwide “End Bad Governance” protests. To my shock, I was informed of the Chief Judge’s directive that the matter be reassigned to another judge to commence de novo.
“By a letter dated 7th August, 2024, my lawyers expressed serious concerns about the hardships the directive for a trial de novo would impose on me, as the Claimant who had already closed my case, as well as on the 2nd and 3rd Defendants, who had called their witnesses and closed their cases. Only the 1st defendant remained to open his defence. Attached as Annexure E is a copy of this letter. Surprisingly, both the 2nd (Tribune) and 3rd (Sun) defendants also protested against a de novo trial in their respective letters dated 8th and 9th August to the Chief Judge. Attached as Annexure F are copies of the letters
“Despite the appeal letters, His Lordship, through his Personal Assistant, sent my lawyers a letter dated 15th August, 2024, requesting a response to the 1st defendant’s counsel’s request for a trial de novo. Attached as Annexure G is a copy of the letter.
“The 1st defendant had applied to the Chief Judge for a trial de novo without copying the other parties to the suit. This application led to a re-assignment of the suit to another judge without the involvement or notification of the other parties, including the co-defendants. Furthermore, unlike the previous Chief Judge, who had copied all parties in the matter when the 1st defendant first petitioned against the trial judge, the current Chief Judge did not share the letter with my lawyers or those of the 2nd and 3rd defendants for our input.
“In response to the 1st defendant’s application for a trial de novo, my counsel submitted an application for a warrant to the Chief Judge, dated August 20, 2024, detailing the 1st defendant’s actions to frustrate the case over the past four years. The application also highlighted my difficulties in restarting the proceedings, especially given that one of my key witnesses, Mr. Kingsley, passed away during the trial. It took me four years to present only three witnesses. A copy of the application for the warrant is attached as Annexure H.
“Interestingly, the Chief Judge later circulated copies of my application for Warrant to the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd defendants for their comments. It is worth noting that both the 2nd and 3rd defendants supported my application, advocating for its approval. They cited the financial toll on their respective media organizations and the risks associated with traveling by road they had gone through for four years, pleading for the trial judge to be allowed to conclude the case. Attached as Annexures I and J are copies of those letters.
“I was, however, disheartened to receive a letter dated October 17, 2024, from the Personal Assistant to the Chief Judge, stating that the order for a trial de novo would stand because the 1st defendant’s counsel did not consent. Attached as Annexure K is a copy of that letter. It is difficult to understand how the 1st defendant and his counsel, who had failed to file a statement of defence for three years, could consent to the continuation of the trial before Hon. Justice V.O. Eboreime, especially given their past frustrating efforts through the Chief Judge’s office to transfer the case to another judge. Col. Imuse (Rtd) himself accused the trial judge of bias in a petition to the former Chief Judge of Edo State. This was after the trial judge denied his application for a stay of proceedings in my libel case.
“The trial judge had overruled the application for a stay, citing Order 4 Rule 11 (2) of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2021, which states that the entry of an appeal does not lead to a stay of proceedings unless the appeal impacts the case before the court. The trial judge found the 1st defendant’s complaint regarding my failure to accompany my originating processes with Form 6 to be frivolous.
“I am dismayed that a politician who once served as state chairman of a political party could make such serious and contemptuous allegations based solely on hearsay. As of September 20, 2022, when he submitted his petition against the trial judge, Col. Imuse (Rtd) had not attended court for nearly three years since the proceedings began before Hon. Justice V.O. Eboreime. My Lord, the former Honourable Chief Judge dismissed Col. Imuse’s petition and directed Hon. Justice V.O. Eboreime to continue with the trial of my case.
“I pointed out to the former Chief Judge that the 1st defendant failed to acknowledge that for about three years after being served with the originating processes, he did not file his Statement of Defence. This was despite his counsel’s full participation in the proceedings, consistently objecting to trial documents and cross-examining my witnesses.
“Part of the 1st defendant’s further complaints to the former Chief Judge was that Hon. Justice V.O. Eboreime admitted all my trial documents, which left me shocked. It seemed the 1st defendant and his counsel did not understand that relevance is the overriding consideration in the admissibility of documents. Despite there being no document tendered that was not pleaded, 1st defendant who had yet to file his defence, should have known he was at liberty to appeal any decision of the trial court. Overruling a lawyer’s wasteful judicial time and baseless objection to the admissibility of a document during trial is not a valid ground for petitioning a judge.
“The 1st defendant’s final allegation against Hon. Justice V.O. Eboreime before the former Chief Judge was that the trial judge omitted a vital admission from his records, claiming I stated under cross-examination that I travelled from Uyo to Benin. This was a fabricated assertion. I consistently maintained in my pleadings and oral evidence that I travelled with family members and friends from Lagos through Benin en route to my home state of Delta for a funeral event on August 24, 2022—not from Uyo to Benin. The very Hon. Justice V.O. Eboreime, whom Col. David Imuse (Rtd) criticized in his petition to the former Chief Judge, had even indulged Col. Imuse (Rtd) and his counsel on “September 26, 2022, when, against my counsel’s objections, he granted Col. Imuse (Rtd)’s application for an extension of time to file a Statement of Defence, without attaching the proposed Statement or providing proof of payment of default fees, three years after the service of the originating process.” Igini stated.
in his complaint to the NJC, the former Independent electoral Commission (INEC), REC said that “The Honourable Chief Judge of Edo State (by administrative fiat) ordered trial de-novo in the above case not due to the retirement, elevation to the Court of Appeal, bias, death of the trial judge, but for a mere routine transfer of the trial judge (Hon. Justice V.O. Eboreime) to another division of the Edo State High Court and the refusal of the 1st defendant’s counsel to consent to the continuation of the trial before Hon. Justice V.O. Eboreime. This decision came despite my legal team and I having spent nearly four years traveling by road and air from Lagos to Benin to present three witnesses, one of whom, Mr. Kingsley, tragically passed away before he could testify.”
He added that he found “the rationale behind the Honourable Chief Judge’s order for a trial de novo, which sought consent from the 1st defendant and his lawyers after their unprofessional conduct, to be an extreme misuse of judicial power and a deliberate attempt to frustrate my pursuit of justice after four years of arduous proceedings. It is unimaginable that the Honourable Chief Judge would require the consent of an unwilling 1st defendant and his lawyers before instructing Hon. Justice V.O. Eboreime to conclude the trial in a case where all parties except one had closed their cases. I had closed my case, and the co-defendants, the 2nd and 3rd Defendants, had also concluded their respective cases.
Igini said, “It is both strange and curious for the Honourable Chief Judge to seek the consent of the 1st defendant and his lawyers who had yet to open their defence and had consistently attempted to frustrate the case before directing Hon. Justice V.O. Eboreime, who is covered by the Chief Judge’s warrant and still presides over cases before her transfer to the Okada division, to complete the trial. A directive for a de novo trial based on the unwillingness of a party to present their defence is incomprehensible, injudicious, morally wrong, and an unfair attempt to dissuade me from proceeding with my case to clear my name from the damaging and injurious allegations against my reputation and integrity, which I have upheld throughout my public service as an INEC Commissioner.”
He, therefore, appealed to the NJC, which he called an “esteemed body of eminent jurists” to “intervene and urge the Honourable Chief Judge of Edo State to direct the trial judge to conclude this case by calling on the 1st defendant to open his defence in the interest of justice, rather than subjecting me to a de novo trial after four years.”
Acknowledging the petition, which was dated November 5, 2024, the NJC, in a response dated, 2oth November 2024, said that action was being taken.
Thus, rising from its 109th Meeting on Wednesday, June 25, 2025, the NJC ruled that “Hon. Justice Daniel Okungbowa, Chief Judge Edo State was also cautioned over abuse of his judicial discretion in Suit No B1/555/2020 and was advised to exercise his discretion judicially and judiciously in future.”
By the NJC’s submission on the matter, the trial judge, Justice Eboreime would continue with the matter while the first defendant, Col. Imuse (Rtd), would have to open his defense.
“History of Rivers State Judiciary: A Compendium of Personalities on the Bench.” Authored by Ampim Gogo Blankson, Esq., Deputy Director at the Rivers State Ministry of Justice, in collaboration with the Rivers State Judiciary 💰 Cover Price: ₦20,000.00 (Twenty Thousand Naira) Bukky Law Books, Rivers State High Court Complex, Moscow Road, Port Harcourt – 📞 08034868754📞 08034729738📞 Enquiries: ______________________________________________________________________ From Constitutionalism To Federalism And "Speaking Truth To Power": Get Your Copies Of Prof. Ozekhome's Books Tackling Nigeria's Critical Issues 
For Enquiries: 📞 +234 704 044 9375 | +234 814 813 4773 | +234 816 872 3532 ✉️ educodexl@gmail.com
______________________________________________________________________Grab Your Complete Law Reports Now!!! IP, Company, Evidence & Land Cases - All Volumes With Digital Index!!!
To get a copy kindly Call 07044444777, 07044444999, 08181999888, https://alexandernigeria.com/ ______________________________________________________________________
[A MUST HAVE] Evidence Act Demystified With Recent And Contemporary Cases And Materials
