The court proceedings, presided over by Hon. Justice Akintan-Osadebay, included arguments presented by both the petitioner and defendant before the proceedings were adjourned until next week…CONTINUE READING....KINDLY READ THE FULL STORY HERE▶

In the initial application, Aiyedatiwa sought the court’s permission to amend the Originating Summons by removing the Governor’s name and modifying the relief sought in the Originating Summons.

The affidavit supporting this application, sworn on October 3, 2023, by an assistant to the Deputy Governor, emphasized the necessity of amending the Originating Summons to accurately present the disputed issues between the parties before the court.

While the Defendants did not file a counter-affidavit opposing the application, they did object to it on legal grounds. The Deputy Governor’s counsel requested a decision on the amendment application before proceeding further with the case.

The court decided to consider the amendment alongside the applications filed by the House of Assembly, which challenged the court’s jurisdiction.

The House of Assembly, through its legal representative, submitted a motion on notice dated September 29, 2023, challenging the competence of the Deputy Governor’s substantive case.

They invoked section 188(10) of the Constitution, which they claimed ousted the court’s jurisdiction. They argued that the suit was premature as the Assembly had not yet concluded the removal proceedings, especially since there was no request made to the Chief Judge to establish a panel of investigators.

The Assembly also contended that the Akure case amounted to an abuse of the court’s process, as a similar suit had been filed in Abuja by the Deputy Governor.

In response to the Assembly’s objection, the Deputy Governor’s counsel requested the court to dismiss the Assembly’s application, asserting that it amounted to a demurrer in law.

They argued that the Assembly should have filed their defense and then raised their preliminary legal points within their defense.

Furthermore, they argued that the court could not conveniently consider an application for an amendment alongside a preliminary objection since the objection should be based on the substantive suit that was to be amended. The standard procedure would be to address the objection together with the substantive suit.

Challenging the Assembly’s objection, the Deputy Governor’s counsel pointed out that the Assembly had not provided any evidence to indicate compliance with the procedure for removal from office, such as proof of personal service of the Notice to the Deputy Governor and service on all Assembly members.

They argued that the Notice circulated by the Assembly was legally invalid and tainted by the fact that the Assembly had convened a plenary session on September 20, 2023, to discuss the Notice before serving it on the Deputy Governor.

Additionally, they contended that the case in Abuja involved different parties and sought different reliefs. The Assembly had failed to supply details of the Abuja case for the court to make a comparison between the two cases.