.png)
By Iheanyi Chukwudi
An Enugu State High Court presided over by Justice C.O. Ajah, has adjourned to December 18 for hearing of the Motion on Notice brought before it by the Enugu State Government in a suit against two banks, two transport companies, Nigerian Railway Corporation and others.
The Suit No: E/992/2023 is between Enugu State Government, Attorney General, Enugu State, as Plaintiffs/Respondents and First City Monument Bank Nigeria Limited, ECO Bank Nigeria Limited, Chisco Transport Nigeria Limited, G.U.O. Transport Nigeria Limited, Nigerian Railway Corporation and Persons unknown, as Defenders/Respondents.
The court had on November 23, granted eight orders prayed by the government in the Motion Exparte filed by the Attorney General of Enugu State, Dr. Kingsley Udeh, including the sealing, suspension and close down of the premises and respective activities of the respondents within the left hand side of Chris Chemist Okpara Avenue, Market Road, Ogui Road, Enugu, and adjourned the matter to yesterday for hearing of the Motion on Notice.
But when the matter was called up for hearing on Friday, one of the counsel to the defendants named Unknown Persons in the suit, Bona Ononugbo, announced interest in the matter and said that they got information of the day’s sitting late Thursday as they were not served the said motion.
He also informed the court that they discovered that the Attorney General of the State who brought the matter, did not serve the parties but collected the entire process with the intention to make the court believe they have been served on the parties.
He said, “We are surprised at the strange act and that is why we are here to inform the court because the intention is to keep the parties away and shutting them out.”
Counsel to the third Respondent, C. Emeka told the Court that his client was only served on Thursday and he needed time as required by law to respond and asked for an adjournment to enable him do so.
Counsel to State government, W.I. Ezenwugo, responding said the position of the third respondent is in line with the provisions of the law hence he should be giving the time to respond, saying, “he is entitle to time for response. For the person that is unknown, we do not have his address, his identity was not known to us at the time of filing and service.”
Justice Ajah after listening to the parties ruled that “based on the observations by the parties the matter is adjourned to December 18, for hearing of the Motion on Notice.”
Speaking to newsmen shortly after the sitting, counsel to one of the Respondents, Ononugbo said, “We stumbled on this matter yesterday but I don’t know how the state can indulge in some abuses, abuses I the sense that you bring an action against some parties, you wouldn’t serve them, you collected the process, an originating process which by sheriff and civil practices act is only the bailiff that has the right to go and serve the originating process personally on our clients not even to the lawyers.
But in this situation they took away every other thing purporting it to have been served on the clients,
“We informed the court we were not served but the nature and acts of the Attorney General’s office is unbecoming. You can’t initiate a process and seize the process which you have filed without serving to the people affected by your action."
The Bailiff was not involved, it was an officer in the Attorney General’s office that signed and collected the entire processes, it is an aberration, is unethical.
“We have told the court this is what happened and the court listened to us and granted an adjournment so that proper things can be done.”
Comments