A Federal High Court sitting in Abuja on Friday struck out an exparte application filed by the Chairman of the Pension Reformm Task Team, Abdulrasheed Maina.
The action was not unconnected to the action of Maina’s counsel who granted an interview on the matter while the case was still in court.
Justice Adamu Bello had for this reason stated that Maina’s action could not be justified.
Bello blamed Maina’s counsel, Mahmoud Magaji, SAN, for granting an interview on the exparte application while the case was still in court.
Maina had sought to stop the Senate from ordering his arrest and also asked the court for damages of N1.5 billion.
Justice Bello said on Friday that “the conduct of the learned senior counsel in the circumstance is inappropriate.
“By leaking the hearing of the exparte application to the general public, he has, wittingly or unwittingly, converted the motion exparte to a motion in notice, therefore deprived this court the discretion to grant the interim orders of injunction.
“On this alone, the application cannot be granted.
“Relying on Order 4 Rule 4c of the Fundamental Rights of Enforcement Procedure Rules 2009 does not assist the applicant because Rule 4c cannot be read in isolation of Rule 3 of the same order which provides that the court may if satisfied that exceptional hardship may be caused on the applicant before the service of the applicant’s motion on notice especially when the life or liberty of the applicant is involved.
“Any exparte motion for interim reliefs under the Fundamental Rights of Enforcement, especially under Order 4, must be filed before the service of the main application for the enforcement of the Applicant’s Fundamental Rights and not after service.
“It is too late in the day to approach the court under Order 4.
“If there was any urgency in the matter, that urgency was lost when the applicant filed and served his motion on notice on the respondents without filing the exparte application to seek the interim reliefs.
“It is trite law that self-induced urgency is not a basis upon which interim orders of injunction are granted.
“Consequently, in view of all the reasons stated, I decline to grant the interim orders sought by the Applicant.
“Let him await the hearing of the motion on notice which is fixed for Monday 18th so that other parties could be heard on merit.”
Comentarios