5 Billion Libel Suit: Col. Imuse Rtd Wants De Novo Trial, After 4 Years Of Failure To File His Defence
IN what appears to be a confirmation of the aphorism that “Justice delayed is justice denied” reliable source in the High Court of Edo State has revealed that the office of the respected Chief Judge of EDO state, Justice Daniel lyobosa Okungbowa has been flooded with letters from Co-defendants to 1st defendant, Col. Imuse rtd drawing the attention of the much respected Chief Judge and appealing to him not to grant the unwarranted request of Col. Imuse for what lawyers call starting “de novo” (meaning start over again) of the N5 billion libel suit that had been on for 4 years when the Claimant, Hon. Barr. Mike lgini has closed his case, 2nd and 3rd defendants (Tribune and Sun) have all closed their defences while only Col. Imuse left to open his Defence in the libel suit.
They pointed out the hardship that such a request (de novo) if granted would have on them in terms of the huge financial cost they had incurred already such as hotel expenses and traveling cost from Enugu and Oyo states respectively whenever the matter comes up in Benin. They drew attention to the fact that 1st defendant and counsel reside in Benin and that the numerous adjournments that this case had suffered were orchestrated by the 1st defendant lawyer whose only aim is to frustrate the case from going on.
For three years, he refused to file a defence and waited for the claimant, Hon. Mike lgini to close his case before filing his defence and raised further allegations that the Claimant needed to be recalled to clarify. He opposed the recall and arguments were taken and ruling slated for last month 16th July and for Col. Imuse to open his defence. Surprisingly and as reported by various media outlets, Col. Imuse lawyer Austin Osenrokon stood up and wanted to arrest the ruling arguing that the Judge can no longer preside over the matter having been transferred to Okada division.
The learned SAN , Clement Onwewunor countered the argument with recent Supreme Court authority that EDO High Court is one and that the 1979 old authority cited has to do with elevation of a Judge to a higher court and even at that, such elevation must have been gazetted before such a judge could be precluded from handling cases from the previous court of elevation. That the trial judge in this case was never elevated to Appeal Court but a routine administrative transfer that has no effect on this case and cannot be a reason for the 1st defendant not opening his defence and that the judge is covered by the warrant of the CJ.
The court ruled that it’s covered by the CJ warrant and went ahead to deliver its ruling whether Hon. Mike lgini could be recalled by his lawyer to clarify new allegations raised by Col. Imuse in his statement of defence not filed and served the Claimant until after Hon. Mike lgini had closed his case. The court ruled that it’s only fair and just for the Claimant (Hon. Mike lgini) to be recalled by his lawyer to the witness box to clarify the issues raised in the 1st defendant statement of defence that was not served the Claimant and had no opportunity of responding to the new issue raised before he closed his case.
Immediately after the ruling Col. Imuse rose up and told the court that he will not participate in the proceeding because of the ruling recalling the Claimant until further instruction by his Client (Col. Imuse.) The proceedings went on with the Claimant recalled and answered two questions from his lawyer and was discharged and thereafter both the 2nd defendant (Tribune) and 3rd defendant (Sun) opened their defences by calling witnesses that were crossed examined by the lawyer of Claimant,Hon.
Mike lgini as well as Col. Imuse lawyer who crossed examined his co-defendants witnesses and both 2nd and 3rd defendants closed their cases that day and only 1st defendant, Col. Imuse left to open his defense for the next adjourned date of 2nd August that was overtaken by the National protest. While counsel were waiting for a new date, information filtered in that Col. Imuse and his lawyer have written another frivolous petition like the previously dismissed one by the immediate past CJ to the current CJ against the trial judge over this case as he had done in 2022 but this time seeking a “de novo trial” after four years of his inability to defend his libelous allegations and never appeared in court in person .
Again, in his unprofessional conduct, lmuse’s lawyer didn’t copy other parties in the matter as he did with his first dismissed petition seeking the removal of the trial Judge over admissibility of pleaded and relevant documents duly certified. The office of the then CJ copied all Counsel involved in the matter and were able to respond to the lies and fabrications made against the trial Judge about whom they had boasted of enjoying favorable support to frustrate the case because the Judge is of Esan speaking ethnic group with Col. Imuse.
He filed an Appeal against the ruling but failed to pursue it instead he would rather have the trial Judge removed from handling the matter. The same Trial judge that had indulged him so much, perhaps , to avoid accusation of bias to the extent that a motion for extension of time to file a defence after three years was granted without actual copy of statement of defence attached to the motion and no evidence of filing fees receipt yet it was granted despite the opposition of the Claimant’s lawyer.
The latest move is to use the office of the respected Chief Judge , Justice Daniel lyobosa Okungbowa who many say is an upright jurist with impeccable record of integrity and fairness like his father who was also a Judge to have the matter commenced over again frustrate the case because the Claimant was recalled to clarify new allegations col. Imuse raised in his defence deliberately filed after Barr. Mike lgini had closed his case. Instead of Appealing the ruling, Col. Imuse wants the matter to start all over again by writing a petition to the Chief Judge to use the recent posting of Judges to frustrate the matter.
This is the new dangerous twist in the Libel suit instituted by the former INEC Commissioner to frustrate the case after four years. The 3rd defendant lawyer’s petition to the CJ accused Col. Imuse of causing deliberate delay of this case saying “It is due to the antics of the counsel to the first defendant that his client has not given evidence up till date when the Claimant, the 2nd and 3rd defendants have all closed their cases.” Continuing the 3rd defendant stated thus “For the four years this matter has been pending, l have not set my eyes on the 1st defendant. He has not appeared in court in these four years during proceedings”.
Speaking on the delay of justice in Nigeria judicial system, Abraham Oviawe, a renowned Benin based legal icon bemoaned the cost at which Nigerians access justice with pertinent questions.
“Is it right and professional for a party in a matter to write a petition to the trial judge or Chief Judge without copying other parties and decision is taken without the benefit of hearing from other parties involved in the matter?
“Will the cause of justice truly be served if a party in a matter, the case and trial history clearly shows that he is unwilling to defend himself after refusing to put up defence for over 3 years granted a prayer to start de novo when the Claimant, 2nd and 3rd defendants have closed their cases?
“Will a decision to grant “de novo” trial to a reluctant defendant responsible for several adjournments not amount to further indulgence of a party who was previously granted by the court a motion for extension of time to file a defence after 3 years without a copy of statement of defense attached to the said motion yet granted ?
“Is it fair and just to subject Claimant, his legal team, 2nd and 3rd defendants lawyers from Lagos, Oyo and Enugu States to Benin for another de novo trial over a frivolous one-sided petition by 1st defendant and his lawyer who are based in Benin and suffer no inconvenience nor financial cost?”, Oviawe said.
The legal practitioner advocated that the Lagos state tradition is adopted in Edo in particular and Nigeria in general.
“Lagos is ahead of all states in Nigeria in terms of justice dispensation because when a case file is assigned to a judge and trial has commenced, irrespective of the stage the matter has reached, an administrative transfer to any division within the state, the judge goes to the new division with the file for continuation and not a reassignment to a new judge for a “de novo” to avoid wastage of time and resources spent, most especially delayed justice.
“No wonder Lagos is called the center of excellence. Even neighbouring Delta State, once a case is assigned to a judge, either on promotion or on transfer, he goes with the case file and give judgement from his/her new location to avoid the urge scenario of starting the case “De Novo”. It’s even very unjust and unfair that the party responsible for the delays for four years is the one asking for a “de novo”.
“A Libel suit filed before 2020 September Edo Governorship election now almost four years yet to be concluded when the state is again at the eve of another Governorship election in September, yet the office of the CJ is being asked by unwilling defendant to have the matter restarted again simply because the plaintiff was recalled to clarify new allegation raised after the plaintiff had closed his defence. How will justice be served if he’s start all over again after 4 years?”, Oviawe queried.
About The Author
