Hot SourceKemi Olaitan in Ibadan
An Oyo State High Court sitting in Ibadan yesterday fixed Tuesday for ruling on applications filed by the United Bank for Africa (UBA) Plc and other defendants in the suit instituted by the Attorney General of Osun State and one other person as claimants.
The applications before the court include one filed by UBA seeking an adjournment sine die (indefinitely) and another challenging the court’s jurisdiction, filed by counsel to the sacked All Progressives Congress (APC) local government chairmen, Mr. Kazeem Gbadamosi, SAN.
The Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) also filed applications seeking to be joined in the suit.
The UBA through its counsel, Mr. Mutalib Adebayo Ojo, while asking for the case to be adjourned indefinitely pending the judgement of the Supreme Court on a related case, told the court that the local government funds in contention were still in its safe custody and untouched by any party.
He noted that the substantive dispute had already been heard by the Supreme Court, which has reserved judgement, adding that any ruling by the lower court might conflict with the apex court’s eventual decision.
According to him, “If this High Court proceeds to hear the suit, there is a 50-50 chance that whatever decision it makes may conflict with the outcome of the Supreme Court. The issue here concerns the hierarchy of courts. Proceeding further may amount to a waste of judicial time since the Supreme Court’s decision will ultimately prevail.”
However, counsel to the sacked APC chairmen, Mr. Gbadamosi, SAN, opposed the application, urging the court not to grant it until the issue of jurisdiction had been addressed while describing the bank’s application as “an anomaly” that should not be entertained.
He argued, “From the defendants’ originating summons, it is clear that there is a pending suit before the Supreme Court upon which this current case and its reliefs are predicated. This present suit was filed subsequently after the Supreme Court case was instituted. That in itself constitutes an abuse of court process which this court must not condone.”
In his response, counsel to the plaintiffs, Mr. Musibau Adetunbi, SAN, countered the submissions, explaining that his clients approached the court only after discovering that federal agencies, including the CBN and the Accountant General of the Federation, had transferred the disputed funds to UBA despite the pending case at the Supreme Court.
“If the money had not been moved from the CBN, we would not have come before this court. The Supreme Court does not have original jurisdiction over UBA, but this High Court does, hence our action,” he stated.
He added that the suit could not be deemed an abuse of process since it arose from new facts, specifically, the unlawful movement of funds to UBA by federal agencies.
After hearing extensive arguments and counterarguments from all counsel, Justice Akintola retired briefly to his chambers before adjourning the matter for ruling on Tuesday next week, stating that the adjournment will allow sufficient time for a well-considered ruling on the various applications.
