Igini N5b suit: Judge chides lawyer over delay tactics, insists on jurisdiction

By Jethro Ibileke

Justice Vestee Eboreime of Edo State High Court in Benin City, on Tuesday lambasted Barr Austin Osarenkhoe, for attempting to use delay tactics in the N5 billion libel suit between a former Resident Electoral Commissioner (REC) of Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), Mike Igini and the former Edo State Chairman of the All Progresives Congress (APC), David Imuse.

Igini had in 2020, dragged Imuse, before the Court over alleged libelous publications authored against him during Edo State governorship election and demanded for N5 billion as aggravated damages from Imuse.

Also joined in the suit as defendants are African Newspapers of Nigeria PLC, publishers of the Tribune Newspapers and the Sun Publishing Ltd, publishers of the Sun Newspapers.

At the resumed hearing on Tuesday, Osarenkhoe who is Counsel to Imuse challenged the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain the matter on the ground that the presiding Judge, Justice Vestee Eboreime, was formerly transferred to the Okada Division of the Edo High Court, before her return.

He argued that having been previously transferred to Okada Division of the High Court, the Judge could not continue with the case, especially when the matter had not entered defence.

According to him, “By general practice when matters are at defence stage, the case could be continued by the judge so transferred. But, this morning we contended that this matter before the transfer of the judge was not at defence stage and therefore can’t continue the case.”

On his part, Igini’s lawyer, Clement Onwuwuenor (SAN), argued that Edo State has only one High Court division and that the issue of transfer of a Judge from one High Court to another does not affect the case and has nothing to do with the jurisdiction of the Court.

“The Claimant closed his case in 2023 and the First Defendant filed his statement of defence and hide it until after the Claimant had close3 his case,” Onwuwuenor said.

He added that the cases Imuse’s Counsel cited were more of territorial jurisdiction and could not be relied upon to stop the case.

Ruling on the motion, Justice Eboreime said she had looked at the records of the case before the Court and found out that the Claimant had closed his case and that the First Defendant had already filed his statement of defence over a year ago.

“Therefore this Court has jurisdiction over this case and it is covered by the warrant of the Chief Judge of Edo State,” Eboreime said.

She, therefore, granted an order recalling the Claimant to reopen his case in response to the First Defendant’s statement of defence.

At that point, the Defence Counsel told the Court that his client advised him to apply to be excused from the recalling of the Claimant to reopen his case in the light of the issue of jurisdiction earlier raised.

In her reaction, the furious Justice Vestee said, “If you want to withdraw, please do, stop using English to confuse the Court. I am fed up.

“All the shenanigans and antics are becoming appalling. I see this as an attempt to frustrate the case.”

She, therefore, recalled the Claimant, Igini, to the witness box to adopt his statement on oath as his further response to the 1st Defendant’s statement of defence.

Thereafter, with the 1st Defendant’s plea that he should be allowed to brief his client on the outcome of the day’s proceeding, the court ruled that no party could hold the court to ransom, and ordered the 2nd and 3rd Defendants to enter their defence.

The 2nd and 3rd defendants thereafter called their only witness each and closed their defense.

In her final ruling of the day, Justice Eboreime adjourned the matter to 2 August, 2024, for the 1st Defendant to enter his defence if he so wished.

Commenting on the proceedings, Igini’s lawyer, Onwuwuenor (SAN), commended the court for being resolute on all the issues canvassed in the Court.

He hinted that if by the next adjourned date, the 1st Defendant had still not opened his defence, he might asked for foreclosure.

Also speaking, Igini reiterated his resolve to follow the matter to the end in a bid to redeem his image, which he said the 1st Defendant damaged maliciously.

In his reaction, Counsel to the 1st Defendant, Osarenkhoe, debunked the claim that he had been the one delaying the matter.

He added that the 1st Defendant was ready and had two witnesses to call to testify in support of his defence.