Governor of Anambra State, Prof. Charles Soludo and six others whose case is before the Federal High Court, Awka Judicial Division for running the affairs of the 21 local government areas in the state without democratically elected officials, contrary to the law, would know their fate on March 4, 2025.
Justice Amina Mohammed of the Federal High Court, Awka Judicial Division has fixed March 4, 2025 for ruling on the motion, and to allow the defendants properly file their defence in the suit brought against them.
The second to eight defendants respectively, in suit no. FHC/AWK/CS/90/2024, initiated by an activist, Dr. Ifeanyichukwu Okonkwo, include the Federal Republic of Nigeria, Governor of Anambra State, Attorney General and Commissioner for Justice, Anambra State and Anambra State House of Assembly.
Others are former governors, Senator Chris Ngige, Peter Obi, Willie Obiano, for themselves and on behalf of their transition chairmen and councilors, and Mr. Livinus Onyenwe for himself and on behalf of transition chairmen who served under the Soludo administration.
Notable among several reliefs sought by the plaintiff is that the court should ban Soludo and his affected predecessors from contesting election, seeking for re-election or occupying public office, having acted contrary to the 1999 constitution (as amended), which they swore to uphold.
Also, the plaintiff wants an order of the court to compel the 2nd to 8th defendants to render public account before the court, of all funds, expended by them or agents and privies, during their respective administrations, while executing their illegal and unconstitutional usurpation of offices at the local government council areas in Anambra State.
In addition, he is demanding for exemplary damages of N100 billion in his favour, against the 2nd to 8th defendants.
When the matter came up before Justice Mohammed Wednesday, a Senior State Counsel from the Anambra State Ministry of Justice, Peter Odili, told the court that the second to eight defendants filed a preliminary objection to the originating summons filed by the plaintiff, challenging the jurisdiction of the court to hear the matter.
Odili said they also filed a motion on notice for extension of time, within which the second to eight defendants will be expected to file their counter affidavit, written addresses and other processes in opposition to the plaintiff’s originating summons and deeming the processes as properly filed and served, the appropriate fees having been paid.
According to Odili, the motion for extension of time was dated May 28, 2024 and filed on June 13, 2024.
He prayed the court to grant the motion for extension of time in their favour, relying on all the documents they filed, including their preliminary objection to the suit and
reply to the plaintiff’s written address in opposition to their application for extension of time on point of law.
Responding, Okonkwo who appeared for himself, told the court that he opposed the preliminary objection on point of law.
The plaintiff said he would adopt the written address that he filed in opposition to the motion for extension of time on point of law.
The plaintiff argued that a court cannot take an application for extension of time in a case where its jurisdiction is being challenged.
He, however, asked for the leave of the court to add authorities, which tie the hands of the court on the matter, once jurisdiction is in contention, particularly Nwankwo versus Ononeze Madu (2005) and Britania versus Seplat.
He maintained that a court has no power to make an order in respect of a case, in which its jurisdiction to try the case has been challenged.
Justice Mohammed after hearing the submissions of the parties in the suit, fixed March 4, 2025 for ruling and hearing of the substantive suit.
