Colonel David Imuse (rtd), the immediate past chairman of the All Progressives Congress (APC) in Edo State, has introduced a new twist to the N5 billion libel suit instituted against him by Mr. Mike Igini, a former Resident Electoral Commissioner (REC) for Akwa Ibom State.
Imuse, in a new petition by his counsel, Austin Osenrokon, to the Chief Judge of Edo State, Justice Daniel Iyobosa Okungbowa, sought an order to start the case de novo (anew or afresh).
Igini had sued Imuse over an allegation by the latter at a press conference that the former REC was seen in Benin City allegedly collecting money from Governor Godwin Obaseki to rig the governorship election held in the state in September 2020.
The move by Imuse followed the transfer of the presiding judge, Justice Vestee Eboreime, from the Benin Division of the Edo State High Court to the Okada Division.
However, lawyers to the Claimant (Igini) and two other defendants in the matter likened the new twist to the aphorism, “Justice delayed is justice denied.”
Imuse’s latest petition is coming four years the Claimant and the African Newspapers of Nigeria Plc (Publishers of the Tribune Titles) and the Sun Newspaper, who are 2nd and 3rd defendants, respectively, had opened and closed their defences.
The office of the Edo State Chief Judge was said to have had since been flooded with letters from the Claimant, Igini, and the two co-defendants, appealing to him not to grant the call by Imuse for a de novo trial.
The Claimant and the two defendants in the N5 billion libel suit argued that the matter has been on for four years, a period during which lgini had closed his case.
The counsels to the Claimant and the two defendants pointed to the hardship such a request by Imuse, if granted, would have on them, given the huge financial cost they had already incurred in the course of suit.
The hardship, they stated, included hotel expenses and traveling cost from Oyo and Enugu states, respectively, whenever the matter came up in Benin.
They drew attention to the fact that the 1st Defendant and his counsel live in Benin, alleging that the numerous adjournments the case had suffered were orchestrated by the counsel to Imuse, allegedly to frustrate further hearing of the case.
According to the counsel to Igini, for three years, Imuse had refused to file a defence but waited for the Igini to close his case before filing his defence and raised further allegations which the Claimant needed to be recalled to clarify.
Imuse opposed the move to recall the Claimant. Arguments were taken and ruling was slated for July 16, 2024, for Imuse to open his defence.
Counsel to Imuse, Osenrokon, allegedly sought for the arrest of the ruling, arguing that the trial judge could no longer preside over the matter, having been transferred to the Okada Division.
Counsel to Igini, Clement Onwewunor (SAN), however, countered the argument with a recent Supreme Court Authority which asserted that the Edo High Court is one and that the old 1979 Authority cited by counsel to Imuse had to do with the elevation of a judge to a higher court.
He argued that, 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.
Onwewunor further argued that the trial judge in the case was never elevated to the Appeal Court, but was only on a routine administrative transfer that had no effect on the matter.
He, therefore, argued that such could not be enough reason for the 1st Defendant not to open his defence, noting that the judge was covered by the Warrant of the Chief Judge.
The court ruled in favour of the argument by Onwewunor, stating that it was only fair for Igini to be recalled by his counsel to the Witness Box to clarify the issues raised in the Statement of Defence.
It noted that the Statement of Defence was not served on the Claimant and thus he had no opportunity of responding to the new issues before he (Igini) closed his case.
However, counsel to Imuse told the court that he would not participate in the proceeding until he received further instruction from his client.
The court, however, went on to recall the Claimant who responded to two questions from his counsel and was discharged.
Thereafter, both the 2nd Defendant (Tribune) and 3rd Defendant (Sun Newspaper) opened their defences by calling their witnesses who were crossed-examined by the counsel to the Claimant.
Both the 2nd and 3rd defendants subsequently closed their cases, while the counsel to Imuse also crossed-examined witnesses of the two co-defendants.
The 1st Defendant was billed to open his defense on the next adjourned date, August 2, 2024, but this was stalled by the recent #EndBadGovernance protest which took place nationwide from August 1 to August 10.
As counsels awaited a new date, Col. Imuse and his counsel had allegedly written another petition, similar to the previous one dismissed by the immediate past Chief Judge.
The latest petition, addressed to the current Chief Judge, Justice Okungbowa, sought to stop the trial judge from handling the case which he has been presiding over since 2022.
This time around, however, Imuse was seeking a de novo trial, after four years of failing to defend the allegations of libel against him, as he never appeared in court in person.
As it was in the previous petition which sought the removal of the trial judge over admissibility of pleaded and duly certified relevant documents, the counsel to Imuse did not copy other parties in the matter.
The Office of the Chief Judge had copied all counsels involved in the matter who were able to respond to the allegations made against the trial judge.
Though Imuse filed an appeal against the ruling, he failed to pursue it. Rather, he requested for an extension of time to file a defence after three years.
His fresh request was allegedly without an actual copy of the Statement of Defence attached to the motion, and with no evidence of filing fees receipt. It was granted despite the opposition of the counsel to the Claimant.
The latest move by Imuse was allegedly aimed at using the Office of the Chief Judge to start a fresh trail of the matter.
Responding to the new twist in the ₦5 billion libel suit, counsel to the 3rd Defendant (Sun), in a petition to the Chief Judge, accused Imuse of deliberately seeking to further delay the hearing of the case.
“It is due to the antics of the counsel to the 1st Defendant that his client has not given evidence up till date when the Claimant, the 2nd and 3rd defendants have all closed their cases.
“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,” he said.
Also responding to the latest petition, counsel to the 2nd Defendant (Tribune), Edema Femi Jarrett, said: “For a counsel who had been in the matter ab initio to just wake up overnight and demand for a de novo trial is totally unacceptable to us.
“Such application lacks no human feelings, lacks no merit, lacks no justifiable ground and, above all, is pure abuse of court process.”
