An appeal against
the emergence of Governor Adebayo Alao-Akala and some other members of
the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) in Oyo State suffered a setback on
Monday as counsel failed to execute a court order properly. The Court
of Appeal had, at its sitting last week, ordered that the Deputy Chief
Registrar of the Federal High Court, Ibadan be directed to produce the
court proceeding in which the lower court’s presiding judge, Jonathan
Shakarho, set aside an interim injunction he earlier granted to stop
the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) from recognising
the PDP candidates from Oyo State for the April elections.
The appeal was
instituted by the former minister of power and steel, Wole Oyelese and
36 others against the INEC and PDP over the candidacy of Mr Alao-Akala
and other PDP candidates in the elections.
Richard Akinjide
and Bolaji Ayorinde, lawyers to the PDP and INEC, contested the
authenticity of record submitted to the Appeal Court by Oluwarotimi
Akeredolu, counsel to the appellants, asking the court to get the true
certified version directly from the court that gave the ruling.
Record served wrongly
But rather than
serve the Deputy Registrar as directed by the appellate court, it was
discovered during yesterday’s sitting that the Judge was served
instead, but through the deputy registrar.
The error led to
confusion in court on Monday as the presiding Judge S.J. Alagoa, could
not readily decide whether to go ahead with the matter or not.
He informed the
court that by the records available, the order of the court was not
served on the right person and sought counsel on the way forward.
When put to counsel on the matter, they also did not agree on whether to go ahead or adjourn to a later date despite the defect.
Left to Mr
Akeredolu, the court should go ahead with the hearing, but the duo of
Mr Akinjide and Mr Ayorinde thought otherwise. They wanted the case
adjourned allow the bailiffs correct the error.
Mr Ayorinde said
notice of service is fundamental to the hearing proceedings, adding
that as long as the order was not proper carried out, the matter had to
be adjourned.
Furthermore, the development almost resulted in another round of altercation between lawyers on both sides.
Mr Akeredolu had
alleged that the defendant’s counsel was deliberately delaying justice.
The presiding judge then adjourned till Wednesday, April 13, ‘in the
interest of what is right’.
