between dr. nwankwo tony ... - the freedom to choose

SUIT NO.: FHC / ASB / CS / / 2016

BETWEEN

DR. NWANKWO TONY NWAEZEIGWE

Suing for himself and on behalf of members of

Nigeria Civil War & Genocide Research Network

AND

1. PRESIDENT OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA

2. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE FEDERATION

3. THE PRESIDENT OF THE SENATE OF THE

FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA

4. THE SPEAKER, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA

5. THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY

ORIGINATING SUMMONS

TO: PRESIDENT OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA, ATTORNEY

GENERAL OF THE FEDERATION, THE PRESIDENT OF THE SENATE OF

THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA, THE SPEAKER, HOUSE OF

REPRESENTATIVES OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA & THE

NATIONAL ASSEMBLY

Let all the Defendants named above, within 30 days of the service of the Originating

Summons on them, inclusive of the day of such service, cause an appearance to be

entered for them and file any other process in response to this Summons, which is issued

upon the application of the Plaintiff who resides in Ibusa, Delta State of Nigeria and

seeks the Honourable Court’s determination of the following questions:

QUESTIONS FOR DETERMINATION

1. Whether Nigeria’s continuous membership of Organization of Islamic

Cooperation (OIC) is not a violation of provisions of Section 10 of the

Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended).

2. Whether Nigeria’s membership of the Islamic Military Alliance to Fight Against

Terrorism does not derogate from the provisions of Section 10 of the

PLAINTIFF

DEFENDANTS

2

Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) which

proclaims Nigeria as a secular State.

3

3. Whether Nigeria’s continuous membership of Development ‘8’ otherwise called

(Eight Developing Islamic Countries) is not a clear violation of the provisions of

Section 10 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as

amended) Nigeria being a secular State.

4. Whether Nigeria’s continuous membership of Islamic Development Bank is not

a clear violation of the provisions of Section 10 of the Constitution of the Federal

Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) Nigeria being a secular State.

5. Whether Islamic bond otherwise known as SUKUK or funds from Islamic

Development Bank can validly be used to fund the 2016 budget deficit by the

Federal Government of Nigeria having regards to the secularity of the Nigerian

State.

RELIEFS SOUGHT

If the answers to questions 1 - 5 above are answered in the affirmative, then the Plaintiff

seeks the following reliefs:

1) An Order nullifying or declaring the cessation of Nigeria’s membership of:

a) Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC).

b) Islamic Military Alliance to Fight against Terrorism.

c) Development 8 or Developing Islamic Countries.

d) Islamic Development Bank.

OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE

2) An Order compelling the 1st & 2nd Defendants to forthwith withdraw Nigeria’s

membership of:

a) Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC).

b) Islamic Military Alliance to Fight against Terrorism.

c) Development 8 or Developing Islamic Countries.

d) Islamic Development Bank.

3) An Order of injunction restraining the 1st & 2nd Defendants from entering into any

agreement, treaty, character, in violation of the provision of Section 10 of the

Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended).

4

4) An Order of injunction restraining the 3rd & 4th Defendants from authorizing the 1st

& 2nd Defendants to issue or obtain any Islamic bond otherwise known as ‘SUKUK’

for the purpose of financing any aspect of the 2016 appropriation Act and/or budget

deficit.

5) An Order of injunction restraining the Defendants particularly the 1st & 2nd

Defendants from further enlisting Nigeria into membership of any Organization

meant solely for Islamic countries or any Organization bearing any religious

connotation.

THIS SUMMONS WAS TAKEN OUT BY S. KELECHI NNADI ESQ., ACIS OF NO. 14

OGELUE CHUKWURAH STREET, OFF OKPANAM ROAD, ASABA, DELTA STATE

ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF (DR. NWANKWO TONY NWAEZEIGWE) WHO

IS RESIDENT AT IBUSA, DELTA STATE.

NOTE: The Defendants may appear hereto by entering appearance personally or by a

Legal Practitioner either by handing in the appropriate form duly completed at

the Federal High Court Registry or by sending them to that Office by Post.

If the Defendants do not enter appearance within the time and at the place above

mentioned such Orders will be made and proceedings may be taken as the Judge

may think just and expedient.

Dated at Asaba this ______ day of __________, 2016.

________________

R E G I S T R A R

For service on:

THE 1ST DEFENDANT

State House

Abuja

THE 2ND DEFENDANT

Hon. Attorney General’s Chambers

Federal Ministry of Justice

Abuja

THE 3RD DEFENDANT

National Assembly Complex

Abuja

THE 4TH DEFENDANT


Abuja

5

THE 5TH DEFENDANT


Abuja

6

IN THE FEDERAL HIGH COURT OF NIGERIA

IN THE ASABA JUDICIAL DIVISION

HOLDEN AT ASABA


BETWEEN




AND








AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF ORIGINATING SUMMONS

I, Dr. Nwankwo Tony Nwaezeigwe, Male, Christian, Public Servant, Researcher,

Citizen of the Federal Republic of Nigeria resident at Ibusa, Delta State do hereby make

oath and state as follows:

1. That I am the Plaintiff in this case by virtue of which I am very conversant with the

facts to which I make this deposition.

2. That I bring this action for myself and on behalf of members of Nigerian Civil War

& Genocide Research Network, which I am its Research Director.

3. That the facts I deposed to hereunder are facts within my personal knowledge, facts

I obtained in the course of my research and books, journals, newspapers, etc. which

I have read.

4. That I know as a fact that the 1st Defendant is the President and Commander-in-

Chief of the Armed Forces of the Federal Republic of Nigeria while the 2nd

Defendant is the Chief Law Officer of the Federation and by virtue of his Office, is

a Party to all proceedings affecting the interest of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

PLAINTIFF

DEFENDANTS

7

5. That the 3rd & 4th Defendants are the Heads of the two (2) Chambers of the National

Assembly created under Section 50 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of

Nigeria 1999 (as amended) and who preside over its legislative activities.

6. That the 5th Defendant is the National Assembly which is the law making body or

the legislative arm of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

7. That sometime in the year 1986, the 1st Defendant secretly enlisted Nigeria into the

Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC), [now Organization of Islamic

Cooperation] without the concurrence of Nigerian people.

8. That sometime on or about the month of March, 2016, the 1st Defendant enlisted

Nigeria into membership of Islamic Coalition against Terrorism otherwise known

as Islamic Military Alliance to Fight Terrorism (IMAFT) and the 1st Defendant

admitted doing so in an interview he granted to Al-Jazeera Cable News which was

published in Daily Trust Newspaper of Wednesday, March 9, 2016 among other

national daily newspapers circulating in Nigeria. – Attached hereto as Exhibit ‘SKN

1’ is a copy of the Daily Trust Newspaper of Wednesday, March 9, 2016.

9. That sometime in 1997, Nigeria was also enlisted into the membership of Group of

Eight Developing Islamic Countries otherwise known as ‘D8’ whose members are

drawn from members of Organization of Islamic Cooperation (formerly known as

Organization of Islamic Conference) which includes: Bangladesh, Egypt, Indonesia,

Iran, Malaysia, Nigeria, Pakistan and Turkey.

10. That on Wednesday, February 24, 2016, I read in Vanguard Newspaper of same date

that the Federal Government of Nigeria will be resorting to Islamic bond (otherwise

known as SUKUK) to fund the 2016 budget. – Attached hereto as Exhibit ‘SKN 2’

is a copy of the said Vanguard Newspaper of Wednesday, 24th February, 2016.

11. That I know as a fact that Nigeria is a pluralistic State with different religious

adherents such as Christianity (to which I and members of Nigerian Civil War &

Genocide Research Institute belong), Muslims, Animistic, Atheists, African

Traditional Religion and others.

12. That Nigeria’s membership of Islamic Organizations such as:

a) Organization of Islamic Cooperation (formerly Organization of Islamic

Conference);

8

b) Islamic Military Alliance to Fight Terrorism (IMAFT);

c) Development 8 (Eight Developing Islamic Countries);

d) Islamic Development Bank

which are Organizations meant solely for Islamic countries are clearly acts tending

towards Islamization of Nigeria.

13. That I know as a fact also that the Articles of Agreement of Islamic Development

Bank makes it very clear that its objectives is to foster the wellbeing of Muslims in

accordance with the principles of sharia. – Attached hereto as Exhibit ‘SKN 3’ is a

copy of the Articles of Agreement of Islamic Development Bank.

14. That I verily believe that every Nigerian enjoys and ought to enjoy freedom of

worship and religion as prescribed by the Constitution of the Federal Republic of

Nigeria 1999 (as amended).

15. That I know that Nigeria’s membership of these organizations meant for Islamic

countries is causing interreligious strife in Nigeria particularly between the Muslims

and the Christians with so many deaths and sectarian crisis in Nigeria, particularly

in the northern Nigeria.

16. That the aims and objectives of these Islamic Organizations are to promote the

propagation of Islam and the welfare of its Muslim members.

17. That the funding of Nigeria’s membership of these Islamic Organizations stated in

paragraph 12 above as well as funding of their activities are done from the treasury

of the Federal Republic of Nigeria which belongs to Muslims and non-Muslim

citizens of Nigeria.

18. That the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) which

I have read, especially Section 10 thereof, prohibits Nigeria’s membership of

religious organizations or adoption of a particular religion as Nigerian State religion.

19. That in spite of the prohibition of State religion by the Constitution of the Federal

Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), the 1st & 2nd Defendants have continued to

sustain and maintain the Nigeria’s membership of these Islamic Organizations

meant for Islamic countries.

20. That I verily believe that Nigeria’s membership of these Islamic Organizations has

religious connotation with grave implication to peace and security of other religious

9

adherents in Nigeria particularly the Plaintiffs who are known Christian adherents

and researchers on issues relating to Nigerian civil war and genocide in Nigeria.

21. That I know as a fact that the principles and practices of these Islamic organizations

are tailored towards addressing the exclusive interest of Muslim or Islamic religious

adherents.

22. That these Islamic organizations are sowing seeds of discord between Christian

religious adherents and their Islamic counterparts in Nigeria.

23. That I know as a fact that Nigeria’s memberships of these Organizations confer

exclusive advantage on the Islamic members to the detriment of the other religious

adherents and has driven away investors from non-Muslim countries who now see

Nigeria as an Islamic nation.

24. That membership of these Organizations will further expose Nigerians to dire

sectarian crisis having regards to Nigerian plural composition.

25. That I know as a fact that the principles and objectives of the Organization of Islamic

Conference (now Organization of Islamic Cooperation) is solely for the

advancement of exclusive interest of Muslims. – Attached hereto as Exhibit ‘SKN

4’ is a copy of the Charter of Organization of Islamic Conference.

26. That Nigeria’s membership of these Islamic Organizations has eroded the pluralistic

character of Nigerian State and is rapidly destroying the principles of freedom,

equality and justice which are deeply entrenched in the Constitution of the Federal

Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended).

27. That I verily believe that Nigeria’s membership of these Islamic Organizations have

given impetus to the growth of Islamic terrorist organizations which see Nigeria as

one of its own, which must ultimately be declared an Islamic State.

28. That the struggle to Islamize Nigeria by Boko Haram, an arm of ISIS, which is an

Islamic Terror Organization, has led to the death of more than 20,000 Nigerians

including some relatives of the Plaintiff besides the destruction of the Nigerian

economy estimated at over $5 Billion.

29. That I verily believe that Nigeria’s membership of these religious Organizations

makes Nigeria a strong fertile ground for breeding religious conflicts, inter-ethnic

animosity, hatred, violence, war and genocide.

10

30. That I verily believe that the proposal of the 1st & 2nd Defendants to fund the 2016

budget deficit through Islamic Bond (otherwise known as SUKUK) or through any

loan obtained from Islamic Organizations will give more impetus to the determined

plot of the 1st & 2nd Defendants to Islamize Nigeria.

31. That I know that the principles and practices of SUKUK are based on joint

ownership of an investment between the lender and the borrower and it’s exclusively

meant for Moslem or Islamic nations.

32. That in the case of SUKUK, funds are sourced from Islamic Organizations and the

borrower must comply with the terms stipulated in the Agreement and the borrower

must be sharia compliant.

33. That I verily believe that the proposal of the 1st & 2nd Defendants to fund the budget

deficit through loans or bond secured from Islamic Organizations with its attendant

sharia conditions and contents will not be in the interest of peaceful co-existence of

all Nigerians including the Plaintiff, who is a known Christian and researcher on

issues of war and genocide in Nigeria.

34. That I know as a fact that it is the primary responsibility of the 3rd - 5th Defendants

to approve the budget or Appropriation Act as well as to authorize any loan to be

taken by the Federal Government of Nigeria.

35. That as at today, the 3rd - 5th Defendants have not approved or authorized the 1st

Defendant to take or obtain any loan from any source to fund the 2016 budget deficit

or any part thereof.

36. That I verily believe that Nigeria is a secular and pluralistic nation and not a Moslem

or Islamic country.

37. That I verily believe that it is in the interest of Justice, peaceful and harmonious co-

existence of all the peoples of Nigeria that the reliefs contained in this Suit be

granted.

38. That I, Dr. Nwankwo Tony Nwaezeigwe, depose to this Affidavit solemnly and

conscientiously believing the content to be true and correct and in accordance with

the Oath Act.

_____________

DEPONENT

11

Sworn to in the Federal High Court

of Nigeria Registry, Asaba

This _____ day of ________, 2016.

BEFORE ME

_____________________________

COMMISSIONER FOR OATHS

12



HOLDEN AT ASABA


BETWEEN




AND








WRITTEN ADDRESS IN SUPPORT OF ORIGINATING SUMMONS

1.00 INTRODUCTION

1.01 This is an action commenced by way of Originating Summons taken out by the

Plaintiff against the Defendants challenging inter alia the decision of the 1st & 2nd

Defendants to enlist Nigeria into the membership of some Islamic Organizations in

contravention of the provisions of Section 10 of the Constitution of the Federal

Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended).

2.00 BRIEF STATEMENT OF FACTS

2.01 The 1st & 2nd Defendants sometime in the year 1986 enlisted Nigeria into

membership of Organization of Islamic Conference (now Organization of Islamic

Cooperation - OIC) which is an Organization of Islamic countries and by dint of

Nigeria’s membership of the OIC, Nigeria also became a contributor to and a

financial member of the Islamic Development Bank. Nigeria was again enlisted into

membership of Eight Developing Islamic Countries otherwise known as ‘D8’

PLAINTIFF

DEFENDANTS

13

sometime in the year 1997 and only recently, the 1st & 2nd Defendants enlisted

Nigeria into membership of 33 Nation Islamic Military Alliance to Fight Terrorism,

an Organization led by Saudi Arabia and has further proposed to fund the Nigeria’s

2016 budget deficit through loans to be sourced from Islamic Organizations by

issuance of Islamic bond otherwise known as SUKUK. These are in spite of the

clear proclamation of Nigeria by its Constitution as a secular State.

3.00 ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION

1. Whether Nigeria’s membership of Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC),

Islamic Military Alliance to Fight Terrorism and Development 8 (Eight

Developing Islamic Countries) is not a violation of the provisions of Section 10

of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended).

2. Whether funds from Islamic Development Bank or Islamic bond otherwise

known as SUKUK can validly be used to finance the 2016 budget deficit of the

Federal Government of Nigeria in the light of the Sharia Islamic principles

underlying the application of such funds.

4.00 LEGAL ARGUMENT ON ISSUE NO. 1

Whether Nigeria’s membership of Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC),

Islamic Military Alliance to Fight Terrorism and Development 8 (Eight

Developing Islamic Countries) is not a violation of the provisions of Section 10

of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended).

4.01 It is our humble submission that Nigeria’s membership of Organization of

Islamic Conference (OIC); Islamic Coalition Against Terrorism otherwise known

as Islamic Military Alliance to Fight Terrorism (IMAFT); Development 8

(otherwise known as Eight Developing Islamic Countries) and Islamic

Development Bank are radical violation of the provisions of the Constitution of the

Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) particularly Section 10 thereof

which prohibits State religion.

4.02 For the avoidance of any doubt, Section 10 of the Constitution of Nigeria 1999

(as amended) provides:

14

“The Government of the Federation or of a State shall not adopt any religion as

State religion.”

4.03 We submit that applying a liberal, broader approach to the interpretation of the

provision of the Constitution as enunciated by the Supreme Court in Nafiu Rabiu

V. The State (1980) 8 - 11SC 130 at 195, it is clear that Nigeria is a secular State

in which the individual religious beliefs of the citizens must not be allowed to

encroach into the identity of the Nigerian State.

4.04 We further submit that by the above provision of the Constitution of the Federal

Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), it is an aberration for Nigeria as a country

to belong to an organization that has religious connotation.

4.05 Indeed, from the principles and objectives of the Organization of Islamic

Cooperation (OIC); Islamic Development Bank as well as their membership, it is

not in dispute that their core values are the propagation of Islamic teachings, culture

and heritage among its member States.

4.06 Similarly, the members of the Eight Islamic Developing Countries (D8) are

member countries who had subscribed to membership of OIC and they include:

Bangladesh, Egypt, Indonesia, Iran, Malaysia, Nigeria, Pakistan and Turkey.

4.07 My Lord, the 1st Defendant presently took the issue of Islamization of Nigeria

from the sublime to the ridiculous, when the 1st Defendant enlisted Nigeria into the

membership of Islamic Military Alliance to Fight Terrorism thus sealing the fate of

Nigeria as an Islamic country.

4.08 My Lord, it is our humble submission that Nigeria’s membership of Organization

of Islamic Cooperation, Eight Developing Islamic Countries, Islamic Development

Bank and Islamic Military Alliance to Fight Terrorism is tantamount to the 1st

Defendant’s adoption of Islam as Nigeria’s State religion in bold contravention of

the provisions of Section 10 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria

1999 (as amended) and the preamble to the Constitution. – See Adesanya V.

President Federal Republic of Nigeria (2001) FWLR (pt. 46) 859 at 887

paragraphs F - G where the Supreme Court held:

15

“I only need to add that I am also strongly of the view that when interpreting the

provisions of our 1979 Constitution, not only should the Courts look at the

Constitution as a whole, they should also construe its provisions in such a way as

to justify the hopes and aspirations of those who have made the strenuous effort

to provide us with

“a Constitution for the purpose of promoting the good government and welfare

of all persons in our country on the principles of freedom, equality and justice

and for the purpose of consolidating the unity of our people.”

4.09 We submit that the adoption of Islam or colouration of Nigeria as an Islamic

State or country flies in the face of the principles of freedom, equality and justice

enunciated in the preamble to the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria

1999 (as amended) which Nigerians subscribed to as citizens.

4.10 Again, it is settled law that the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria

1999 (as amended) is the ultimate yardstick for determining the validity or vel non

of any act or decision in relation to any law in the country. – See Oni V. Fayemi

(2013) All FWLR (pt. 696) 451 at 476 paragraphs B - C.

4.11 Arising from the above, my Lord, it is indubitable that the Constitution of the

Federal Republic of Nigeria is the supreme Law of Nigeria and its provisions have

binding force on all authorities, institutions and persons throughout Nigeria. Any

act which is inconsistent with its provisions shall to the extent of its inconsistency

be declared null and void. – See Section 1(1) of the Constitution of the Federal

Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended); – See also Hope Democratic Party V.

Obi (2012) All FWLR (pt. 612) 1620 at 1644 paragraphs E - H where the Supreme

Court held that:

“The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, therefore the provisions are

superior to every provisions embodied in any Act or Law and are binding on all

persons and authorities in Nigeria. The failure to follow any of the provisions

renders the steps taken unconstitutional, null and void. Such acts must be set aside

by the Court.”

16

4.12 My Lord, having regards to the above authorities, we urge your Lordship to

resolve Issue No. 1 in favour of the Plaintiff and grant the reliefs sought thereon.

5.00 LEGAL ARGUMENT ON ISSUE NO. 2

Whether funds from Islamic Development Bank or Islamic bond otherwise

known as SUKUK can validly be used to finance the 2016 budget deficit of the

Federal Government of Nigeria in the light of the Sharia Islamic principles

underlying the application of such funds.

5.01 We submit that Islamic Development Bank and/or Islamic bonds (known as

SUKUK) are regulated by the principles and practices of Islamic religion.

5.02 My Lord, SUKUK is an Islamic financial certificate that complies with Sharia

or Islamic religious law and its application in the financing of projects or

programmes in Nigeria will rob its religious content on the Nigerian State.

5.03 A SUKUK investor has a common share in the ownership of the assets linked to

the investment and is therefore a partial owner of the assets.

5.04 We therefore submit that having regards to the Islamic religious content of

SUKUK bond as well as the Articles of Agreement of Islamic Development Bank,

its applicability to the funding of the Nigeria’s budget would erode the secular or

pluralistic attributes of the Nigerian State. This is so because the Islamic

Development Bank or whatever Islamic Organization that is providing the bond or

funds becomes automatic stakeholder in whatever project or programme to which

the bond or loan is applied in Nigeria and this will be irrespective of the location or

the peoples in whose locality the project or programme is situated.

5.05 We submit that apart from the adverse implication of the SUKUK to the

provisions of Section 10 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999

(as amended) it will also impact on the Citizens’ freedom of worship and religion

which is entrenched in Section 38 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of

Nigeria 1999 (as amended).

5.06 Section 38(1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as

amended) provides:

17

“Every person shall be entitled to freedom of thought, conscience and religion,

including freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom (either alone or in

community with others and in public or in private) to manifest and propagate his

religion or belief in worship, teaching, practice and observance.”

5.07 We submit that to allow the Defendants to fund the 2016 budget deficit with

funds sourced from Islamic organizations that would end up being part owners of

the said projects and programmes would be an infraction to the Constitutional right

of Nigerians particularly the Plaintiffs who are devout Christians.

5.08 We therefore urge my Lord to resolve this issue against the Defendants.

6.00 CONCLUSION

6.01 It is germane to the conclusion of this Written Address to urge your Lordship to

grant all the reliefs sought by the Plaintiff because of the following reasons:

a) Nigeria is not an Islamic country by virtue of the provisions of the Constitution

of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended).

b) Organization of Islamic Cooperation; Islamic Development Bank; Eight

Developing Islamic Countries (or ‘D8’) and Islamic Military Alliance to Fight

Terrorism (IMAFT) are Organizations meant for Islamic countries.

c) SUKUK or funds from Islamic Organizations are meant for countries that are

sharia compliant and Nigeria is not a sharia country.

Dated this 17th day of March, 2016.

__________________________

S. Kelechi Nnadi Esq., ACIS

Plaintiff’s Counsel

Solicitor & Notary Public

S. KELECHI NNADI & CO.

Intercessors Chambers

#14 Ogelue Chukwurah Street

Off Okpanam Road

Asaba

08037238009

18



HOLDEN AT ASABA

SUIT NO.: FHC / ASB / CS / 11 / 2016

BETWEEN




AND








MOTION EX-PARTE

BROUGHT PURSUANT TO ORDER 6 RULE 13 OF THE FEDERAL HIGH

COURT RULES 2009, SECTIONS 97 & 99 OF THE SHERIFFS AND CIVIL

PROCESSES ACT 2004 AND UNDER THE INHERENT JURISDICTION OF

THE HONOURABLE COURT

TAKE NOTICE that this Honorable Court will be moved on _______ the ______ day

of _________, 2016 at the hour of 9 O’clock in the forenoon or so soon thereafter as

Counsel may be heard on behalf of the Applicant for the following Order:

1. AN ORDER for leave to issue and serve the Originating processes in this Suit on

the 1st - 5th Defendants at Abuja, outside the jurisdiction of the Honourable Court.

2. AN ORDER granting leave to enable the Applicant or the Registrar of the

Honourable Court to mark the said Summons as: “Summons to be served outside

of Delta State but in Abuja, Federal Capital Territory (FCT)”.

3. AN ORDER granting leave to the Applicant or the Registrar of the Honourable

Court to endorse or specify on the Summons a period of thirty (30) days after the

PLAINTIFF/ APPLICANT

DEFENDANTS/

RESPONDENTS

19

service of the Summons within which the Defendants may answer to the

Summons.

4. AN ORDER setting down the Suit for hearing after 30 days of the service of the

Summons on the Defendants.

And for such further or other Order(s) as this Honorable Court may deem appropriate

to make in the circumstances of this application.

Dated this 8th day of April, 2016.

__________________________

S. Kelechi Nnadi Esq., ACIS

Plaintiff’s Counsel



Intercessors Chambers

#14 Ogelue Chukwurah Street

Off Okpanam Road

Asaba

08037238009

20



HOLDEN AT ASABA

SUIT NO.: FHC / ASB / CS / 11 / 2016

BETWEEN




AND








AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION EX-PARTE

I, Francis Obinna Onwuegbunam, Male, Christian, Citizen of the Federal Republic of

Nigeria, Litigation Secretary in the Law Firm of S. Kelechi Nnadi & Co. of No. 14

Ogelue Chukwurah Street, off Okpanam Road, Asaba do hereby make oath and state as

follows:

1. That I am the Litigation Secretary in the Law Firm of S. Kelechi Nnadi & Co.,

Solicitors to the Plaintiff.

2. That I have the consent and authority of the Law Firm and the Plaintiff to depose to

these facts.

3. That the Plaintiff has commenced an action against the Defendants and is desirous

of serving the Originating processes on the Defendants whose Offices are located

outside Asaba, Delta State.

4. That the Defendants’ Offices are located at Abuja which is outside the judicial

division or jurisdiction of the Honourable Court.


DEFENDANTS/

RESPONDENTS

21

5. That I know as a fact that the Rules of this Honourable Court demands that leave of

this Honourable Court must be obtained to issue and serve the Originating processes

in this Suit on the Defendants which is outside the jurisdiction of this Honourable

Court.

6. That it is in the interest of Justice to grant this application to enable the Registrar

issue and mark the Writ for service outside jurisdiction as required by the Rules of

this Honourable Court.

7. That I, Francis Obinna Onwuegbunam, make this Affidavit in good faith, solemnly,

conscientiously believing the content to be true and correct and in accordance with

the Oath Act.

_____________

DEPONENT

Sworn to in the Federal High Court

of Nigeria Registry, Asaba

This _____ day of ________, 2016.

BEFORE ME

_____________________________

COMMISSIONER FOR OATHS

22



HOLDEN AT ASABA

SUIT NO.: FHC / ASB / CS / 11 / 2016

BETWEEN




AND








WRITTEN ADDRESS

1.00 INTRODUCTION

1.01 This is a Motion brought pursuant to Order 6 Rule 13 of the Federal High Court

Rules 2009, Sections 97 & 99 of the Sheriffs and Civil Processes Act 2004 and

under the inherent jurisdiction of the Honourable Court. The Motion is supported

by a seven (7) paragraph Affidavit deposed to by Francis Obinna Onwuegbunam

and we rely on all the paragraphs of the Affidavit.

2.00 ISSUE(S) FOR DETERMINATION

Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to the grant of the Application.

3.00 ARGUMENT

3.01 We submit that it is in keeping with the Rules of this Honourable Court and the

provisions of the Sheriffs and Civil Processes Act 2004 to seek and obtain leave of

the Court to mark Originating process to be issued and served outside the


DEFENDANTS/

RESPONDENTS

23

jurisdiction. The Applicant is seeking for the indulgence of this Honourable Court

to grant him leave to serve the processes.

3.02 We submit that in keeping with the provisions of Order 6 Rule 13 of the Federal

High Court Rules 2009 as well as the provisions of Sections 97 & 99 of the Sheriffs

and Civil Processes Act Cap S.6 LFN 2004, it is incumbent upon the Applicant to

seek and obtain the leave of the Honourable Court to issue and serve the Originating

Summons and other processes in this Suit outside Delta State judicial jurisdiction

of this Court and in Abuja.

3.03 The Applicant is therefore seeking the indulgence of the Honourable Court to

grant the Orders sought on the Motion paper to enable the Applicant serve the

processes in line with the dictates of the Law.

3.04 We therefore urge your Lordship to grant this application.

We beg to urge.

Dated this 8th day of April, 2016.

__________________________

S. Kelechi Nnadi Esq., ACIS Plaintiff’s Counsel



Intercessors Chambers #14 Ogelue Chukwurah Street

Off Okpanam Road

Asaba

08037238009

between dr. nwankwo tony ... - the freedom to choose

Documents