Ekiti Assembly Urges Court to Throw out Impeached Speaker’s Suit

Gbenga Sodeinde in Ado Ekiti

An Ekiti State High Court sitting in Ado Ekiti has been urged to dismiss the suit filed by former Speaker of the Ekiti State House of Assembly, Rt. Hon. Olugboyega Aribisogan on grounds that the claimant (Aribisogan) failed to join proper parties in the suit challenging his impeachment from office.

Aribisogan was impeached at a plenary held on November 21 last year for allegedly blocking the passage of 2022 Supplementary Appropriation Bill, disparaging the House in the media, causing disaffection among the lawmakers, compromising the security of the Assembly Complex, among other alleged unparliamentarily conducts.

The defendants: the Ekiti State House of Assembly (1st), the Clerk of the Assembly (2nd) and the incumbent Speaker, Rt. Hon. Olubunmi Adelugba (3rd) have filed a Notice of Preliminary Objection against Aribisogan’s suit challenging the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain the matter.

According to a statement yesterday by the Special Adviser (Media) to the Speaker, Odunayo Ogunmola, counsel to the defendants, Chief Rafiu Balogun, filed the Notice of Preliminary Objection at the Registry of the Ekiti State High Court on Monday, which is anchored on 11 grounds and supported by a written address.

The defendants in their Notice of Preliminary Objection maintained that the court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the case because “there is no competent Originating Summons capable of being heard by the court.”

They averred that the failure of the deposed speaker to name the seven members of the Assembly whom he alleged to have unlawfully impeached him and join them as parties in the suit had rendered the case incompetent and also denied the court the jurisdiction to hear the matter.

The defendants maintained that Aribisogan’s suit has been rendered incompetent because of his failure to join former Governor of Ekiti State, Dr. Kayode Fayemi, whom he accused of instigating the lawmakers to impeach him; the Ekiti State Police Command, the Commissioner of Police, the Assembly Sergeant-at-Arms and other individuals he described as “powers that be” who are not made parties to the suit.

They insisted that the case was not initiated by due process of law as the Affidavit in support of the Originating Summons consist of extraneous facts which are contrary to the provisions of Section 115 of the Evidence Act 2011 (as amended) adding that “once the offending paragraphs are struck out, there is nothing to support the Originating Summons.”

According to the defendants, the case as presently constituted does not disclose any cause of action or reasonable action while the Affidavit in support of the Originating Summons is “bereft of salient facts to support the case of the claimant.

While pointing out that the case of the claimant as could be gleaned from the Originating Summons and the supporting affidavit is at best speculative, the defendants averred that both documents lack the requisite particulars  to sustain the case of the claimant contrary to the provisions of Order 8 of the Ekiti State High Court (Civil Procedure) Rule 2021.

They argued in the Notice with Motion Number: HAD/74M/2023 that “there cannot be a valid Originating Summons without a competent Affidavit in support, afortiori, there is no valid Originating Summons before this Honourable Court.

“The criminal allegations and damning complaints formed the nucleus and substratum of the case of the claimant. The proper parties are not before the court, which robs this honourable court of the requisite jurisdiction to entertain this matter as presently constituted.

“We urge the court to determine whether paragraphs in the Affidavit in support of the originating which contain damaging/criminal complaints against some persons in authority not joined as defendants are not liable to be struck out or discountenanced and whether this case can be determined without them being made parties, in order not to infringe on their right to fair hearing as the pronouncement of the court will affect them one way or the other.

“The Originating Summons in the instant case is not supported with sufficient particulars and salient facts and which irregularity and non-compliance is fatal and will nullify the case. We reiterate that there is no competent Originating Summons capable of being heard by this honourable court.

“We urge this Court to strike out Paragraphs 4,9,10,12,13,14,15,16,17,21,22,23,24,25,35,37 and 38 of the Affidavit in support of the Originating Summons on grounds that they offend provisions of Section 115 of the Evidence Act and containing weighty complaints against persons not joined as parties.

“We submit that if the offending paragraphs are struck out, there will be no requisite facts to support the Originating Summons. In other words, the case no doubt discloses no cause of action and the Originating Summons without the supporting Affidavit containing requisite particulars incompetent and liable to be struck out

“We pray Your Lordship to resolve this issue against the Claimant and strike out the suit. We urge the Court to resolve all the issues in favour of the Defendants and strike out or dismiss this case as it lacks jurisdiction or competence to entertain the matter.”