Obong Christopher Ekpenyong V. Barrister Ime Umana & Ors (2010)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

NWALI SYLVESTER NGUTA, J.C.A (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

Appellant herein commenced an action on 4/5/06 by originating summons in the High Court of Akwa Ibom State, sitting at Uyo against the Respondents.

He asked the Court below to determine

“Whether in all the circumstances of this case, the Plaintiff was given a fair hearing by the 1st – 3rd Defendants given the fact that the plaintiff was not allowed even a minute to defend himself before that Panel.

The Panel referred to was constituted by the Chief Judge of Akwa Ibom State at the instance of the Speaker of the State House of Assembly to investigate allegations of gross misconduct leveled against the Appellant, then Deputy Governor of Akwa Ibom State by the State House of Assembly.

The appellant asked for five declaratory reliefs in respect of the proceedings before the Panel, an order to nullify the findings of the Panel as well as an order setting aside the entire proceedings and determination of the seven man investigation Panel and any act or acts done by the Respondents pursuant thereto.

Upon service on them of the originating summons the 1st – 3rd Respondents as defendants filed a Memorandum of Appearance on 12/5/06 and on the same date filed a notice of preliminary objection on the following four grounds:

“(1) This Honourable Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the action.

(2)The subject matter of the action if justifiable at all (albeit not conceded) is statute barred.

(3) The activities, proceedings, comments and findings of the 1st- 3rd Defendant’s 7 man investigation Panel that investigated the allegations of gross misconduct against the Plaintiff are not open to judicial adjudication and cannot be basis for any cause of action.

(4)The case as presented is improperly constituted,”

The 4th Respondent, as defendant filed a Memorandum of Appearance on 16/5/06 and a notice of preliminary objection on 23/5/06 on the following three grounds:

“(1) The suit as academic.

(2) That the materials placed before the Court by the plaintiff falls short of the requirement to enable it to adjudicate on the matter.