Hon. Zakawanu I. Garuba & Ors V. Hon. Ehi Bright Omokhodion & Ors (2011)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

M. CHUKWUMA-ENEH, J.S.C

Following the pandemonium that broke out in the Edo State House of Assembly on 22/2/2010 over the purported removal and/or suspension of the speaker and Deputy speaker, the plaintiffs (appellants herein) by way of originating Summons supported by an affidavit of twenty six paragraphs with accompanying exhibits have claimed against the (defendants/respondents herein) at the trial Court the following reliefs, viz;

“i. A declaration that not less than two-thirds majority of the 24 members of the Edo State House of Assembly is constitutionally required under Section 92(2)(c) of the constitution of Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 for the purpose of the removal of the Speaker and Deputy Speaker, that is 16 members.

ii. A declaration that the purported removal of the 1st and 2nd plaintiffs as Speaker and Deputy Speaker by the 1st – 13th defendants is unconstitutional, null and void, with no resolution of the Edo State House of Assembly and votes of not less than two-thirds majority of the members of the House as mandatorily required under Section 92(2)(c) of the Constitution of Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999.

iii. A declaration that the purported Motion used by the 1st – 14th defendants in purportedly removing the 1st and 2nd Plaintiffs as speaker and Deputy Speaker respectively is unconstitutional, null and void and in breach of Section 92(2)(c) of the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999.

iv. A declaration that the right of Fair Hearing of the 1st and 2nd plaintiffs as guaranteed by Section 36 of the Constitution of Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 was breached by the failure of the 1st – 13th defendants to serve a Notice of impeachment on the 1st and 2nd plaintiffs before their purported removal.

v. A declaration that the purported appointment of 1st and 3rd defendants as the speaker and Deputy Speaker Respectively of the Edo State House of Assembly is null and void and of no effect whatsoever.

vi. A declaration that the purported appointment of the 2nd defendant as the Speaker Protempore on the 22nd day of February, 2010 is unconstitutional, null and void and of no effect whatsoever.

vii. An Order nullifying the purported removal of the 1st and 2nd plaintiffs as the Speaker and Deputy Speaker of the Edo State House of Assembly by the 1st – 13th Defendants on the 22nd day of February, 2010.

viii. An Order nullifying all purported acts, orders and steps taken by the 1st – 13th Defendants from the 22nd day of February 2010 till the date of judgment.

ix. An Order that the purported swearing in of the 1st and 3rd Defendants as Speaker and Deputy Speaker of the Edo State House of Assembly by the 14th Defendant is unconstitutional, null and void.

x. An order that the 1st and 2nd Plaintiffs remain the Speaker and Deputy Speaker of the Edo State House of Assembly, with all Rights and privileges.

xi. An Order of injunction restraining the 1st and 3rd Defendants from parading themselves as Speaker and Deputy Speaker respectively of the Edo State House of Assembly.”

In consequence thereof the defendants (i.e. four sets thereof) have filed their respective counter-affidavits to the Originating Summons etc and also at the same time various applications and preliminary objections challenging the jurisdictional competence of the trial Court to hear the matter. At the hearing of the matter on 26/4/2010 the trial Court has called for the parties’ opinion on the procedure to be adopted on the way forward to determining of the substantive matter vis-a-vis the various pending applications and preliminary objections. After having heard argument and submissions of the counsel for the parties on the procedure to be followed the trial Court then ruled to take and determine the various preliminary objections and applications first before dealing with the substantive matter on the merits in the following terms: