Oron Local Government Council & Ors V. Akwa Ibom State House of Assembly & Ors (2006)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

NWALI SYLVESTER NGWUTA, J.C.A.

This appeal originated from an aftermath of the dissolution of the Oron Local Government Council, Akwa Ibom State by the State Legislature. The Akwa Ibom State House of Assembly, by its resolution of 9th March, 2006, dissolved the Oron Local Government Council, the 1st Appellant herein.

The dissolution of the 1st Appellant directly and adversely impacted on the 2nd to the 11th appellants who were elected members of the 1st appellant i.e. the Oron Local Government Councils.

As a result of the dissolution of the 1st appellant by the 1st Respondent, allegedly aided by the 2nd & 3rd Respondents, the appellants instituted Suit No HOR/19/2006 at the High Court of Akwa Ibom State, Oron Judicial Division seeking both declaration and injunctive reliefs against the respondents as defendants.

Based on their perceived want of integrity of the learned trial Judge, Okpo J, resulting from His Lordship’s handling of interlocutory motion in the Suit, coupled with the learned Judge’s alleged physical and mental impairment, the respondents brought an application HU/MISC/115/06 in the High Court, Uyo Division before the Hon. Chief Judge of the State, seeking an order to transfer Suit No HOR/19/2006 from the High Court Oron to the High Court, Uyo for hearing and determination. The motion dated 27/3/06 and filed on 28/3/06 was fixed for hearing on 4/4/06. On the hearing date 4/4/06 learned counsel for the respondents in the motion, now appellants herein, was not in court having written for an adjournment on account of a prior fixture (CA/C/62m/2005) in the Court of Appeal, Calabar Division.

The application was heatedly opposed by learned counsel for the applications, now Respondents. The learned trial Chief Judge subscribed to the several reasons given in opposition to the application for adjournment, disregarded the application as devoid of merit and proceeded to take the arguments of learned counsel for the respondents, (as applicants in the motion). At the conclusion of learned counsel’s submissions, the learned trial Chief Judge, without more, adjourned the motion to 10/4/06 for ruling.

Aggrieved by the proceedings so far the appellant, in a notice and ground of appeal dated and filed on 5/4/06, appealed on one ground, hereunder reproduced, short of its particulars:-

“GROUND OF APPEAL.

(1) The learned trial Chief Judge’s decision foreclosing the plaintiffs/respondents/appellants from being heard on the defendant/applicant/respondent’s motion of 28/3/06 breached their right to fair hearing or natural justice.”

The parties, through their respective counsel, filed and exchanged briefs of argument in compliance with order 6 rules 1(2) and 4(1) and 5 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2002.

In his brief of argument learned counsel for the appellants framed the following issue for determination:

“Whether given the circumstances the learned Chief Judge was right to have adjourned the matter for his ruling without hearing the appellants and/or their counsel and after hearing the respondents.”

In his brief of argument, learned counsel for the 1st respondent adopted the lone issue framed by learned counsel for the Appellants.

At the hearing of the appeal learned counsel for the appellants adopted his brief of argument as well his reply brief and relying on both briefs counsel urged us to allow the appeal and set aside the proceedings of the lower court dated 4/4/06.