PLATEAU JUDICIARY BRIEF: AGAIN, COURT ADJOURNS THE HEARING OF THE 17 SUSPENDED LGC CHAIRMEN ORIGINATING SUMMONS TO 19TH JAN. 2024

By: Amb. Valentine Adese (JP),

Plateau State High Court presided over by Hon. Justice Samchi has re-adjourned the hearing of the Originating Summons (OS), Suit No: PLD/J257/2023, filed by the 17 Suspended Local Government Council (LGC) Chairmen of Plateau State, to the 19^th of January 2024, for a definite hearing.

This is to allow the Speaker of the Plateau State House of Assembly and the State House of Assembly, being the 3^rd and 4^th Respondents, to respond to the Further and Better Affidavit filed by Governor Caleb Mutfwang (Esq) and the Attorney-General of the State, being the 1^st and 2^nd Respondents, respectively.

The Court in its sitting yesterday before reviewing its ruling had ordered the commencement of the hearing of the Originating Summons, while refusing the application for adjournment filed by the Counsel to the 1^st and 2^nd Defendants to the suit.

“On the 22^nd of December, 2023 Counsel to the 1^st and 2^nd Defendants was in Court when the date was given and they heard the order of Court that the matter is for definite hearing, but have chosen to reap life out of it.

“The Counsel merely decided that they will not come to Jos today and this is self-imposition and their reasons speculative.

“The 1^st and 2^nd Defendants are represented by a team of Counsel and could be split in situation like this. Unfortunately, when the team of the 1^st and 2^nd Defendants would benefit from the wisdom of the team all of them decided to go to the Supreme Court thereby creating a disadvantage for the Court and the other parties.

“I must agree with Kekemeke (Esq) that, Order 35 Rule 4 (2) of the rules of Court commands that the written address of Counsel who are absent but duly filed can be deemed.

“I refuse the application for adjournment by the 1^st and 2^nd Defendants”. The Court ruled.

The Court also refused the application for adjournment of Longji (Esq) a Director of Civil Litigation, who entered appearance for the 3^rd and 4^th Defendants to enable him react to all the amended processes filed by parties in the matter since he has just come into the matter.

In its ruling and refusal of the application of Longji, the Court agreed with Tob Kekemeke (Esq) that the 3^rd and 4^th Defendants have been served within time as ordered by the Court and that the Court’s record also shows proof of service on the 22^nd December, 2023 as ordered and that the claim by the Counsel that they have not been served was not true.

“The reasons for the application for adjournment by the 3^rd and 4^th Defendants are not tenable, as the record of Court shows that they were served”. The Court held.

You would recall that the Court had on 22^nd December 2023, adjourned the matter to 10^th January 2024, for a definite hearing of the Originating Summons.