Another adjourns to Aug. 20 for further hearing in Madumere’s suit
A Makurdi High Court presided over by Justice Theresa Igoche has restrained the new leadership of Benue State House of Assembly headed Speaker Titus Uba from conducting sittings.
Justice Igoche ruled while entertaining an ex-parte motion filed by Terkimbi Ikyange and four others against Uba and the other five presiding officers of the Assembly.
She also restrained the affected persons from carrying out any function(s) of the legislature pending the hearing and determination of the motions on notice.
The court equally ordered Uba and his co-travellers from entering and occupying the offices of the first to fifth applicants as well as those of the first to fourth plaintiffs. The presiding judge upon hearing from Chief M. M. Osuman (SAN) for the applicants, ruled: “I have read the motion No. MHC/1694m/18 filed on August 10, 2018 together with the other process accompanying it. Particularly, I have looked at paragraphs 22-34 of the affidavit in support and paragraphs five to13 of the affidavit of urgency.
“This court takes judicial notice of the order of interim injunction made against the plaintiffs/ applicants on August 1, 2018 in suit No. MHC/259/18.“It is necessary for the purpose of averting any danger that may be caused and to avoid any breach of the peace, that this application be granted so that the members of the Benue State House of Assembly will not sit in the fifth plaintiff/applicant(s) complex until the motion on notice is heard and determined.”
In a related development, an Owerri High Court yesterday adjourned to August 20, 2018 for further proceedings in the case brought before it by Eze Madumere challenging his removal from office as deputy governor by the Imo State House of Assembly.
Justice Ben Iheka adjourned to the said date after hearing from the lead counsel to Madumere, Ken Njemanze, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), and the Attorney General and Imo State Commissioner for Justice, Miletus Nlemadim, that some of the respondents were yet to be served the restraining order to halt the removal proceedings against the applicant.The judge said the adjourned date was to enable the parties involved in the case be served appropriately.
within the frame of time.