The court, in her ruling, held that the case upon which the
court was expected to act has no time limit and as such the application could
be heard at any material time.
While dismissing the application, the judge noted that the
substance of the argument put forward by the petitioner lacks merit as there
was no cogent or valid reason while the application should be heard when the
court was on vacation.
The judge further held that the case should be transferred
to another judge and be heard after vacation for the purpose of fair hearing,
stating that all the parties involved should maintain status quo pending the
determination of the case whose ruling has been reserved till August 10.
This decision by the court follows an earlier ruling
delivered on the committal application filed by the plaintiff through their
counsel, Kemi Pinheiro (SAN) against the first and second defendants for
disobeying court order.
Recall that the Federal High Court had given an order
restraining the defendants from constructing developing, building or carrying
out any further construction, development or building activities in Osborne
Foreshore Estate II, Ikoyi, Lagos.
The order would restrain the defendants from acting on any
approvals granted by the 4th defendant (Lagos State Physical Planning Permit
Authority) pending the hearing of the motion on notice for interlocutory
injunction
In his argument, the counsel for defendant, Mr. Tola Oshobi
(SAN) said the interim order of the petitioner can be said to be null, void and
invalid and an abuse of court process since both courts are of coordinate
jurisdiction.
According to Oshobi, there is a subsisting court order on
the same matter obtained from Lagos state High Court. He therefore urged all
the parties to maintain status quo ante as there is nowhere stated in the law
where a court decision, obtained later, with similar jurisdiction can override
the other.
Arguing his position, the plaintiff counsel, Adebowale
Kamoru asked the court to disregard the argument of the defendant on the
grounds that the first defendant, National Environmental Standards and
Regulations Enforcement Agency’s, NESREA, falls within the purview of the
jurisdiction of the court.
0 comments:
Post a Comment