Court orders alternative service in Uduaghan case

A Federal High Court in Lokoja on Thursday ordered that hearing notices be served on two petitioners by substituted means in the suit regarding the recall of Sen. Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan.

Justice Isa Dashen gave the order after granting an ex parte application raised by the plaintiffs through their counsel, Dr. Ehiogie West-Idahosa, SAN.

The plaintiffs—ANEBE JACOB-OGIRIMA, JOHN ADEBISI, MUSA SIYAKA-ADEIZA, AHMED USMAN, and MALEEK YAHAYA—had on March 20 obtained an ex parte motion preventing the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) from receiving any recall petition against Sen. Akpoti-Uduaghan.

The same court, on March 24, vacated the ex parte order following an application filed by INEC, which argued that no person or institution could prevent it from carrying out its constitutional duties.

On the same day, some constituents from the Kogi Central Senatorial District presented their petition for the recall of Sen. Akpoti-Uduaghan from the National Assembly. Although INEC declared the petition incompetent and null and void, the plaintiffs chose to continue with their case, joining two petitioners—Salihu Habib and Charity Omole—as defendants.

READ ALSO: Court imposes media ban in Akpoti-Uduaghan suit

West-Idahosa, represented by Smart Nwachimere, stated that the petitioners were among those who signed the petition against Sen. Akpoti-Uduaghan. He explained that multiple attempts to serve the two petitioners, Habib and Omole, with the originating summons and hearing notices had been unsuccessful.

“My lord, we have made several attempts to serve them personally, but to no avail,” said Nwachimere. “The bailiff can testify to our unsuccessful efforts. Therefore, we seek your lordship’s approval to serve them by substituted means.”

He requested that the court grant permission for the plaintiffs to serve the Motion for Joinder and other related documents to Habib and Omole at their various addresses. The counsel also asked for the court to deem the substituted service as proper when effected, provided the necessary fees were paid.

INEC’s counsel, Mr. Abdullahi Aliyu-Ibrahim, SAN, represented by Mr. E.A. Osayemi, did not object to the application. He noted that INEC had already dismissed the petition that gave rise to the case, stating there was no reason for the case to continue. He suggested that the plaintiffs should withdraw the case since the petition was already void.

After hearing the arguments, Justice Dashen granted the application, allowing the plaintiffs to serve the two petitioners by substituted means. The case was then adjourned to May 8 for hearing.

NAN