By Chuks Eke
The N3 billion suit filed by the trustees and executive members of Onitsha Sports Club, against the Ekwerekwu family of Okposieke kindred Ogbolieke village, Onitsha has taken a new dimensions.
This followed the suspension of further proceedings on the matter by the presiding judge of Onitsha High Court No. 4, Justice Sylvester Odili and consequent transfer of the case file to the Administrative Judge of Onitsha Judicial Division.
The suspension of further proceedings and subsequent transfer of the case file to the Administrative Judge also followed two motions to that effect brought before the court by Onyechi Araka Esq. counsel to the first defendant, Harold Ekwerekwu Esq. and others.
Araka had brought a motion before the court asking to withdraw himself from the suits as leading counsel for the defendants and an application seeking to transfer the case file to the Administrative Judge of Onitsha Judicial Division for onward reassignment to another judge as according to him, he has lost confidence in the ability of the presiding judge of court No. 4 to try and determine the matter.
Specifically, the defence counsel accused Justice Odili of being bias in the matter based on the recent motion for for interlocutory injunction he granted restraining the defendants and their agents from further invading the premises of the Onitsha sports club and demolishing existing structures, as they had done on three or four occasions.
However, the application for transfer of the case file made by the defense counsel was vehemently opposed by plaintiff counsel, Nnamdi Ibegbu SAN with A. C. Anaenugwu SAN and Chris Ajugwe Esq on the ground of practice direction of Anambra State Chief Judge of 2019 which states that the fact that a party to a suit applied for transfer of a suit pending before a Judge to another court does not operate as a stay of proceedings in that suit.
But in his ruling, Justice Odili held that by Order 38, Rules 7, once an application has been made to the Administrative Judge of a Judicial Division or the Anambra Chief Judge requesting for a transfer of a suit pending before a Judge, such application operatesas as a suspension for any proceedings, pending when the Administrative Judge rules one way or the other.
Justice Odili therefore suspended the proceedings and adjourned the matter to March 5, this year to await the outcome of Administrative Judge’s decision.
Meantime, the interlocutory order of injunction granted by Justice Odili in two previous proceedings restraining the first defendant, Harold Ekwerekwu and other defendants from further invading or trespassing into the premises of Onitsha Sports Club and demolishing existing structures or in other way interfering with the possession of the property of Onitsha sports club still remains subsisting.
Justice Odili had at the immediate past proceedings, rejected an oral application made by two defence counsels to recuse themselves from further appearing for Ekwerekwu family, the defendants in the ongoing suit.
Justice Odili, in his ruling, said the defense counsels cannot recuse themselves midway into a matter they had already announced their appearances barely an hour when the matter was called up, adding that after the day’s proceedings, they were free to recuse themselves from the next adjourned date but certainly not in the day’s proceedings when they had already announced their appearances.
The defense counsels had brought their oral application for recusal shortly after the plaintiff’s leading counsel, Nnamdi Ibegbu SAN with A. C. Anaenugwu SAN and Chris Ajugwe Esq tendered some documents, including the survey plans of the land where the Sports Club is situated to buttress their point that the land does not actually belong to the Ekwerekwu family of Onitsha as they claimed.
The defense counsels had told the court that their reason for applying to recuse themselves from the matter was based on an instruction from Onyechi Araka Esq. leading counsel to the first defendant, Harold Ekwerekwu and other defendants..
Ibegbu SAN had while objecting to the recusal application by the defence counsels, told the court that it was not only a mere ploy to frustrate the case but also an attempt to apply unnecessary delay tactics.
Justice Odili had shortly after rejecting the defense counsels’ application for recusal in his ruling, admitted all the documents tendered by the plaintiff counsel as exhibits before adjourning further hearing on the matter to March 5, this year.
