 |
| Justice Ayo Salami |
Attempts by the suspended President of the Court of Appeal, Justice Ayo Salami, to quash his suspension suffered a major setback yesterday, as the appellate court struck out his application for incompetence.
In the said application, Justice Salami asked the Court of Appeal to direct the Federal High Court in Abuja to adjudicate on his suit before it and not remit it to National Industrial Court.
Salami had approached a Federal High Court on August 18, 2011 to upturn the decision of the National Judicial Council (NJC) that recommended his suspension to President Goodluck Jonathan.
The decision followed his refusal to apologise to the council and former Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Aloysius Katsina-Alu, after an NJC panel said he breached the code of conduct by lying against the council.
Salami went to the Court of Appeal after the NJC’s lawyer, Chief Mike Ozokhome (SAN), told the Federal High Court that the matter brought by Salami was related to or connected with labour, employment, trade unions, industrial relations and that only the National Industrial Court had exclusive jurisdiction by virtue of Section 254c (1) of the 1999 Constitution.
A five-man panel of the Court of Appeal headed by Justice Husseini Muktar, yesterday, struck out the suit on the grounds that it was incompetent, since the Federal High Court is yet to transmit the needed documents to it, as provided by Order 5, Rules I & II of the Court of Appeal.
Earlier, counsel to Salami, Olumide Olujinmi, had told the court that they had written a letter to the registrar of the Federal High Court seeking for the transmission of the documents, but they are surprised that the court is yet to do so.
Olujinmi further argued that it was the duty of the lower court to transmit the documents and not the plaintiff.
The lawyer prayed the court for an adjournment so as to further liaise with the lower court for the transmission of the documents, submitting that the plaintiff should not be made to suffer for the wrong of another party who had failed to carry out its duties.
All the counsel to all the respondents opposed the application for adjournment on the grounds that there was no competent suit before the court.
They urged the court to strike out the case.
Follow @wingrassnews
No comments:
Post a Comment