img#wpstats{display:none}
The Oyo State High Court has adjourned till Wednesday, July 6, a case before it that borders on the impeachment proceedings of the Oyo State Deputy Governor, Rauf Olaniyan, by the House of Assembly.
The Court gave the adjournment to allow for the claimant counsel to file a reaction to the responses sent by the defendants’ lawyers.
The Court also, on Tuesday, ruled that the status quo order earlier given on the impeachment proceedings of the Oyo Deputy Governor subsists.
While Chief Afolabi Fashanu, SAN, appeared for Olaniyan (claimant), Otunba Kunle Kalejaiye, SAN, led the legal team of the defendants.
The Speaker, the Clerk of the Oyo State House of Assembly and the Oyo State House of Assembly are the first, second and third defendants in the matter, respectively.
The case, which was last week adjourned till July 5 for the hearing of the originating summons and interlocutory injunctions could not be heard as the claimants’ lawyer, Fashanu, requested for two working days to be able to file the proper responses.
Fashanu, who acknowledged the receipt of the responses to both the originating summons and interlocutory injunctions, however, told the court that the response was delivered on a Friday via email and he could not access the document so as to be able to file proper responses but Kalejaiye opposed the application for two additional working days on the grounds that time is of the essence in impeachment proceedings.
He recounted that the originating summons was served the defendants on June 28 along with the motion, while the matter was mentioned in Court on June 29 and later adjourned till July 5 for the hearing of the matter, saying the defendants took the order adjourning the matter as an abridgement of 21days his client was entitled to under the rule.
Kalejaiye noted that his team reacted to the originating summons and interlocutory injunctions and served same on the claimant on July 1, adding that his team also wrote a letter to the counsel of the claimant.
He argued that the claimant had had four clear days to react so that the hearing could begin on Tuesday, as adjourned by the court the previous week, asserting that the claimant was aware that the matter would be coming up for hearing during Tuesday proceedings but deploying delay tactics to prolong the case.
Kalejaiye submitted that the Oyo House of Assembly should not be treated as an inferior tribunal to the court, adding that an arm of government should not be used to issue an order for another arm not to be able to perform it’s constitutional duties and then begin to play around with time.
In a pre-emptive submission, Kalejaiye urged the court to reject any application by the claimant that may allow for further delay of the hearing of the case, noting that such applications are not made in good faith.
In a counter reaction, Chief Fashanu called the attention of the court to the suitability of the defendants’ counsel being heard in court at all in the case without an application for a change of counsel, noting that to the best of his knowledge, the counsel on record was one A. A. Olabiyi, Director of Legal Services, Oyo State House of Assembly.
Fashanu emphasised that according to the rule, appearance can either be in physical or through a memorandum of appearance and that the last counsel that appeared at the last hearing was different from the person appearing on Tuesday.
He also countered the claim of the defendants that the claimant was deploying delay tactics on the matter, asserting that at least, a day or two is required to file proper response.
Reacting, the Court expressed it’s willingness to reconvene on Wednesday, provided all the responses could be filed before close of work.
When asked by the judge on the request for adjournment and the grounds put before the court, Kalejaiye however expressed willingness to allow the case be adjourned till Wednesday, July 6 but that the status-quo order be vacated.
He also added that the claimant serve his team subsequent proceedings personally in the stead of being served through the court baillif.
The court, after seeking the consent of both counsels, in its ruling however, adjourned till Wednesday, July 6, for the hearing of the originating summons and interlocutory injunctions while adding that the status quo order given earlier subsists.
VON