Justice
Ambrose Allagoa of the Federal High Court sitting in Jos will rule on
Thursday (today) whether he has jurisdiction to entertain the suit filed
by the Chris Giwa-led ‘board of the Nigerian Football Federation.’
The
judge had adjourned sitting following the preliminary objection raised
by the NFF defence counsel, Mr. Damon Dashe, who questioned the
eligibility of the court to entertain the matter.
Messrs
Obinna Ogba and Yahaya Adamu of the Giwa-led faction had dragged the
immediate past President of NFF, Alhaji Aminu Maigari and the NFF
General Secretary, Musa Amadu, to court seeking for orders to restrain
Maigari as the first defendant, the NFF as the second defendant) and
Football Associations as the third defendant from conducting another
election after the Giwa-led faction claimed to have been elected.
Dashe
had filed a counter affidavit to the originating summons, saying that
the hearing was delayed because he was not properly served by the
counsel to the plaintiff.
He told the
court that it was incumbent on it to hear the preliminary objection
which would guide the court on the proper path to follow, adding that
the prayers contained in the preliminary objection is for the court to
strike it out “because the plaintiffs have submitted themselves to the
NFF statutes.
“It is simple law that
when you are a party to a contract and you are relying on the contract,
you cannot make a U-turn in the middle of the game if you feel that game
is not going to be favourable to you. You don’t change the rule of the
game in the middle of the game. What we are saying is that by the
statutes upon which the plaintiffs are relying on in approaching this
court, that statute has taken away the jurisdiction of the court.”
Dashe
said that at the last adjourned day, there was a preliminary objection
which they filed which the court said that having not been served it was
not ready to take it.
“But returning
today, it is evident that issues had been joined on the preliminary
objection and it is incumbent on the court to hear the preliminary
objection once the court insists on that because it goes to determine
the jurisdiction or the fate of the entire matter. No matter how well
conducted a case maybe, if the court does not have jurisdiction, it will
be an effort in futility.
“And what
will the court benefit to waste the precious time of the court, the
precious taxpayers’ money in a matter that at the end of the day the
court will discover that it does not have jurisdiction? So, I think it
is incumbent and rightly so that the court hears this preliminary
objection.
“They brought the
document, they brought the statutes, yet the statutes say anybody who is
bound by this statute cannot approach the ordinary court of law. It is
the statute they brought before the court and we are saying, look at the
provisions, you can’t pick a section of the constitution, a section of
the statute, a section of the contract that is favourable to you. The
court has to look at it. This statute is not being challenged in any of
the processes filed by them. Rather they are relying on it.”
Counsel
to the plaintiffs, Mr. Habila Arzard, said that every matter that comes
to court has to be adjudicated one way or another.
“But
where a party, particularly the defendants, feel that the court does
not have the jurisdiction to entertain the matter, they are at liberty
to file a notice of preliminary objection and this is what the
defendants did. We were served with that preliminary objection on Monday
and we filed the counter-affidavit and the notice of preliminary
objection was argued today. And the judge adjourned the matter till
tomorrow to deliver his ruling and the Judge will determine whether
actually the court has no jurisdiction to entertain the matter. But we
feel strongly that the court has jurisdiction to entertain the matter.
Because basically the defendants are relying on FIFA, CAF and CAF
Statutes which we believe have not been domesticated. And also they rely
on NFF Statutes.
“But our opinion is
that any statute or any law which seeks to oust the jurisdiction of the
court or deny a citizen access to justice, such a law or statute is in
direct conflict with the provisions of section 6 (6) and section 36(1)
of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, which say that any law that is
inconsistent with the provisions of the constitution, such a law is null
and void.”
Allagoa, having listened to all the arguments by both counsel, fixed ruling for October 30.
0 Comments: