Kemisola Oye
A representative of the Controller of the Nigerian Correctional Service (NCoS), Lagos Command, Mr Rotimi Oladokun, yesterday told Justice Akintunde Salvage of a Lagos High Court sitting in Ikeja that the Command did not receive any committal warrant of the Chairman of Confidence Cargo Freight Forwarder, Dada Aigbe.
Oladokun, an official of the Service from the Legal Unit serving at the State Command Headquarters, Alagbon, Ikoyi, told the court that the five correctional centres in Lagos including Kirikiri Maximum and Medium services have no record or remand warrant of a convict with the name Dada Aigbe in their files.
He said he was in court sequel to the subpoena testicandum served on the Controller of the Correctional Centre, Lagos Command vide order of the court.
It will be recalled that Justice Salvage had on 11 March 2024 ordered that Mr Aigbe be committed to prison for one month until he purges himself of contempt.
The judge’s order was sequel to the willful disobedience by Mr Aigbe to appear in court after Forms 48 and 49 (contempt proceeding) was filed against him in a suit instituted by Mr Maruf Jimoh-Akogun, counsel to a judgment creditor.
Jimoh-Akogun had in suit marked ID/3831LMW/2016 instituted by the HRM Oba Shakirudeen Adeshina Kuti for himself and on behalf of the Ajamogun-Onikotun Family of Ewu Kingdom against the Osolo of Osolo, HRM, Oba Agbabiaka Kabir Orisedeko Elemo and the Baale of Mafoluku, Ajao Estate, Chief Hussam Raheem Shekoni Elemo as the First and Second Defendants respectively
Meanwhile, Oladokun in his testimony, told the court that he joined NCoS in 2012 and is serving at the state Command.
He told the court, “As a directive of the Command, I was briefed about the matter. From our record, the Command did not receive a committal or remand warrant. We have verified from our internal communication, there was no record of Dada Aigbe.”
However, counsel to the Judgment Debtors Defendants/Respondents, Mr K. U Okoro had filed an application dated 29 April 2024 pursuant to Section 60b (36) and Section 94 of the Sheriff Law.
The motion is seeking the following reliefs: an order setting aside the entire committal proceedings on the ground that it was served by an unknown Sheriff and such further order. The ground of the same notice is that it was not served on the applicant.
The judge held that he had read the objection and counter and that if he were not convinced that it was served, he wouldn’t have issued the committal to prison order.
Mr Okoro argued that “We are also saying that the court did not have jurisdiction to give the order. We urged the court to set aside the order and to rule in our favour and grant our relief.”
Jimoh-Akogun, in his response, opposed the preliminary objection, insisting that they have filed a counter-affidavit to the objections.
He told the court that the reason for Aigbe’s committal to prison was based on the complaint that he involved himself in a land matter that he was not a party to.
He said the court had ordered a status quo ante belum on the ‘Res’ but that Aigbe continued building on the land in dispute. He claimed that the ancestral family land along Airport Road, Ewu Town, Mafoluku, Oshodi, Lagos was allegedly invaded by Dada Aigbe and his agents.
He argued that the court had on 2 April 2024 heard how Mr Aigbe was served by the Sheriff of the High Court, Micheal Alogaga who was also subpoenaed and equally testified.
“My Lord, there is evidence of service before the court. The Sheriff is under exclusive rules. I refer my lord to the provision of Section 103 (1) of the Sheriff and Civil Act.”
He further argued that the service was effected outside jurisdiction. The service of Form 49 was effected in Abuja, the service was not denied. We are saying that the Bailiff who served the contemnor is a competent person. He cited Section 116 of the Evidence Act to buttress his argument.
Mr Jimoh-Akogun, therefore, prayed the court to dismiss the preliminary objection with punitive cost. He further noted that correctional facility official and the court Sheriff have testified that the convict was not in prison and the counsel is asking the court to purge him of contempt.
He referred the court to the affidavit in support of the Motion on Notice dated 30 April 2024 filed by the counsel to the convict, Tracy Dike, a legal practitioner from Kingsley Grays LP wherein she averred that she had the consent of the Applicant/Contemnor as well as the employer to depose to the affidavit.
“That I was informed by Mr Dada Aigbe in the Kirikiri Correctional Centre, Olodi Apapa, Lagos on 30th of March 2024 at about 12 pm during a briefing on the case. I verily believe him.”
So also, in another fundamental human rights suit instituted by Alhaji Chief Jamiu Adetunji Kushimo against the Inspector-General of Police Zone 2 Lagos, Director-General; Department of State Service, Abuja; the Deputy-Director, Department of State of Service, Mr. Omogbenga Elesheku; Director, Base Command, Department of State Service, Lagos; and Oludayo Dada Aigbe as Respondents, the same Tracy Dike averred that the Fifth Respondents was out of the country.
In her affidavit in support of the Motion on Notice dated 16 April 2024, the same Tracy Dike swore that, “a counsel in the law firm of Kingsley Grays LP, solicitors to the 5th Respondent and by virtue of which position I am conversant with the facts of this case.
“That I have the consent of the 5th Respondent as well as that of my employer to depose to this affidavit. That I was informed by my Principal K.U Okoro Esq. at or about 1 pm and I verily believed him.
“That however, it is imperative to state that we were unable to get in touch with the 5th Respondent (Aigbe) who is supposed to avail us with some vital information with respect to certain issues raised by the applicant in his Motion on Notice and when we eventually did, it was discovered that he travelled to United Kingdom for a medical check up being a cancer patient and this impediment made it impossible for him to avail us with the necessary information needed for the preparation of the counter-affidavit opposing the Motion on Notice of the Applicant.
“That, by the time he returned from the medical check-up and provided us with the vital information needed to enable us to prepare the counter-affidavit of the 5th Respondents, the time prescribed by the rules of court had already elapsed. Unfortunately, the 5th Respondent could not file his counter-affidavit within the time prescribed by the rules of court.”
However, after listening to their arguments Justice Savage adjourned ruling on the application seeking to set aside the entire committal proceeding to 17 June 2024.
Eighteen-Eleven Media