Justice Joy Okeaya-Inneh, a judge of the Benin High Court, Benin City, on Wednesday, came down hard on a counsel, Mrs Edafekure over what the judge said was a misrepresentation of the court’s position on an exparte motion seeking to stop 12 members of Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) from attending last weekend convention of the party in Abuja.
In the originating summons filed by Mr Imasuen Uyigue (claimant) against PDP and 12 others which include Mr Osaro Nosa Iseleromon (Uhumwonde LGA); Mr Felix Onaiwa (Ovia-South West LGA); Hon. Andy Ikhagangbe (Esan West); Mr Clifford Inegbedion (Esan North); Mr Lawrence Odiase (Esan West LGA) Mr Mathew Mutana Ebhotem (Esan Central LGA); Mr Abdulkarim Momodu; Mr Frank Kayode Ogunubi (Akoko-Edo); Mr Leslie Ebosoje (Owan East); Mr Vincent Ekpemen Umoru (Etsako East LGA); Hon. Abdulkareen Kassim (Etsako East Central) and PDP (defendants), the claimant had asked the court to stop them from attending the convention on the grounds that they held dual positions as senior special assistants to Governor Godwin Obaseki and at the same time, chairmen of their local government chapter of the party.
The claimant was represented by Edafekure (Mrs) while the defendants were represented by Anderson U. Asemota.
At the resumed hearing on Wednesday, the court drew counsel’s attention to a social media publication, alleging that the court granted an exparte order of injunction against the PDP and the 1st -12th defendants.
Justice Okeaya-Inneh, who was furious and infuriated by the said publication denied ever making such order of injunction whilst maintaining that the exparte application filed by the claimant was refused as can be gleaned from the court record.
She then wondered where on earth the claimant got their purported injunction from.
The court then ordered the claimant’s counsel to address it on how they came about the said injunction making rounds in the social media as she did not issue nor sign any order of injunction in the suit.
The claimant’s counsel however could not address the court on the subject as she maintained that she was neither aware nor a party to such publication even though she was the one who took the said exparte application for the claimant.
The Hon. Judge ordered the counsel to be docked, insisting that the court would not condone such act was borne out of mischief and intended to bringing the court into disrepute by tarnishing, smearing, besmirching and smudging the image of the court before the public.
The counsel, who pleaded with the judge for mercy, asserted that she was not aware of the said publication in the social media.
The court then requested to see her principal in chambers whom the counsel claimed was engaged outside jurisdiction.
The judge stated she would not allow anybody in whatever form or guise to smudge her name and bring the court into disrepute for their own personal egoistic and political propensity.
Defendants’ counsel, Asemota apologised to the court for the unsavoury occurrence, reminding the court that the same scenerio played out in a similar case in court.
The defendants’ counsel noted that the act in itself was contemptuous, barbaric and despicable and capable of completely damaging the reputation of the court in the eyes of the public.
He further said the act of misinterpreting and misrepresenting orders/rulings of the court has to stop as the court is the last hope of the common man, and the Bar would not allow anybody in any form or guise to desecrate the sacredness of the legal altar.
He prayed the court to invite claimant’s principal counsel and those who made the publication to appear in court and disclose their source.
A senior counsel, who was in court also intervened and supplicated his Lordship to wait until the principal in chamber appears in court on the next adjourned date.
The court then adjourned to November 10th, 2021 and ordered counsel to come with her principal-in-chambers on the said adjourned date
The concrave