I have followed consistently the happenings and unfolding events on the crises in the Assemblies of God church ,Nigeria.I must indeed confess that I was indeed awed at the recent judgment of the Supreme Court which ousted the General Oversear of the Assemblies of God church,Professor Paul Emeka in its detailed judgement and I must state with all due respect to the Apex court ,I consider its decision gravely faulty .
I will also take the pain to send a Certified True Copy of the 70 paged Judgement to readers who are interested ,and interested readers should kindly signify their interest by sending their emails through the blog mail.
I must also point out, that to really understand and appreciate the full content of this article,readers must patiently peruse through the full judgement of the Supreme Court ,which would be readily available .
First and foremost without delving into the entire details of the judgement ,I would love to by way of summary give a glimpse summary of the proceedings that led to the final appeal to the Apex Court.
Summary
The Applicant ,Rev Paul Emeka filed a motion on notice on the 15th day of April,2014 at the High Court of Enugu against the respondents ,Rev Chidi Okorafor& 18 Ors for the Enforcement of his fundamental human right to ;
* The Peaceful exercise of his duties has the General Superintendent of the Assemblies of God Church Nigeria.
*illegal dismissal and suspension without recourse to his fundamental human rights to fair hearing .
* Right to Religion and Worship.
*among others.
Injucutory reliefs were also prayed by the applicant against the respondents.The main prayer being ,the performance of his lawful duties as the General Superintendent of the Assemblies of God Church,Nigeria.The applicant's prayers were granted. Disatisified with the decision of the trial court ,the respondents appealed to the Court of Appeal Enugu Division ,who set aside the Judgement of the trial court on the grounds that,"the applicant right to be General Superintendent of the Assemblies of God church was not an enforceable right under the Nigerian Constitution ."
On Final Appeal to the Supreme Court ,the Apex Court isolated two issues for consideration:
(1)Whether the Court of Appeal was right when it set aside the service of the originating process on the grounds that service was not effected in accordance with the order of the high court.
(2)Whether the reliefs sought by the appellant (applicant) at the high court was competent and rightly brought under the Fundamental Human Right Enforcement Procedure Rules.
Those above issues were resolved in favour of the Respondents .
*Criticisms*
Issue One
The Supreme Court voided the services of the originating applications of the applicant/appellant on the major ground that same were not served on the 1st respondent in the address contained in the applicant /appellant motion exparte ,but served on him through his agent in another address of service.The fulcrum of the appellant counsel,Chief (Mrs) A.J Offiah SAN who had contended that ;
*the order of the court which directed the applicant/appellant to deliver and serve substantive applications and all processes on the 1st respondent "whose address for service is Evangel House,Plot R8,Ozubulu Street,Independence ,Layout ,Enugu" ,did not specifically order that same be served on that address,but rather to show were the 1st respondent was likely to be found.She further stressed that it was the spirit of the order of the court that was of utmost paramount ,as the respondents never denied service of originating processes .To buttress her point ,the learned silk relied on the cases of INEC V. MUSA(2003) 3 NWLR (Pt.806) 72,IBRAHIM V. JSC (1998) 14 NWLR (Pt 584) .1. Order V Rules 2 & 7 Fundermental Right (Enforcement Procedure) Rules.
However ,counsel to the respondents countered the position of the appellant counsel. According to the learned respondents counsel ,CHIEF KANU AGABI SAN,the fulcrum of his position was that the basis for setting aside the service of the originating applications by the Lower court(Court of Appeal) was centered on the grounds that the order of the trial court was not followed to the letter. He further avered that originating applications served through the agent of the 1st respondent was improper as it was ultra vires the order of court.He relied on the case of Folorunsho Vs Shaloub (1994) 3 NWLR (Pt.333)413@421 A-B. & Ihedioha Vs Okorocha 2016 1 NWLR (Pt 1492)147 @176 D-H .He further argued that an order for substituted does not give the bailiff a discretion has how to effect service.
It was the reasoning of the Apex Court ,that service of originating process be compulsorily served on the 1st respondent ,who was to serve as an agent to the 2nd - 19th respondent and that since the Applicant /Appellant had prayed the court to serve on 1st respondent
"whose address for service is Evangel House,Plot R8,Ozubulu Street,Independence ,Layout ,Enugu",the bailiff had no discretion in the matter but to serve same accordingly.
This 1st issue was resolved in favour of the respondents.
Having glanced through the entirety of this judgment of the Apex Court on the issue of service of originating summons,it is my candid view,that the Apex court erred in its position.
First and foremost,the insistence of the Apex Court that service be effected exactly and in accordance with the prayer of the applicant/appellant smacks of "reasoning on the alter of technicalities",the respondents themselves having admitted service ,but "somersaulted" on their position that service of originating process was "improper".
Secondly,the bailiff also having deposed to an affidavit that service of the originating processes couldn't be effected on "Evangel House,Plot R8,Ozubulu Street,Independence ,Layout ,Enugu" due to the absence of the 1st respondent ,but served on the 1st agent of the 1st respondent on "5 Mbanano Street Independence Layout" would have been deemed sufficient service on the respondents as same was effected on an adult male in the residence of the 1st respondent.
I support the position of the learned counsel to the applicant /appellant that the order of the court which directed the applicant/appellant to deliver and serve substantive applications and all processes on the 1st respondent whose address for service is Evangel House,Plot R8,Ozubulu Street,Independence ,Layout ,Enugu" ,did not specifically order that same be served on that address,but rather to show were the 1st respondent was likely to be found.
It is my candid view that the position of the apex court on issue one will fester more hardship on intending applicants in fundermental human right suits,the 1st Respondent having acknowledged service of originating processes were wrong to have faulted the mode of service having impliedly consented to same.The most important thing the Apex Court would have considered was the fact that service of originating processes was indeed served,not the slight differences in the manner of service...........( to be continued)
No comments:
Post a Comment