BEVERLY HILLS, May 09, (THEWILL) – A Federal High Court in Lagos on Monday refused to unfreeze the $15.591 million frozen by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC, allegedly belonging to four companies linked to the wife of former president Goodluck Jonathan, Patience.
The trial judge, Justice Mohammed Idris refused to give a verdict on the contentious case on the ground that the subject-matter of the case cannot be determined by a way of an originating summons because it contained disputed facts that can only be resolved by oral evidence.
According to the judge, “The issues formulated by all the defendants are baseless. They go to no issue and will be ignored by the court.
“I hold that this court lacks the competence, lacks the competence to determine the issues raised by the defendants in their written addresses having abandoned the specific issues formulated by the plaintiff in the originating summons.
“It is unfortunate. I say this because the issues raised by the defendants appear on the face of it good and deserving to be considered on their merit. But I as I understand it to be the law, sentiment has no basis in the adjudicatory system.”
Justice Idris pointed out that where processes are not properly prepared, any defect would render the proceeding fatal as the court cannot “re-formulate” the issues for determination.
Noting that there is a contention as to issues and facts as to the money’s ownership, the judge ruled that Mrs Jonathan and other parties must give oral evidence on the money’s ownership.
He held that all the counter-affidavits filed by the defendants contain disputed facts that cannot be decided without oral evidence, adding that “the light of the above affidavit evidence cannot in my view be rightly contended that there are no disputed facts of substance as to the ownership of the said funds and the law.
“The issues of fact raised by the defendants herein are not spurious or irrelevant. The affidavit of the plaintiff is also not conjectural.
“In my view, the facts are contentious, and oral evidence needs to be led by the parties herein.
“In the light of the above facts, this case is generally not suitable for an originating summons procedure.
“In the circumstances, the court hereby orders that the parties herein file pleadings in accordance with the Federal High Court Civil Procedure Rules 2009 and trial shall then proceed accordingly.
“This is the order of the court,” Idris held.
With this ruling, the former first lady, who has never attended the proceedings since the case was filed, is expected to appear in court to give evidence on how she came about the money, which the EFCC described as a “proceed of crime”.
Jonathan’s wife had always been represented by her lawyers since she sued the anti-graft agency for placing a no-debit order on her accounts with Skye Bank Plc.
