The Federal high Court sitting in Abuja has adjourned to 30th July for ruling in the suit filed by a lawyer, John Mary Jideobi against the president of the Senate, Speaker of the house of Representatives and six others.
Mr Jideobi had challenged the legislative powers of the National Assembly to have enacted some sections in the Nigeria Sovereign Investment Authority Establishment Act 2011.
In an originating summons, a legal Practitioner, Johnmary Jideobi is challenging the president of the Senate, Speaker, House of Representatives, Clerk of the National Assembly and five others.
He is challenging the legislative powers of the National Assembly to enact some some sections in the NSIA Establishment Act.
He alleged that those sections enacted have cut off some revenues accurable to the Federation account, which have been diverted to fund the activities of the Nigeria Sovereign Investment Authority.
At the last sitting the plaintiff and his counsel were nowhere to be found. He had filed a notice to discontinue the case but the defendants were not served.
Counsel to Nigeria Sovereign Investment Authority and its CEO had urged the court to dismiss the case with a cost of N1million against the Plaintiff.
Presiding Judge, Justice Ahmed Mohammed had ruled that it is only fair to give the Plaintiff the opportunity to appear before the court to explain whether he wants the case struck out or dismissed and why he should not be
sanctioned.
As the resumed sitting the Plaintiff appeared in person. He apologized to the court for his counsel’s absence at the last adjourned date which was due to ill health.
He conceded to all prayers of the defendants made at the last adjourned date which urged the court to strike out the case, with an expection to that of the 6th defendant which urged the court to dismiss the case.
He opposed to the prayer of dismissal stating that a matter can only be dismissed upon the plaintiffs decision for withdrawal.
Counsel to the NSIA urged the court to exercise its discretion because defendants have exposed all their lines of defence in the case.
In event of a future suit by the same Plaintiff on the same subject matter, the defendants have been put at an disadvantage, because pleadings and evidences have been exposed.
