Innocent Chukwuma through his counsel, Odinaka Anajemba ESQ of McCarthy Mbadugha & Co today, Feb 9th 2018 formally filled a Motion on Notice at the High Court of Lagos State, Ikeja for staying the execution of the Court’s order of Bench Warrant made on 9th Feb 2018 by Justice Mojisola Dada of the Lagos State High Court, Ikeja pending the determination of the appeal filed against the order.
In a ruling by Justice Mojisola Dada, the court ordered that Innoson should be arrested and kept in custody a day before the next adjournment and be produced on the adjourned date, March 14, 2018 for probable arraignment over alleged forgery.
In a further development, Innoson has through his counsel appealed the decision of the court to assume jurisdiction to entertain the matter.
Prof J.N Mbadugha, counsel to Innoson had during the court proceedings on Feb 9th 2018 raised an objection to the court that there is a motion pending at the court of appeal to stay commencement of proceedings and execution of the court’s order of 17th January 2018 that the information be served on counsel thereby questioning further the jurisdiction of the court to entertain the matter.
Prof Mbadugha also invited the attention of the court to the motions pending in the matter, viz:
1. that the charge is an abuse of process because a similar charge on the same subject matter is pending at the federal high court Lagos division between the same parties in charge no FHC/l/565c/2015;
2. a motion that the court recuses or disqualify itself from further conduct of the proceedings;
3. a motion that EFCC cannot be heard in any application until it withdraws the charge given a pending motion against it praying that it be restrained from filing any charge in respect of the same subject matter of the charge that was struck out until the determination of the appeal against the court’s order striking out the previous charge- Charge No. ID/197c/2013.
Prof Mbadugha also informed the court that the 3rd defendant has not been served and as such the court lacked the jurisdiction to entertain the matter.
Stating the particulars of error in its Notice of Appeal, Prof Mbadugha stated:
1. the learned judge erred in law when it assumed the jurisdiction to entertain the matter because there was an issue before the trial court that the information/charge is an abuse of process and it is not within the jurisdictional competence of the Court and that of Economic and Financial Crime Commission has no power to investigate, initiate and prosecute the Appellants (Innoson) for forgery, uttering and stealing.
In consequence whereof the court lacks the jurisdiction to entertain the matter.
2. The learned trial judge failed to determine the aforesaid issue.
3. The learned trial judge failed to appreciate that the issue as raised divests the court of the jurisdiction to entertain the matter.
Mbadugha therefore prayed that the Court set aside the decision of the learned trial judge and the bench warrant against the or for the arrest of the Appellant (Innoson) issued and or ordered by the learned trail judge.
These court processes have been duly served on the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission.