There was drama at an Enugu Magistrates’ Court yesterday when a
lawyer and his client walked out of a courtroom following the refusal of
the magistrate to grant an application urging it to hands off the
matter and return the case file to the registry for
re-assignment.Counsel to the defendant in Suit No: MEN/125/2012 Pinnacle
Oil vs Mr. Bede Agu, Jacob Egbo, was about to move a motion for stay of
proceedings when his client, Mr. Agu (defendant) stood up to tell the
court that he had lost confidence in the court and had instructed his
lawyer to ask for transfer of the matter.
Agu claimed that he overheard the PW1 in the matter speaking to
someone on the phone that the matter was already concluded and that
everything was going on as planned.
Said he: “I am not interested in this matter, and I have my doubts if I will get justice here based on the discussion I overheard. If it is possible, I will like the matter transferred. I am surprised my counsel is going on with this matter because I have instructed him to discontinue that I have lost confidence in the court.”
Following his client’s interjection, the defence councel, Egbo, applied that the matter be returned to the registry for re-assignment to another court.
Replying to the application, counsel to the plaintiff, Miss N. Aroh, expressed surprise at the development, arguing that there were procedures for such request. She submitted that Order 16 of the Magistrates Court Rules dealt on transfer which, she said, was an administrative duty of the chief judge or the registrar.
But the defence counsel insisted that he was not asking the court to usurp the functions of the chief judge but to return the matter to the registry since the issue of bias had been raised. “It will be preposterous for me to proceed with this matter in view of this fear expressed by my client which has not been investigated.
“Your worship, you cannot wait for the chief judge to exercise his power of transfer if for instance your own father is before you as a litigant. The law requires you to return the case file to the registry for onward assignment to another court because we are dealing with the issue of bias not the power to transfer a matter. Therefore the section cited by the plaintiff’s counsel does not apply in the instant case,” he said.
In his ruling, Magistrate F. E. Chukwu said the application was unfounded in law, saying “I therefore, refuse the call to return the matter to the registry.”
The defence counsel subsequently refused to carry on with his motion, requesting to be excused so as to attend to other matters, a request that was turned down by the court.
At this stage, the defence counsel and the defendant walked out of the courtroom, even as the court continued with the matter. The matter was later adjourned till July 15.
Said he: “I am not interested in this matter, and I have my doubts if I will get justice here based on the discussion I overheard. If it is possible, I will like the matter transferred. I am surprised my counsel is going on with this matter because I have instructed him to discontinue that I have lost confidence in the court.”
Following his client’s interjection, the defence councel, Egbo, applied that the matter be returned to the registry for re-assignment to another court.
Replying to the application, counsel to the plaintiff, Miss N. Aroh, expressed surprise at the development, arguing that there were procedures for such request. She submitted that Order 16 of the Magistrates Court Rules dealt on transfer which, she said, was an administrative duty of the chief judge or the registrar.
But the defence counsel insisted that he was not asking the court to usurp the functions of the chief judge but to return the matter to the registry since the issue of bias had been raised. “It will be preposterous for me to proceed with this matter in view of this fear expressed by my client which has not been investigated.
“Your worship, you cannot wait for the chief judge to exercise his power of transfer if for instance your own father is before you as a litigant. The law requires you to return the case file to the registry for onward assignment to another court because we are dealing with the issue of bias not the power to transfer a matter. Therefore the section cited by the plaintiff’s counsel does not apply in the instant case,” he said.
In his ruling, Magistrate F. E. Chukwu said the application was unfounded in law, saying “I therefore, refuse the call to return the matter to the registry.”
The defence counsel subsequently refused to carry on with his motion, requesting to be excused so as to attend to other matters, a request that was turned down by the court.
At this stage, the defence counsel and the defendant walked out of the courtroom, even as the court continued with the matter. The matter was later adjourned till July 15.
 |
Confusion as lawyer, client walk out on Enugu court |
No comments:
Post a Comment