Justice Azeez Fimisola of the Lagos State High Court, Ikeja, on Tuesday dismissed a fundamental rights enforcement suit filed by the Incorporated Trustees of the Magodo Residents Association against the Attorney General of the Federation, the Inspector General of Police, the Lagos State Commissioner of Police, CSP Abimbola Oyewole, Chief Adebayo Adeyiga, Chief Yusuf Ogundare and Owokoniran Adeyiga.
The judge made the decision following the continued absence of the plaintiffs and their refusal to respond to the proceedings brought by the sixth defendant/plaintiff, who sought to quash service of the writs on the fifth and seventh defendants.
Prior to the court’s ruling, counsel for the sixth respondent/applicant, Deji Fasusi, had informed the court of the persistent absence and lack of response from the plaintiffs.
READ ALSO: SSANU and NASU to protest on October 9 over FG’s failure to meet demands
It therefore urged the court to dismiss the matter for lack of diligent prosecution, noting that the suit was a fundamental rights action that required prompt follow-up.
Judge Fimisola agreed with the argument and accordingly dismissed the entire claim, awarding a fine of £50,000 to the Incorporated Trustees of the Magodo Residents Association.
In the Notice Motion filed under Order 5, Rule 9 of the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules, 2009, and under the inherent jurisdiction of the court, the respondent/applicant sought an order setting aside the substituted service granted on April 20, 2022, so far as the fifth and seventh respondents are concerned.
The said service involved pasting court processes at the entrance of the sixth respondent’s residence at No. 1, Mutairu Street, Shangisha, Lagos.
The sixth respondent/applicant argued that he and his family were the only occupants of the property, and that the fifth and seventh respondents were unknown to him.
He maintained that they were neither relatives, associates nor acquaintances, so their residence could not be considered his last known address.
He further maintained that the substituted service was obtained through misrepresentation of material facts, since the property in question was exclusively his family’s home and had no connection with the other defendants..
WATCH THE BEST VIDEOS FROM Newslodge TV