September, 5, 2017, has been slated for hearing on arguments from counsel on why judgment should not be delivered on the fundamental rights application filed by Chukwudumeme Onwuamadike, popularly known as Evans.
A Lagos Division of the Federal High Court presided by Justice Abdulaziz Anka, had earlier fixed Tuesday, for judgment but, said he would not go ahead when there are pending applications before him.
“The question is, can I still go ahead when there are still motions before me and the fact that the applicant refused service? I’ve read the case file, I’ve seen the processes attached inclusive of a court order,” he said.
On August 16, 2017, the Judge had adjourned to deliver a judgment on the fundamental rights application filed by Evans.
While the first and second respondents, the Inspector General of Police and the Nigeria Police Force, did not send a legal representative throughout the duration of the hearing, the third and fourth respondent, Commissioner of Police in Lagos state and the Special Anti-Robbery Squad, respectively, were represented.
The lawyers, who represented them, argued that they were not served the court process.
While announcing appearance for the first and second respondents, a Commissioner of Police(legal), David Igbodo, argued that they did not receive any court process in Abuja, adding, they had filed a motion before the judge making five applications.
According to him, this includes an order seeking to set aside the ruling on August 16 and the adjournment for judgment without hearing his clients.
Igbodo said the police was seeking an order to set aside the purported application and submission made by Henry Obiazi without authority, and an order granting leave to the first and second respondents to file their counter affidavits.
However, reacting to this, counsel to the defendant, Mr. Ogungbeje said he never received any application from the police, insisting that the last adjournment had been for judgment and not to entertain fresh applications.
“It is our strong view to the learned counsel to the first and second respondents that his application is calculated to arrest the judgment of the court,” Ogungbeje said.
Following the insistence of the Judge that he could not go ahead with the judgement until the pending applications before him are heard, counsel to both party could not agree on the next date for adjournment.
The Judge, therefore, adjourned to September 5 to hear arguments.