Justice Azeez Fimisola of the High Court of Lagos State, Ikeja, on Tuesday struck out a fundamental rights enforcement suit filed by the Incorporated Trustees of 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 continuous absence of the applicants and their refusal to respond to the processes filed by the sixth respondent/applicant, who sought to set aside the service of court papers on the fifth and seventh respondents.
Before the court’s ruling, counsel for the sixth respondent/applicant, Deji Fasusi, had informed the court of the applicants’ persistent absence and failure to respond.
ALSO READ: SSANU, NASU to protest October 9 over FG’s failure to meet demands
He therefore urged the court to strike out the matter for want of diligent prosecution, noting that the suit was a fundamental rights action requiring prompt pursuit.
Justice Fimisola agreed with the argument and consequently struck out the entire suit, awarding a cost of ₦50,000 against the Incorporated Trustees of Magodo Residents Association.
In the Motion on Notice brought pursuant to 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, as it related to the fifth and seventh respondents.
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 sole occupants of the property, and that the fifth and seventh respondents were unknown to him.
He contended that they were neither relatives, associates, nor acquaintances, and thus, his residence could not be considered their last known address.
He further maintained that the substituted service was obtained by misrepresentation of material facts, as the property in question was exclusively his family home and bore no connection to the other respondents.
WATCH TOP VIDEOS FROM NIGERIAN TRIBUNE TV
