Amid yesterday’s continuation of Maryam Sanda’s case at a High Court sitting at Jabi in the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, the judge, Justice Halilu Yusuf, rejected the safeguard application documented by advice to the principal litigant, Joseph B. Daudu SAN, saying that the procedure followed in documenting the safeguard application was defaced by a few anomalies.
He said that the issue under the watchful eye of the court was not in a general sense that of the contrast between the pending interest and a unimportant notice of offer, yet an instance of whether the main respondent’s insight documented a notice of discontinuance as for the notice of request under the watchful eye of conveying to court the pending application for safeguard, adds up to mishandle of court process.
Review that Daudu had documented a notice of offer against a prior court administering which was seen by the judge just amid the hearing, an advancement that incited the judge to suo moto welcome him and propose to him to consider if the pendency of the interest he recorded and the pendency of the primary respondent’s safeguard application don’t add up to manhandle of court process.
In any case, Daudu contended that there is a distinction between a pending interest and a minor notice of bid. He kept up that simply documenting a notice of advance without finding a way to transmit it into record ought to regard it relinquished, making it unequipped for constituting a manhandle of court process.
Arraignment advise, James Idachaba, in attempting to substantiate his cases, drew the consideration of the court to the date when the notice of claim was recorded and the date when the candidate’s pending safeguard application under the steady gaze of the lower court was documented, and inferred that the guard direction’s inability to pull back the notice of advance before documenting the present application, adds up to mishandle of court process.
Taking everything into account, the judge settled the issue against the principal litigant by decision that his court does not have the ability to hear the pending application for safeguard since the notice of claim documented by insight to the main respondent has not been pulled back. He in this manner, finished up by declining to hear the principal litigant’s application for safeguard.