Justice Azeez Fimisola of the Lagos State Excessive Court docket, Ikeja, has struck out a elementary rights enforcement swimsuit filed by the Integrated Trustees of Magodo Residents Affiliation in opposition to the Lawyer-Common of the Federation, the Inspector-Common of Police, the Lagos State Commissioner of Police, CSP Abimbola Oyewole, Chief Adebayo Adeyiga, Chief Yusuf Ogundare, and Owokoniran Adeyiga.
The courtroom dismissed the case following the candidates’ repeated absence and their failure to answer processes filed by the sixth respondent/applicant, who sought to put aside the service of courtroom papers on the fifth and seventh respondents.
Earlier than the ruling, counsel to the sixth respondent/applicant, Mr Deji Fasusi, drew the courtroom’s consideration to the candidates’ persistent non-appearance and neglect in prosecuting the matter.
He urged the courtroom to strike out the case for need of diligent prosecution, arguing that elementary rights actions demand immediate and energetic pursuit.
Agreeing with the submission, Justice Fimisola struck out the swimsuit in its entirety and awarded ₦50,000 prices in opposition to the Integrated Trustees of Magodo Residents Affiliation.
Within the Movement on Discover, introduced pursuant to Order 5 Rule 9 of the Basic Rights (Enforcement Process) Guidelines, 2009, and underneath the courtroom’s inherent jurisdiction, the sixth respondent/applicant had sought an order setting apart the substituted service granted on 20 April 2022, because it associated to the fifth and seventh respondents.
The disputed service concerned the pasting of courtroom processes on the entrance of the sixth respondent’s residence at No. 1, Mutairu Avenue, Shangisha, Lagos. The applicant argued that he and his household have been the only occupants of the property and that the fifth and seventh respondents have been unknown to him.
He maintained that they have been neither kin, associates, nor acquaintances, and subsequently his residence couldn’t moderately be handled as their final identified handle.
He additional contended that the substituted service was obtained by means of a misrepresentation of fabric details, because the property was solely his household residence with no connection by any means to the opposite respondents.
