The High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) Abuja has dismissed the preliminary objection raised by Senator Ita Enang against the defamation suit filed against him by the immediate past Governor of Akwa Ibom State, Udom Emmanuel.
Udom had sued Senator Enang before the court in 2019 for an alleged defamatory statement he (Enang) made against him while speaking at a Lagos-based radio station.
But Udom was not able to serve Senator Enang with the writ of summons in the suit marked CV/2058/2019 within the six months allowed by the rules of the court.
Therefore, the former governor through his counsel, Dr Charles Mekwunye (SAN), filed an ex parte application to renew the writ and it was granted by Justice Olukayode Adeniyi.
Upon being served with the originating processes successfully, Senator Enang filed a preliminary objection, challenging the competence of the suit and jurisdiction of the court to hear the matter for being statute-barred. Enang through his counsel, Ntufam Ukweni (SAN), argued that the court was wrong to have heard and ruled on the ex parte application.
According to him, at the expiration of the initial writ of summons, there was no longer a substantive suit before the court warranting it to assume jurisdiction.
Senator Enang also raised three other objections, which include that he wrongly initiated the suit through his first lawyer; that he did not join the radio station where the alleged defamatory statement was made and that the entire suit did not disclose any cause of action.
Ruling on the application, Justice Adeniyi dismissed all the grounds of the objection. He held that a writ that has not been served at the expiration of its life span is not void but merely ceases to be in force and as such remains valid until it is renewed. He further held that irregularity in the writ was not fatal to its competence.
The judge also dismissed the claim that the use of a different lawyer in renewing the writ was fatal to the case and robbed the court of jurisdiction.
Justice Adeniyi held that the claimant is at liberty to decide who to sue between an author and a publisher in a defamation suit or both, adding that deciding whether the suit disclosed cause of action at this stage amounts to deciding the claimant’s substantive suit at an interlocutory stage.
“Accordingly, the objection, considered a wasteful adventure, must be and is hereby dismissed,” he declared and adjourned to June 6, 2024, for a hearing.
