Again, court fines PDP’s Lagos East bye-election candidate, Gbadamosi

A federal High Court, Lagos, has fined the defeated Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) candidate in last Saturday’s Lagos East Senatorial District bye-election, Mr. Babatunde Gbadamosi.

Justice Chuka Obiozor slammed an N20,000 fine sequel to the withdrawal of a motion filed by Gbadamosi’s counsel, Mr. Ebun-Olu Adegboruwa (SAN), in a suit seeking to disqualify the winner of the election, Mr. Tokunbo Abiru of the All Progressives Congress (APC).

The judge upheld the submission of Abiru’s counsel, Mr. Kemi Pinheiro (SAN), on the status of the motion and ordered that N10, 000 be paid in favour of the APC and another N10, 000 in favour of Abiru.

The proceedings commenced with Pinheiro identifying two pending applications. The first was the second defendant’s application dated November 11, 2020, seeking to leave to file a reply on points of law to the plaintiff’s written address of November 3, 2020, which was unopposed. Same was moved and granted as prayed.

The second application dated November 30, 2020, sought leave to file a further affidavit and reply on points of law in response to the plaintiff’s processes opposing the second defendant’s application to strike out the further and better affidavit dated November 9, 2020.

Pinheiro moved the motion, as it was unopposed. Same was granted as prayed.

Adegboruwa identified the concurrent originating summons and an application seeking amendment of the originating summons.

Having seen Pinheiro’s opposition to the motion to amend, the court questioned the appropriateness of Adegboruwa’s application to amend as it was of the opinion that the plaintiff was out of time to amend.

Pinheiro re-affirmed that the amendment had to be within the time permitted for filing of the originating processes under Section 285 of the Constitution.

In view of this, Adegboruwa agreed to move the substantive originating summons and applied to withdraw the application for amendment.

Pinheiro informed the court that he had reacted to the motion to amend, adding that expenses had been incurred to respond to the application for amendment and sought compensation.

In his ruling, the judge noted, among others, that the plaintiff’s motion seeks to do a thing not permitted by the rules of the proceedings before it and dismissed the motion for amendment.

Upon the dismissal of the motion to amend, the plaintiffs withdrew their amended originating summons, which was struck out.

The matter was stood down till 2:00 p.m. following which it resumed about 6.40 p.m.

Due to time spent, the court informed parties that it had to adjourn having taken arguments for about seven hours.

Consequently, the matter was adjourned to January 15, 2021, for the continuation of the hearing.