Friday, 19th April 2024
To guardian.ng
Search

NFF leadership tussle: Court adjourns Pinnick, Giwa case

By Timileyin Omilana
01 August 2018   |   3:14 pm
A Federal High Court sitting in Jos on Wednesday adjourned the case between Amaju Pinnick and Chris Giwa for the leadership of the Nigeria Football Federation (NFF) till September 25. The case was slated to hold on July 23, but it suffered a setback due to the absence of the presiding judge. The judge's absence…

A Federal High Court sitting in Jos on Wednesday adjourned the case between Amaju Pinnick and Chris Giwa for the leadership of the Nigeria Football Federation (NFF) till September 25.

The case was slated to hold on July 23, but it suffered a setback due to the absence of the presiding judge. The judge’s absence prompted the adjournment of the case till Wednesday.

Both Pinnick and Giwa have been in and out of courts in the last four years on who is the authentic NFF president.

Lawyers to the NFF President, Amaju Pinnick had filed a motion for the court to vacate the judgment that nullified the September 30, 2014 election in Warri. The election brought Pinnick to office as President of the NFF.

While Giwa’s case was dismissed at the Court of Arbitration for Sports (CAS), and even slammed with worldwide ban from football matters by FIFA, the Jos football club proprietor is taking solace in the Jos High Court ruling that upheld his August 26 election in Abuja.

At the resumption of hearing on Wednesday, Festus Keyamo representing the 3rd defendant, Amaju Pinnick filed a motion with a letter from the FIFA indicating that Nigeria was risking a ban if he is not allowed to run the NFF.

But the counsel to the plaintiffs and 2nd defendants, Habila Ardzard and Shangyula respectively, argued that they were in court for the hearing of the motion raised by Festus Keyamo (SAN), counsel representing Amaju Pinnick that was challenging the court’s ex-parte order granted to Chris Giwa by the court.

They added that they were not served with the motion of notice filed by Keyamo, therefore they can’t respond to it.
The presiding judge, Justice Musa Kurya then advised Keyamo to serve the motion of notice to both plaintiffs and other defendants in the case to enable them to respond.

In this article

0 Comments