The Governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) Mr. Godwin Emefiele has asked the Court of Appeal, Abuja Division to set aside an order of a Federal High Court compelling his appearance in a $53 million judgment debt proceedings.
A legal practitioner, Joe Agi (SAN) had obtained a judgment summons against the CBN governor following his alleged refusal to obey the order of court for the payment of the judgment debt.
The judgment summons, now a subject of appeal, is in respect of suit NO: FHC/ABJ/CS/1193/2017, between senior lawyer against Linas International Ltd, the Minister of Finance and the Central Bank of Nigeria.
Justice Inyang Ekwo who issued the judgment summons in October last year specifically ordered the CBN governor to appear before his court on January 18, 2023.
However, the matter before the trial court has been adjourned to March 20, 2023.
In his notice of appeal predicated on three grounds and filed on January 13, 2023, the CBN governor, contended that the trial judge erred in law and occassioned a miscarriage of justice when it made an order compelling his attendance in court.
Emefiele informed that appellate court that the appeals marked CA/A/476/2018 between CBN V Joe Agi (SAN), & 2 others and CA/A/23/2020 between CBN V Joe Agi (SAN) & 2 others which are appeals against the judgment sought to be enforced by the judgment summons have been entered before the Court of Appeal.
Consequently, he argued through his counsel, Damien Dodo (SAN), that the proceedings to compel his appearance after the appeals have been entered, places the trial court in a position where it is exercising concurrent jurisdiction with the Court of Appeal over the same subject matter.
He equally submitted that the trial judge erred in law which occasioned a miscarriage of justice when it compelled and ordered him to personally appear in court without determining one way or the other, his application challenging the jurisdiction of the court.
He drew the attention of the appellate court to his application challenging the jurisdiction of the court as well as the service of form 13 and 15 on him for non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of section 56, part IV, of the Sheriff and Civil Process Act.
In addition, he submitted that on February 22, 2022, the appellants jointly filed an application seeking a setting aside of the issuance and service of form 13 and 15 on him, on the basis that same ought not to have been issued during the pendency of the two mentioned appeals and the pending motions on notice for stay of execution dated March 26, 2018 and July 11, 2019 respectively.
The appellant further contended that the lower court erred in law occasioning a miscarriage of justice when it made an order compelling his appearance in court on January 18, 2023, when he is not a party to the suit before it.
He therefore prayed the appellate court to allow his appeal and set aside the orders made by the trial Court.