Legal representatives of the deposed Emir of Kano, Alhaji Aminu Ado Bayero, in the ongoing Kano Emirate tussle have withdrawn their services in the case before the State High Court.
The action by the legal representatives is to show their dissatisfaction on a ruling earlier by the Court not granting stay of proceedings in the matter.
When the matter came up for hearing, Counsel to the first respondent, Abdul Muhammed, SAN, told the court that there is an affidavit of fact, it has a motion of appeal and notice of stay of proceedings in the registry.
“When a Judge of a High Court is aware of application in a Higher Court, the notification in the dependency in the lower Court must be in affidavit of facts. It is expected that at a trial Court should stop the hearing on the matter pending the hearing and determination of the motion on notice.”
Muhammed urged the Court to stay the proceedings pending the hearing and determination of the motion on notice.
He told the Court that they were served with the Court processes on Thursday morning.
He sought an adjournment that would enable them to respond but the Court refused his prayers.
He therefore announced his withdrawal of service from the case.
Also a member of the team, Barrister Sanusi Musa SAN, announced on behalf of the other Counsels for the first respondent, their withdrawal from the case.
He told the Court that, “myself and other Counsels apply for the withdrawal of our representation and appearances.”
On their part, Counsel to the third, fourth and fifth respondents, Hassan Tanko Kyaure, told the Court that they have filed an application for an extension of time dated July 2nd and counter affidavit in response to the originating motion.
Kyaure urged the Court to set aside the Kano State Emirates Council repealed law as due process were not followed and urged the Court to dismiss the application with the cost of N1 billion.
Counsel to the sixth respondent, Sunday Ekwe, told the Court that they have nothing to present so they left everything to the discretion of the Court.
Counsel to the applicant, Eyitayo Fatogun, urged the Court to discountenance the motion of affidavit of facts pursuant to order 39 rule 1 and 2 of the Court.
Counsel to the applicant, Eyitayo Fatogun, urged the Court to discountenance the motion of affidavit of facts pursuant to order 39 rule 1 and 2 of the Court.
“The motion refers to a proposed notice of appeal not a notice of appeal. The filing of notice of appeal does not guarantee the stay of proceedings. It shows that the affidavit of facts is just to delay the proceedings. My lord the business of today is for the hearing of all pending applications.”
He urged the Court to dismiss the third, fourth and fifth respondents application on the issue of repealed law because the issue is not before the Court.
Earlier in her ruling, the Judge, Justice Amina Adamu Aliyu, refused to grant the application for the stay of proceedings.
The affidavit is unknown to the rules of Court. The respondent did not disclose any special fact to warrant any stay of proceedings.”
She therefore adjourned the case to July 18 to rule on the applications of extension of time, notice of preliminary objection, setting aside exparte order, joinder application, examining deponent, application for the Judge to recuse herself and originating summon.
Reports indicate that the applicants are the Attorney General of Kano State, Speaker Kano State House of Assembly and Kano State House of Assembly, through their Counsel Ibrahim Isah Wangida Esq, filed a motion exparte dated May 27.
