THE long-awaited return of Senator Mohammed Ali Ndume to the floor of the Senate and collection of salaries and allowances that are his due following a court judgment last week which declared his six months suspension from the Senate illegal on Monday suffered a setback with the filing of a Notice of Appeal at the Appellate Court and a Notice of Motion for Stay of Execution of judgment at the Federal High Court by the Senate through its counsel, Mike Ozekhome (SAN).
The Senate being dissatisfied with the decision of Justice Babatunde Olaide Quadri of a Federal High Court sitting in Abuja on November 10, 2017 in a suit delineated FHC/ABJ/CS/551/2017 which was filed by Senator Ndume against the Senate President, the Senate and the Chairman, Senate Committee on Ethics, Privileges and public petitions, Senator Samuel Anyanwu, declaring the suspension of Senator Ndume illegal, filed a suit to contest the decision of the lower court.
The appeal of the senate contested the judgment of the lower court in its entirety on six grounds of appeal and asking the court to allow the appeal, set aside the judgment of the lower court and dismiss the suit for want of jurisdiction.
A Motion on Notice for Stay of Execution was also filed before the Federal High Court pursuant to Order 32 Rule 1 of the Federal High court Civil Procedure Rules 2009 and under the inherent jurisdiction of the court as preserved by section 6 (6) A of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, as altered.
The motion asked for an order for stay of execution on the judgment of the court and to maintain status quo that existed before the judgment of the trial court pending the hearing and final determination of his appeal at the court of appeal, Abuja and for such other orders, the court may deem fit.
The grounds given by the senate for the application for stay of judgment execution is that the appeal raises good, arguably, triable and recondite issues and grounds of appeal which makes it a proper case for which the execution of the orders of the court as contained in the judgment should have stayed pending determination of the appeal.
The application, dated November 13, 2017 and supported by a three- paragraph affidavit sworn to by Usman Salihu, a litigation clerk in the chambers of Mike Ozekhome as well as a written address listing issues for determination and arguments in favour of the application added that unless the execution of the judgment is stayed or suspended, the appeal filed would be defeated and rendered nugatory while a situation of complete helplessness will be foisted on the court of appeal.
The senate in its notice of appeal held that the trial judge at the lower court erred by holding that the court will not interfere with the internal affairs of the legislature except where there is breach of the fundamental rights of a citizen, the basis of which it held that the fundamental rights of the senate were breached even when there was no evidence of such breach.
It argued that there was no evidence before the court showing infringement of the fundamental rights of the respondent, the basis for which the trial court interfered with the internal affairs of the appellants.
They also stated that the trial judge erred in law when he held that Exhibit B in the respondent’s affidavit in support of originating summons which was a public document was not certified and consequently inadmissible while at the same time holding that the facts established in the said inadmissible documents were established.
Part of the grounds for appeal is that the trial judge erred in law when he failed to look at the intention of the legislature in its statutory interpretation of the provisions of Sections 3 and 30 of Legislative Houses (powers and privileges) Act and Order 67 of the Senate Standing Orders 2015 as amended.
The senate also argued that the trial judge erred by holding that the respondent can join several causes of action in one suit among other grounds and arguments.
