A legal practitioner, Temilolu Adamolekun, has asked Justice Abimbola Awogboro of the Federal High Court in Lagos to disqualify himself from continuing hearing on an alleged N13 billion debt recovery suit.
In his application, Adamolekun prayed the judge to hands off the matter, adding that he no longer has confidence in the court, presided over by Justice Awogboro.
Referring to loss of confidence in the judge, Adamolekun urged the court to return the case file to the administrative judge for re-assignment to another judge.
The suit, marked FHC/L/CS/2147/19 was filed by the plaintiffs/applicants, Guaranty Trust Bank Plc and Gbenga Akinde-Peters Receiver/Manager of Stallion Nigeria Limited (In Receivership).
Five other firms, THP Limited, The Honda Place Limited, Connoiseur Investment Limited, Premium Seafoods Limited and Onward Fisheries Nigeria Limited are the defendants/respondents.
The plaintiffs, through their lawyer instituted the suit against T.H.P Limited and four others in 2019 over the alleged N13 billion debt owed by Stallion Nigeria Limited.
They are praying the court for, “An order that the Hon. Justice Awogboro do recuse/disqualify himself from further adjudicating over this matter, the applicant having lost confidence on the impartiality of His Lordship to determine this case.
“A consequential order that the case file relating to the matter be returned to the Administrative Judge of the Federal High Court Lagos Division for reassignment to another Judge of the Court for continuation of the matter.”
The grounds upon which the application was brought were that on July 20, 2022, the matter came up for Hearing of pending Applications.
The counsel to the plaintiffs informed the court of the pendency of an Application for Stay of proceedings filed by the Plaintiffs and the need for the said Application to be heard before any other Application filed by any other party in the matter, and that the decision of the lower court on all processes filed before the court would eventually abide by the decision of the Court of Appeal.
The applicant stated that: “The Court attempted to take the Defendant’s Application dated 29 June, 2022, but counsel to the Plaintiffs pointed out to the Court that it would amount to refusing the Application for Stay of Proceedings even without hearing same.
“Counsel to the Defendants then urged the court to make an Interim Order suspending payment without determining their Application dated June 29, 2022, an oral Application which was in the nature of the same Application dated 29 June, 2022.
“In reaction, Counsel to the Plaintiffs told the Court that the Court being a court of record had no jurisdiction to grant such prayer without a formal Application, where the Plaintiffs already joined issues on the defendants’ Application and in view of the Application for Stay of Proceedings.”
