Apara Kingdom Stool: Court Orders Substituting Service

A Port Harcourt
High Court, Rivers State, presided over by Justice B.G. Diepiri, has ordered the plaintiff in the Apara Kingdom’s legal tussle, Eze Gift Ezighwo Johnson to serve the 3rd defendant in the matter, Eze Chike Worlu-Wodo through subsisting service in Independent Monitor newspaper.
Justice Diepiri also ordered that the newspaper’s publication is to be pasted within the premises of the 3rd defendant within the Apara Kingdom in the state.
The trial judge gave the order yesterday while ruling on an exparte motion brought by the counsel to the plaintiff, Prof A. Amuda-Kannike (SAN) seeking the leave of the court to serve the 3rd defendant through a substituting service.
The Senior Advocate of Nigeria while moving the motion, told the court that the application was done after all efforts by the court bailiff to serve the 3rd defendant failed, adding that both the 1st and 2nd defendants in the matter had been served.
He urged the court to grant the application in order to fast-track the hearing of the substantive suit which, according to him, bordered on chieftaincy matter.
The plaintiff, Eze Gift Ezighwo Johnson sued the State Governor and the Commissioner for Chieftaincy and Community Affairs who are 1st and 2nd defendants in the matter for purportedly dethroning him as the Paramount Ruler of Ekinigbo/Apara Kingdom and appointed the 3rd defendant, Chike Worlu-Wodo as the Paramount Ruler.
Speaking to newsmen shortly after yesterday’s sitting, counsel to the plaintiff, Prof A. Amuda-Kannike (SAN) said the state government violated the human right of his client to fair hearing, adding that the state Chieftaincy Law provides that a panel or commission of inquiry be set up to hear the parties before the state government can take any decision.
Prof Amuda-Kannike (SAN) said the state government can not remove his client based on a mere rumour that people protested against him, adding that they were in court to seek redress to government’s action.
He also decried what he described as demotion of the stool being occupied by his client, adding that demoting the stool to a second class was not acceptable to them.
The matter was adjourned to 21st November, 2016 for mention.