SaharaReporters had reported that Emefiele was due to appear before a Federal High Court in Abuja today (Wednesday) in respect of contempt proceedings involving a $53 million judgment debt.
Nigeria's Central Bank Governor, Mr Godwin Emefiele, has appealed against the order of a Federal High Court compelling his appearance in a $53 million judgment debt proceedings before the Abuja division of the Court of Appeal.
SaharaReporters had reported that Emefiele was due to appear before a Federal High Court in Abuja today (Wednesday) in respect of contempt proceedings involving a $53 million judgment debt.
SaharaReporters reported that a legal practitioner, Joe Agi, SAN, had obtained a judgment summons against the CBN governor following his alleged refusal to obey the order of the court for the payment of the judgment debt.
The judgment summons, now a subject of an appeal, is in respect of suit NO: FHC/ABJ/CS/1193/2017, between Mr Agi against Linas International Ltd, the Minister of Finance and the Central Bank of Nigeria.
Justice Inyang Ekwo who issued the judgment summons in October 2022 ordered the CBN governor to appear before his court on January 18, 2023.
Following the appeal against the summons, the matter before the trial court was on Wednesday adjourned to March 20, 2023.
The CBN governor is now asking the appellate court to set aside the order of the lower court.
Daily Sun reports that Emefiele in his notice of appeal which is predicated on three grounds and dated October 27, 2020, the CBN governor contended that the trial judge erred in law and occasioned a miscarriage of justice when it made an order compelling his attendance in court.
Emefiele informed the 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, place 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.
On this ground, he drew the attention of the appellate court to his application filed on January 27, 2020, challenging the jurisdiction of the court as well as the service of forms 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 to set aside the issuance and service of forms 13 and 15 on him, on the basis that the same ought not to have been issued during the pendency of the two mentioned appeals and the pending motions on notice for a 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 prayed the appellate court to allow his appeal and set aside the orders made by the Federal High Court.