An Oyo State High Court sitting in Ibadan on Friday fixed Tuesday, October 14, for ruling on a series of contentious applications filed by the United Bank for Africa (UBA) Plc and other defendants in a suit brought by the Attorney General of Osun State and one other claimant.

The applications before the court include one filed by UBA seeking an adjournment sine die and another challenging the court’s jurisdiction filed by Mr. Kazeem Gbadamosi (SAN), counsel to the sacked local council chairmen elected on the platform of the All Progressives Congress (APC).

Some other parties, including the sacked chairmen and the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) also filed applications seeking to be joined in the suit.

The UBA, while asking for the case to be adjourned indefinitely, told the court that the local council funds in contention were still in its safe custody and untouched by any party.

Presiding judge, Justice Ladiran Akintola, said the ruling date was set after due consultations with all parties to allow sufficient time for a well-considered ruling on the various applications.

The court also extended its order of Interim Injunction against UBA Plc until October 14, maintaining a no-debit restriction on the 30 bank accounts into which the withheld Osun State local council allocations were paid by the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN).

During Friday’s proceedings, counsel to UBA, Mr. Mutalib Ojo (SAN), reminded the court of his earlier application that the matter be adjourned sine die pending the judgment of the Supreme Court on a related case.

Ojo noted that the substantive dispute had already been heard by the Supreme Court, which has reserved judgment, adding that any ruling by the lower court might conflict with the Supreme Court’s eventual decision.

According to him, “if this High Court proceeds to hear the suit, there is a 50-50 chance that whatever decision it makes may conflict with the outcome of the Supreme Court. The issue here concerns the hierarchy of courts. Proceeding further may amount to a waste of judicial time since the Supreme Court’s decision will ultimately prevail.”

He, therefore, urged the court to adjourn the matter indefinitely, assuring that the funds in question were still in the safe custody of UBA and untouched by any party.

However, counsel to the sacked local council chairmen, Gbadamosi, opposed the application, urging the court not to grant it until the issue of jurisdiction had been addressed. He described the bank’s application as “an anomaly” that should not be entertained.

He argued: “From the defendants’ originating summons, it is clear that there is a pending suit before the Supreme Court upon which this current case and its reliefs are predicated. This present suit was filed subsequently after the Supreme Court case was instituted. That in itself constitutes an abuse of court process which this court must not condone.”

Counsel to the plaintiffs, Mr. Musibau Adetunmbi (SAN), countered the submission, explaining that his clients approached the court only after discovering that federal agencies, including the CBN and the Accountant General of the Federation, had transferred the disputed funds to UBA despite the pending case at the Supreme Court.

“If the money had not been moved from the CBN, we would not have come before this court. The Supreme Court does not have original jurisdiction over UBA, but this High Court does, hence our action,” Adetunmbi stated.

He added that the suit could not be deemed an abuse of process since it arose from new facts, specifically, the “unlawful” movement of funds to UBA by federal agencies.

After hearing the arguments by all the counsel, Justice Akintola retired briefly to his chambers before adjourning the matter for ruling on Tuesday next week. (The Guardian)