Sanusi loses bid to get court to re-instate him
Sanusi had filed the motion on February 24, 2014, before the court, seeking an order of interlocutory injunction restraining the defendants from obstructing, disturbing, stopping or preventing him in any manner whatsoever, from performing the functions as the Governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria and enjoying in full, the statutory powers and privileges attached to the office.
He had urged the court to expeditiously grant his interlocutory application, as he maintained that any delay might cause irreparable and serious damage and mischief on him in the exercise of his statutory duties as the CBN Governor.
Delivering the ruling on the application ex-parte Wednesday, the court presided over by Justice Gabriel Kolawole was of the view that the court has not only the judicial powers to declare the suspension unlawful, but to order that the plaintiff be returned to perform his duties as the Governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria.
He further held that "the court can also, even where the tenure had lapsed, order the defendants to pay the plaintiffs such remunerations and allowances, this is on the basis that the plaintiff suspension also carries with it the plaintiff's stoppage of remuneration and allowances.
On the reliefs sought, the trial judge however said he felt hesitant and constrained to grant the plaintiff's motion ex-parte.
According to the trial judge, "it is unsafe, judicially speaking to embark on far reaching interim orders, which have all the attributes of a mandatory injunction without according the defendants a hearing.
One other issue that the court would like to raise when defendants have been duly served with the originating summons and motion on notice is whether in the light of the Third Alteration Act Number 20 of the Constitution of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), whether the Federal High Court notwithstanding the questions the plaintiff has set down for determination in its originating summons still has the jurisdiction to entertain the plaintiff suit.
In light of the views expressed and the analysis, the court said it will rather decline to review the plaintiff's motion ex-parte and direct that the motion be served on the defendants, when served on the defendants as early as March 12, 2014, the plaintiff shall effect service of the originating summons on the defendants together with the motion on notice.
