By Kunle Olasanmi, Abuja
Justice John Tsoho of a Federal High Court in Abuja will on May 10 determine whether or not to stay proceedings in the legal action instituted by the suspended Chairman of the House of Representatives Committee on Appropriation, Hon Abdulmumuni Jibrin challenging the legality of his suspension.
The court fixed the date yesterday after hearing arguments for and against an application file by two members of the House, Hon. Nicholas Ossai, Chairman House Committee on Ethics and Hon. Oker Jev who are asking the court to put the hearing of the substantive matter on hold.
They are asking the court to stay hearing in the matter pending when the determination of their interlocutory appeal pending before the Court of Appeal.
In their motion for stay of proceedings filed by their counsel, Mr Akeem Kareem, the two lawmakers informed the court that they had already filed a notice of appeal against the ruling of the court delivered on April 13 which disallowed them from joining the suit as interested parties.
They claimed, through their counsel that they were dissatisfied with the ruling of the court which shut them out hence their decision to go on appeal to resolve the issue of joinder.
At the resumed hearing of the matter, the two applicants submitted that their interest will be greatly jeopadised if the court should go ahead and hear the substantive matter without first waiting for the resolution of the appeal which they claimed was their fundamental right.
They insisted that it would be against the principles of fair hearing if their application for stay of proceedings was not first determined one way or the other by the court before proceeding with the substantive matter.
The position of the two lawmakers in seeking the stay of proceedings was supported by the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Hon. Yakubu Dogara and the house itself.
Dogara, through his counsel, Mr Kalu Onuoha told Justice John Tsoho that he had been served with the motion seeking the stay of proceedings and that he needed time to respond to it as required by law arguing that it was the fundamental right of the two applicants to be fairly heard by the court in the application.