Kano State Government, along with four local government councils (LGs), has petitioned the Federal High Court, Abuja, to dismiss a suit filed by 44 LGAs in the state, citing a lack of jurisdiction.
The four opposing LGs—Bebeji, Gwale, Nasarawa, and Sumaila—filed separate preliminary objections, urging Justice Donatus Okorowo to decline jurisdiction in the matter. The LGs are listed as the 4th, 18th, 31st and 36th plaintiffs in the suit.
The suit, marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/1733/2023, initiated on December 28, 2023, by the 44 LGs and the Association of Local Government of Nigeria (ALGON), Kano State Chapter, seeks an order restraining the Kano State government, the Kano State Attorney-General, and the Commissioner for Justice, listed as 1st to 3rd defendants respectively, from controlling, managing, disbursing, and spending funds and allocations belonging to the 44 LGs in the state’s joint account.
The defendants are also required to show cause why restraining orders should not be granted.
In their preliminary objections, the 1st and 2nd defendants argued that the court lacked jurisdiction as the matter related to the revenue/funds of the 44 LGs, Kano State government, and its agencies.
They contended that, according to Section 251(1) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), the court only had jurisdiction over matters relating to the revenue of the government of the federation or any of its agencies.
The defendants asserted that neither the plaintiffs nor the defendants were part of the government of the federation or its agencies, and therefore, the court lacked jurisdiction over the disputes.
Additionally, they claimed that the court had no power to determine the matter, given the existence of pending appeals before the Supreme Court. The state government and A-G described the suit as “manifestly incompetent.”
The four LGs, in their preliminary objection, sought an order declaring that the matter was purportedly instituted without their leave and consent. They urged the court to decline jurisdiction and strike out the suit, arguing that the 4th, 18th, 31st, and 36th plaintiffs/applicants did not authorize any counsel to institute the suit on their behalf. They emphasized that the subject matter of the suit fell within the operations and affairs of the state and local government, not the Federal Government or its agencies.
During the hearing, the plaintiff’s counsel informed the court of receiving all processes from the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd defendants, including an affidavit to show cause. The lawyer also filed an application to strike out the names of the four LGs as plaintiffs in the suit and requested an adjournment to respond to other processes served on them.
Counsel for the four LGs sought an adjournment to study the motion seeking to strike out their clients’ names and determine if it would be opposed. He had previously filed a preliminary objection challenging the entire suit.
The court ruled to refer the case file back to the registry for reassignment, emphasizing that all cases stopped as soon as the Christmas vacation ended on January 5.
NAN
