Our judiciary should do better, but where do we start from?

By Kunke Edun, SAN

I recently appeared before a Judge outside Warri. It was a very simple issue, or so I thought. One of the defendants filed a motion to amend his statement of defence to bring in a counterclaim. I did not file a counter-affidavit but informed the Court that I would oppose the application on points of law with the leave of the Court.

The Court advised that I file my processes since I was going to oppose because, according to her, the High Court Rules of Delta State did not make provision for oral argument. I respectfully urged the Court that the Court has the discretion to grant leave to argue on points of law when it will be in the interest of Justice and, more importantly, when the reason for my opposition is based on the records of the Court, and therefore, there is no need to file anything.

A Court always has inherent power to hear oral argument.

This case is 8 years old. The matter has been adjourned several times by the Judge for trial, but on the eve of each of the trial dates, the Defendants will file something to just truncate the trial.

Now, the reason for the opposition is that the Defendant/Applicant never filed any statement of defence in the first place, so there cannot be a motion to amend what does not exist. The Defendant admitted this fact but said that the proper procedure is that I formally object. Furthermore, the motion did not contain any prayer for extension of time to file a counterclaim, assuming there was a statement of defence originally filed.

I know of many Judges who will not hesitate to advise the Applicant to withdraw the motion and proceed to trial, as trial was already set for that day, but such never happened in the case. An 8 years case.

Many things are happening on the bench, and lawyers are the ones helping the bench destroy the legal profession.

In Natasha’s case, I saw a Judge who exhibited reluctance or is it fear? There is an order directing the Senate to recall Senator Natasha. Was that order necessary? I do not think so.

The Court ought to have proceeded based on its findings that the 6-month suspension period was excessive, to make a positive and direct order directing Senator Natasha to resume her legislative duties forthwith and restrain the Senate from preventing her from resuming.

Our judiciary should do better. Where do we start? The appointment process?