Jurisdictional Controversy Enter Igini Vs. Imuse Libel Suit

The ongoing N5 billion libel suit filed by former Resident Electoral Commissioner Mike Igini against former Edo State All Progressives Congress (APC) Chairman David Imuse has spotlighted significant concerns regarding judicial administration and equity.

Central to the controversy is the transfer of the erstwhile presiding judge, Justice Vestee Eboreime of Edo State High Court 8 to the Okada Division of the Edo High Court, followed by her return to the case. This has raised crucial questions about jurisdictional authority and the administration of justice.

The legal battle between Igini and Imuse centers on accusations of libel, with Igini seeking N5 billion in damages. However, the focus has shifted to procedural irregularities after the presiding judge was transferred, yet continued to oversee the case.

Imuse, through his counsel, had challenged the jurisdiction of the court to entertain the matter on the grounds that the estwhile presiding judge was formally transferred to the Okada Division of the Edo High Court before her return.

The counsel argued that having been previously transferred to the Okada Division of the High Court, the judge could not continue with the case, especially when the matter had not entered the defense stage.

Indications are that when matters are at the defense stage, the case could be continued by the judge so transferred. This situation has prompted legal experts and observers to question the validity and legality of her honorable justice’s continued involvement in the case.

Moreover, the case is not an isolated incident in Edo State. A parallel situation has emerged in the legal dispute involving the suspended Enigie (dukes) of Benin Kingdom against Oba Ewuare II. In this instance, the case was reassigned to a new judge following the transfer of the original judge, necessitating the case to start afresh. Legal analysts argue that a consistent application of this practice should be observed across all cases, including the Igini vs. Imuse matter.

Presiding over a case post-transfer carries serious legal implications:

1. Jurisdictional Overreach: A judge who continues to preside over a case after being officially transferred to another court may be acting outside their jurisdiction. This could be interpreted as an abuse of power and raise questions about the judge’s authority to make legal decisions in the case.

2. Null and Void Rulings: Any orders or rulings issued by a judge after their transfer may be considered null and void. This situation could lead to appeals and potentially necessitate a retrial, as the transferred judge no longer has the legal capacity to adjudicate the case.

3. Grounds for Mistrial: The continued involvement of a transferred judge could be grounds for a mistrial or a successful appeal by one of the parties. They could argue that the judge lacked the necessary jurisdiction, thereby undermining the fairness and integrity of the judicial process.

4. Contempt of Transfer Order: Ignoring a transfer order and continuing to preside over a case could be viewed as contempt of the judicial authority that issued the transfer. This conduct might result in disciplinary actions against the judge by the judicial council or other oversight bodies.

5. Vulnerable Judgments: If a case proceeds to judgment with a transferred judge still presiding, the final ruling could be vulnerable to being overturned on appeal. The jurisdictional lapse would provide strong grounds for questioning the validity of the judgment.

These implications highlight the necessity for clear and consistent judicial practices. Ensuring that judges adhere to transfer orders is essential to maintain public confidence in the legal system and to uphold the principles of justice and equity. The Igini vs. Imuse case underscores the critical need for reforms that promote transparency and accountability within the judiciary, ensuring that all cases are handled with the utmost fairness and in accordance with the law.