Court Rejects Ex-Abia Commissioner’s Bid To Void Otti’s N100bn Defamation Suit

The Federal Capital Territory High Court, Jabi, has dismissed an application by former Abia State Commissioner for Information, Eze Chikamnayo, seeking to strike out Governor Alex Otti’s N100bn defamation suit on the ground that the originating processes were incompetent.

Justice J. E. Obanor, in a ruling delivered on Friday, held that the pre-action counselling certificate accompanying the writ of summons substantially complied with the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory Civil Procedure Rules, 2025, and that any defect alleged by the defendant amounted, at most, to an irregularity that could not rob the court of jurisdiction.

“I therefore find that the Pre-Action Counselling Certificate accompanying the originating process substantially complies with the requirements of the Rules and achieves the very purpose for which it was introduced. The objection raised by the Defendant/Applicant is without merit.

“Accordingly, this application fails and is hereby dismissed,” the judge ruled.

Chikamnayo, in the certified true copy of the ruling seen by THE WHISTLER, had asked the court to strike out the writ of summons and decline jurisdiction in the matter.

He argued that the pre-action counselling certificate filed by Governor Otti did not comply with Order II Rule 8 of the FCT High Court Civil Procedure Rules, 2025.

The defendant argued that the certificate was signed by the claimant’s counsel and a witness instead of Governor Otti himself, thereby making both the certificate and the writ incompetent.

His counsel relied on several cases, including Nkemdilim v. Madukolu and Oloja and others v. Governor of Benue State and others, in contending that compliance with the rule was a condition precedent to the commencement of the suit and the court’s assumption of jurisdiction.

The defence also maintained that the individual who signed the certificate on behalf of the claimant was not a party to the suit and therefore lacked the capacity to do so.

Governor Otti, however, opposed the application in a counter-affidavit. He argued that no provision of the rules rendered a writ incompetent because of an alleged defect in the pre-action counselling certificate.

His legal team submitted that the certificate was duly signed by the claimant’s authorised representative, whose actions bound the claimant.

They further contended that any defect in the certificate was a mere irregularity that did not invalidate the proceedings and urged the court to prioritise substantial justice over technical objections.

In resolving the dispute, Justice Obanor first rejected the defendant’s argument that portions of the claimant’s counter-affidavit offended Section 115(2) of the Evidence Act.

The judge held that the challenged paragraphs merely stated facts and explained the circumstances surrounding the execution of the pre-action counselling certificate.

“I have carefully examined the challenged paragraphs and I am unable to agree with learned counsel. A fair reading of the Counter-Affidavit reveals that the deponent merely stated facts within his knowledge and responded to the averments contained in the affidavit in support of the application.

“The mere reference to the applicable Rules of Court or the explanation of the circumstances surrounding the execution of the Pre-Action Counselling Certificate does not, without more, transform those depositions into legal arguments or conclusions prohibited by section 115(2) of the Evidence Act. Consequently, I find no merit in the invitation to strike out the said paragraphs.”

On the substantive issue, the court examined Order II Rule 8, which provides:

“A certificate of Pre-action counselling signed by counsel and the litigant shall be filed along with the originating processes where proceedings are initiated by counsel, showing that the parties have been appropriately advised as to the relative strength or weakness of their respective cases, and the counsel shall be personally liable to pay the costs of the proceedings where it turns out to be frivolous, as in Form 6.”

Justice Obanor, however, observed that although the rule refers to signatures by both counsel and the litigant, the prescribed Form 6 itself contains no provision requiring the litigant’s signature.

“Significantly, while Order II Rule 8 refers to a certificate ‘signed by counsel and the litigant’, the prescribed Form 6 contains no provision whatsoever for the litigant’s signature. Rather, the Form requires only the name and signature of the legal practitioner, who certifies that he has advised his client and undertakes personal responsibility in the event that the action is frivolous,” the judge held.

The court further held that the purpose of the certificate was to ensure that counsel had properly advised the litigant before commencing the action and had accepted responsibility should the suit prove frivolous.

Justice Obanor noted that a pre-action counselling certificate had in fact accompanied the writ of summons.

He further observed that the defendant’s complaint was not about the absence of the certificate but that it was signed by Governor Otti’s counsel and one Arch Uche Uche, whose witness statement on oath had also been filed with the originating processes.

The judge said Arch Uche Uche had deposed that he had “the consent, mandate and authority of the Claimant to give testimony on the Claimant’s behalf” but added that the court did not need to determine whether that authority extended to signing the certificate because “the certificate itself was duly signed by the Claimant’s counsel, whose certification and undertaking constitute the substance of the requirement under the Rule.”

Justice Obanor said it would have been a different situation if no pre-action counselling certificate was filed at all.