The Kano State Upper Shari’ah Court, today, issued an order for the arrest of an officer of the Nigerian Customs Service, Yusuf Ismail Mai Biscuit, over his failure to attend court proceedings concerning a property ownership case filed against him.
However, the presiding judge, Garba Hamza Malafa, gave the order in respect to the prayer by counsel to the Applicant, Abdullahi Shehu Aliyu, reports Nigerian Tribune.
According to him, the applicant, Aliyu, approached the court praying for its intervention, alleging that the defendant threatened to eject him from his property No 1,136 C located at Kawaji layout, in Nassarawa LGA of Kano State.
The presiding judge alleged that Yusuf Ismail Mai Biscuit pasted with red paint on the wall of his residence, commanding him to vacate from his property despite the fact that he obtained the property legally from the original owner of the property.
However, when the case came up today for mention, counsel to the applicant, Barrister Idris Saleh Bello informed the court that the defendant was neither attending the court nor represented.
Barrister Bello then prayed the court to use its discretionary power by effecting the bench warrant against the defendant.
He also said his prayer was pursuant to the provision of section 352 of ACJL 2019.
Barrister Bello argued that the bailiff of the court served the defendant with the court summons, urging him to attend the court on January 4.
“We are all aware that everyone is governed by the rule of law, now it is 10am and the defendant was duly informed in the summon paper that the court will commence sitting by 9am.”
He then added that his failure to attend the court today without any reason is a contempt of court which is criminal in nature.
Consequently, the Court enquired from the bailiff of the court, who confirmed that he served the defendant with the summon paper hand to hand, which he instantly showed the court the proof of the service.
The presiding judge ordered the Nigeria Police to arrest the defendant as prayed.
“Although the defendant was neither in court and not represented without any ground, the bailiff affirmed to the court that he served the summons on the defendant,” the judge said.
The presiding judge stated that this case is a direct complaint from the complainant’s counsel.
“It is therefore crucial for the defendant to attend the court”.
