The National Industrial Court of Nigeria, located in Kano, has turned down requests for interim orders from former members of the Kano State Executive Council, aiming to block the government from reclaiming vehicles that were allocated to them during their tenure.
Justice Mahmood Abba Namtari announced the verdict on Monday after reviewing several ex parte applications submitted by the ex-commissioners.
The applications, which emerged from related circumstances and sought similar outcomes, were joined together for consideration.
In a concise ruling, the judge declined to grant the interim injunctions and instructed that the proceedings be scheduled for a notice hearing, assuring all parties the chance to present their arguments before any provisional relief is decided.
The next hearing has been set for March 10, 2026.
Defendants in the case include the Attorney General of Kano State, the state's Governor, and the Kano State Public Complaints and Anti-Corruption Commission.
Represented by Suraj Sa'ed, SAN, the former commissioners included Dr. Yusuf Ibrahim K/Mata, who was the Commissioner for Science, Technology and Innovation; AVM Ibrahim Umar, the former Commissioner for Internal Security; Nasir Sule Garo, former Commissioner for Special Duties; Adamu Aliyu Kibiya, who served as the Commissioner for Humanitarian Affairs and Poverty Alleviation; and Mustapha Rabi'u Musa Kwankwaso, the former Commissioner for Youth and Sports.
They informed the court that they had received directives from the Secretary to the State Government requesting the return of all official vehicles in their possession.
Additionally, they stated that the Kano State Public Complaints and Anti- Corruption Commission had communicated that measures might be taken to recover state property if compliance was not met.
Through motions according to Order 17 Rule 1 of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria (Civil Procedure Rules 2017), the claimants sought interim injunctions to prevent the respondents from taking action to recover the vehicles until their substantive motions are addressed.
Counsel for the applicants contended that interim injunctions serve to maintain the status quo until the court resolves the substantive rights involved.
They argued that the balance of convenience favored the applicants, appealing for judicial intervention in the interest of justice.
In denying the ex parte applications, Justice Namtari highlighted the importance of procedural justice, mandating that the respondents be notified.
This ruling indicates that no interim protection will be granted without first allowing feedback from the state government and other defendants.
The decision does not settle whether the former commissioners have a legal right to keep the vehicles; rather, it reflects the court's preference for a full hearing prior to any temporary or substantive ruling.
Comments (0)
You must be logged in to comment.
Be the first to comment on this article!