By Nsan Ndoma-Neji, Calabar
The management of the University of Calabar Teaching Hospital, UCTH, has dragged the contractor who constructed the UCTH Isolation Centre, Obi Achara Nigeria Limited, before another high court sitting in Calabar.
Obi Achara Nigeria Limited and the management of the the UCTH had been having a running battle over the delay in payment of the N68 million contract sum, which theTeaching Hospital management had for some time now being finding difficult to defray.
Angered with the development, Obi Achara Nigeria Limited, claimant in the matter, approached the court to enable it get the debt redeemed, but unfortunately, parties in the imbroglio gave each inconveniences, making several appearances in court praying the court to grant their hearts’ desire.
Meanwhile, the case is at a moment still pending at High Court 11, Calabar, before honourable Justice Angela Obi; however, management of the UCTH at the same time has approached the Mary Slessor High Court, to seek for a relist of Suit No.HC/104/2020, which was still pending before another court in Calabar.
However, when the matter was called by the court for hearing in one of the high courts situated along the Mary Slessor Road Calabar, notwithstanding the the fact that the case had earlier been discontinued by a high court presided over by honorable Justice Abua Elias, because parties involved in the matter failed to show up in court and the court had no option than to discontinue the matter, the UCTH management prayed for a relist of the case for the purpose of being indemnified with cost.
However, tresiding judge, Justice Abua adjourned the matter to July 20, to enable the court look into the matter to consider whether the application for relist of the matter would be given a nod or not.
In another development, council to UCTH Dafe Diegbe, in his defense, said that his client did not have the opportunity to apply for cost when the matter was discontinued.
He said, “The matter was struck out in the day where no party was in court and before the matter was struck out we ought to have been indemnified first.
“No cost was awarded to us when the matter was struck out, so we are coming back to apply for the relisting of the matter for the purpose of hearing us in the issue of cost.
“The matter is not alive and was struck out, so we are applying to relist it so we can ask for cost.”
But reacting to Digbe’s claim, counsel to the claimant, Eta Akpama, while fielding question from journalists shortly after the matter was adjourned by the presiding judge, stressed that his client has already filed in its response and is strongly against relisting.
Akpama said that the subject matter is pending before another judge, adding that his his client has filed an application where it is seeking for the case to be strick out.
He said, “We have filed our response to the application for the relisting of the matter.
“We are strongly against the matter being relisted when HC/216/2020 on the same subject matter is pending before another court of competent jurisdiction involving the same issues and parties.”
