The appellant, then a judge of the Rivers state High court of Justice was presiding over a case involving Mrs. Baby B. Amadi Woko v. Mrs. Catherine Acle and others, in the course of hearing he ordered for the issuance and service of civil subpoena on the 1st respondent at his own instance without the application of any of the parties to the case.
When the 1st respondent failed to appear, he ordered a bench warrant to be issued for the arrest of the 1st respondent who was not a party to the case. As a result, the 1st respondent filed an application for the enforcement of his fundamental human right via a motion ex-parte at the River State High Court of Justice presided by Mary Odili, (as he then was) where he sought the following reliefs:
That the issue and service of civil subpoena on the application by the Hon. Justice (Ms) Sotonye Denton-west in civil suit N0. PHC/891/95 between Ms. Baby B. Amadi Woko and Mrs. Catherine Akor and Ors in which the application is not a party and not required to give evidence by either the
-
1
Plaintiff or the defendants is a denial of right to fair hearing, a threat to the liberty of the applicant and threat to his freedom of movement;
-
2
Setting aside the subpoena on the ground that it is unconstitutional, illegal and a breach of the applicant's fundamental rights.
-
3
Injunction restraining the respondent by themselves, their servants and agents from compelling the attendance of the application in response to the civil subpoena.
-
4
Declaring that the applicant cannot be compelled to discuss the source of his information published at pages 6 and 7 in vol. 5 no. 19 of the Lawfair Journal of July/August 1997".
The learned judge granted the ex-parte application and adjourned the motion on Notice for hearing. Before the hearing of the motion on Notice, the appellant filed a preliminary objection in which it was contended that the trial court has no jurisdiction to entertain the action. The trial court dismissed the preliminary objection. The appellant dissatisfied with the ruling appealed to the court of Appeal Port-Harcourt Division. The Court of Appeal, now lower court, dismissed the appeal, in conclusion the court held as follows:-
"In the end result, this appeal is unmeritorious and it is accordingly dismissed. I hereby affirm the ruling of the lower court dismissing the appellant's preliminary objection as being premature. The case which was hitherto stalled as a result of the appeal is hereby remitted to the Hon. Chief Judge of River state for assignment to another Judge for hearing forthwith".
It is against this decision that the appellant has again appealed to this court.
