The Applicant’s aver that the Respondent’s failed to carry out investigations on the
owner of the landed property before demolishing same and that they have not
charged the suspect or any of the Applicants to Court. Furthermore, the Applicants
state that there is nothing to show that any of them have been convicted of any
offence to warrant the confiscation and demolition of their house and property, and
thereby turning them to destitute and internally displaced persons.
The Applicants aver that they have been subjected to terrible sleeping conditions as
a result of the arbitrary deprivation of their properties by agents of the Respondent’s.
On the 17th of December 2014, the Applicants filed an application for leave to prove
their case since the Respondents have failed to put up a defense. They also prayed
for an expedited hearing.
By an application dated the 12th of February 2015, the 1st Respondent prayed this
honorable Court for leave to file its defense and written address out of time and urged
the Court not to visit the sin of counsel on the Respondent.
In their defense, the Respondents denied the Applicants claims seriatim and further
state that at that point in time, kidnapping became a menace to the people of Imo
State in Nigeria and lives of indigenes and visitors were threatened as a result of
which investors started leaving the state in troops for fear of their life.
That Ohaji Egbema where the Applicants hail from became the center stage for
kidnapping activities. That an anti-kidnapping law was passed in 2009 to curb this
crime.
The Respondents vehemently denied the alleged act of 19th of December 2012 or
any other day and denied being in custody of the 1st Applicant’s son (Obinna
Kasarachi Onwuham) and that they would not have embarked on such an exercise
without the co-operation and involvement of the Eze (Traditional Ruler of the
Community) by virtue of traditional rulers’ relevance in the administration of the
State. The Respondents further argued that none of them nor their agents were at the
scene at any point in time as alleged by the Applicants. They denied the alleged act
of 12th April 2014 and put the Applicants to the strictest proof.
The Respondents attached a document to its application which shows that a security
initiative known as Operation Rescue Imo was launched and that the Government
distributed 100 brand new Hilux Patrol Vehicles and other security gadgets to
security operatives and Communities. The said security initiative is a coalition of the
police, soldiers, the State Security Service, and Civil defense Corps.
On the 11th of June 2015, the Respondents filed a notice of Preliminary Objection
on the following grounds:
4