Discordant tunes have continued to trail the suit initiated by some shareholders of African Petroleum Plc, at the Federal High Court, Lagos challenging the election of Alhaji Aliko Dangote as the president of the Nigerian Stock Exchange, (NSE), as the counsel to Dangote, Chief Seyi Sowemimo (SAN) has asked the trial judge to hands off the suit.

Trial judge, Justice Mohammed Liman had early in the month in its ruling on an application by Sowemimo for a stay of proceeding, held that he did not see any basis in this application, all the authorities cited but counsel have failed to avail him and accordingly this application is refused and is accordingly dismissed.

The Court had adjourned till February 18, 2010 for hearing on the application for the quash of Dangote's election as NSE president.

But Chief Sowemimo at the weekend petitioned the chief judge of the court, accusing the trial judge of bias. He also asked the CJ to transfer the matter to another judge.

Justice Liman in his ruling of February 1, 2010, insisted that it was in the interest of justice to go ahead with the matter.

But The Guardian gathered that the judge had been ordered to respond to the petition, a development one of the plaintiffs in the matter, said was aimed at ensuring that the matter did not go on, wondering why the defendants counsel were hell-bent on blackmailing the judge for just course.

By the petition, the court may not be able to hear the suit, as the judge would be battling to respond to the petition and by implication, hearing in the matter will not go on, which may be what the defendants want to achieve.

It will be recalled that on February 1, when the court in its ruling, insisted on hearing the application by the plaintiffs for the quashing of Dangote's election as NSE president, shortly after the court proceeding, one of the defendants counsel, threatened outside the court room, that they would stop the judge from hearing the matter, no matter what it took.

On the said day, counsel to the plaintiffs, Mr. Onyebuchi Aneakor was overheard telling the defendant's counsel that if they had any problem with the ruling, that they were at liberty to appeal same, more so as it was the proper thing to do and not to resort to threats of stopping the judge from hearing the matter at all cost.

Justice Liman had on August 4 ordered parties to maintain the status quo pending the final determination of a suit filed by some aggrieved shareholders of AP, against Dangote, Nova Finance and Securities Limited and others over alleged massive manipulation of AP shares.

However, on August 6, Dangote was elected as NSE president, a development that prompted the shareholders to file a motion to set aside the election on August 7, on the ground that the election was conducted in defiance of a subsisting court order that parties should maintain the status quo.

But Dangote and others had also filed preliminary objection to the suit and urged the court to first hear the preliminary objection before the motion to set aside the election, but Justice Liman had, while ruling on priority of application, ordered the motion to set aside the election to be heard first.

Liman had said, "my attention has been drawn to the election held on August 6, notwithstanding the order of this court. To my mind, the nature of the application seeking to set aside the election is not to punish anybody but to undue what was done in defiance of subsisting order. The application is of paramount importance and must be heard first," the court held.

But ruling on the application for stay, the court said, "the rest of this appeal is the determination of the question whether jurisdictional challenge could be taken together with the application for a mandatory injunction. At this stage of the proceedings, the substantive matter has not yet set down for trial, the rule of the Federal high Court (Order 29 Rule (1) (b)) allows jurisdictional question to be taken together with the substantive suit.

These new rules have come to in force well after the judicial pronouncement on the need to determine jurisdiction first. But the 2009 rules affirmatively recognise the potential abuse or manipulation of this principle to delay trial and so altered the practice in this regard.

"Judicial attitude toward this practice had even begun to change with the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Dapialong Vs Dariye (2007) 27 WLRN.

"So, as far as the practice in the Federal High Court is concerned, granting a stay merely because there is an appeal on jurisdiction would have to require a special proof that refusal to grant stay will strike at the fundamental right of appeal, that it would destroy the party's right to appeal.

"In this case, I have observed the morbid fear exercised by counsel as if the outcome of this case is predetermined and so it is not the exercise of the right of appeal per se, that counsel seems to be pursuing, but a deliberate stratagem subtly employed to frustrate the hearing of the matters before the court.

" I think generally, counsel practising in Nigeria, need to see themselves first as officers of the court and to discharge their duty in the best way and manner that would assist the court to do justice to the parties, regardless of the outcome of the case.

"Judges are not parties to a proceeding, the court is the sacred institution, the temple in which learned counsel practise their profession and so, they should avoid creating impression during the conduct of their cases as if they have attributed to the court the character of partisanship. I do not see any basis in this application, all the authorities cited by counsel have failed to avail him and accordingly this application is refused and is accordingly dismissed," he said.