Legal issue

The Lagosheat blog has received the following document from counsel acting on behalf of Asika Evans. The document has been forwarded to our counsel to investigate. In the interim, the page concerning Asika Evans has been taken down. We will keep you informed.


    • Robert B
    • January 5th, 2012

    I should rather argue that great constraint be exercised as this is a legal issue and the recent Law at the senate can give a legal biting. A judge can give an order restraining a publication without hearing the other side. It is for the other side to challenge the order if they have a case. However, if one has gone to such a length to clear his name, perhaps, we need to look again and really see if the matters under consideration are truly genuine and the accusations really true. As an interested reader here, I think that he who is not against us is for us. We can allow the guy to rest and fight more for the rights that are being threatened at the Senate. After all, many guys in this site said they had encountered him and he was a good guy. Just one had a case against him. Do we ignore the testimony of the many for just that of one? My opinion!

    • Anuoluwapo
    • January 5th, 2012

    I find this so called court order very curious. What happens to the germane principle of law ‘audi alteram partem’ which translate ‘hear the other side’.

    I have every reason to believe this order is a blatant forgery.

    First the document is not a Certified True Copy.

    First the name of the Judge was not supplied. If you look at Page 2 of the document where the Judge signed, his name was given as Hon…………..(blank blank blank)!

    Assuming without conceding that the document is genuine, it is curious again that a prayer for an Order of Mandamus is granted. Generally, such a petition for a mandamus order is made to compel a judicial or government officer to perform a duty owed to the petitioner. It is also elementary law that an order granted ex parte cannot act as a perpetual stay/injunction preventing a party from doing a particular act. At best it can only stop you for a period until the other side is heard then the substantive application will then be argued on its merit and the Judge will proceed to give judgement in favour of the party with a better case. To do otherwise is to deny the Respondent the right to fair hearing as guaranteed by the 1999 Constitution of the FRN (as Amended). The right to fair hearing is inalienable.

    I honestly do not believe any Judicial Officer will be willing to put his job on the line by making such a reckless Order. These boys and their antics! I just cant stop laughing!

  1. Shame they couldn’t get the name of the site correct. World Press??

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: