The Kano State Upper Shari’ah Court has issued an order for the arrest of a customs officer, Yusuf Ismail Mai Biscuit, for failing to appear in court over a property ownership case filed against him.
The presiding judge, Garba Hamza Malafa, gave the order pursuant to the prayer by counsel to the applicant, Abdullahi Shehu Aliyu.
He said the applicant, Aliyu, approached the court praying for its intervention, alleging that the defendant threatened to eject him from his property No 1,136 C located at Kawaji layout, in Nassarawa LGA of Kano State.
He further alleged that Yusuf Ismail Mai Biscuit pasted with red paint on the wall of his residence, commanding him to vacate from his property despite the fact that he obtained the property legally from the original owner of the property.
Berger asking for N1.3trn to complete Abuja-Kaduna-Kano highway — Minister
Demolition: Kano traders petition police against Gov Yusuf, Kwankwaso, others
When the case came up on Thursday for mention, counsel to the applicant, Barrister Idris Saleh Bello told the court that the defendant neither attended the court nor was represented.
He prayed the court to use its discretionary power by affecting the bench warrant against the defendant.
He also said his prayer was pursuant to the provision of section 352 of ACJL 2019.
Barrister Bello argued that the Bailiff of the court served the defendant with the court summons, urging him to attend the court on the 4th of January.
“We are all aware that everyone is governed by the rule of law, now it is 10am and the defendant was duly informed in the summon paper that the court will commence sitting by 9am. His failure to attend the court today without any reason is a contempt of court, which is criminal in nature.” The lawyer argued.
Consequently, the court enquired from the bailiff, who confirmed that he served the defendant with the summon paper hand to hand. He instantly showed the court the proof of the service.
The presiding judge, Garba Hamza Malafa ordered the police to arrest the defendant as prayed.
“Although the defendant was neither in court and not represented without any ground, the bailiff affirmed to the court that he served the summons on the defendant. This case is a direct complaint from the complainant’s counsel. It is therefore crucial for the defendant to attend the court” Malafa concluded.
The court adjourned to 8th of January for mention.
