THE TRUE NATURE OF SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT ON THE AGN CRISIS

Since Friday, there has been panic all over the federation based on the Supreme Court Judgment on the Fundamental Rights of The General Superintendent of Assemblies of God Nigeria, Rev. Prof. Paul Emeka.

Bar. Dike, explains the judgment.

COURT IS NOT A FATHER CHRISTMAS

GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF EXECUTION OF JUDGMENT. (IN A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT EÑFORCEMENT PROCÈDURE, WHERE THE RÈSPONDÈNT (CHIDI OKÔRÔÀFOR) DID NOT FILE ANY Counter affidavit and dîd not ask for any relief, and consequently the supreme court did not grant them any relief, is it not an act of foolishness to start using police to harrase people in their churches and administrative offices? Pls read and educate yourself.

By execution of a judgment is meant the enforcement of that judgment that is, giving effect to it. It is the process whereby a judgment or order of a court is enforced or given effect to according to law. Most judgments require compliance with their terms. It is only in the case of a declaratory judgment which merely declares what the right of a party is, without imposing any sanction on a defendant or directing either of the parties to do anything that execution is not called for or levied. Also, if there is voluntary compliance, the question of enforcement becomes unnecessary. The aspect of execution of the office of the General Superintendent (Rev. Prof. Paul Emeka) is already in office therefore, it is not executory. Chidi OKOROAFOR did not file Defence, he only came by way of protest (PRELIMNARY OBJECTION) therefore he has nothing to execute. Further more if Chidi OKOROAFOR and co feels they have any thing to execute, let them 

1.   REGISTER THEIR JUDGEMENT AT ENUGU STATE HIGH COURT AND DRAW THE ENROLMENT ORDER, (MEANING, copy out where the court said IT IS HEREBY HELD AS FOLLOWS... CHIDI OKOROAFOR IS HEREBY DECLARED THE GENERAL SUPRITENDENT OF AG NIGERIA.
2.   COURT FURTHER HOLDS THAT CHIDI OKOROAFOR AND CO SHOULD HENCE FORTH TAKE OVER THE HEADQUARTERS OF AG NIG.
where the above statement are not expressly stated or explained, then they have nothing to EXECUTE. COURT IS NOT A FATHER CHRISTMAS.
3.   THE CHURCH IS NOT A PARTY TO THIS SUIT BY THAT WE MEAN u can't see in that suit The Registered trustees of Ag Nigeria, therefore what ever is the outcome of the suit can not be binding on any of our Church properties, its about REV PROF PAUL EMEKA whether he was HEARD FROM OR NOT.


CONCLUSION: if any law enforcement agency approach the church, such law enforcement agency must come with a BAILIF and Possession Order.
The executions dealt with here are not only of judgment, as such, but also of orders of court. All these are governed by the same provisions of the Act/Laws or Rules In fact, the Act defines a �Judgment� as including an order.

For the purpose of executing Court judgments and orders, there are the following officers, the Sheriffs, the Deputy Sheriffs and the Bailiffs.
The Chief Registrar of the Court of a state is the Sheriff.
 Judgments are executed by means of one or more of the various writs of execution directed to the Sheriffs commanding him to do what is necessary to enforce the judgment, or by order of courts as will be discussed later. The bailiffs serve these writs where service is necessary and perform other duties pursuant to the command given to the sheriff. The execution is either against the person of the judgment debtor or against his property. The Forms of the writs are provided for in the schedules to the Act and Rules. Note: Very, very important: The aspect of the administration of the Church, The supreme court simply nullified the APPEAL COURT OBITER & RATHER RULED IN OUR FAVOUR BY NULLIFYING MARCH 6TH, BY NULLIFYING SUSPENSION, DISMISSAL AND OTHER ILLEGAL PRONOUCEMENTS. THE GENERAL SUPRITENDENT REV PROF PAUL EMEKA STILL HAS HIS RIGHT TO DISCHARGE HIS ADMINISTATIVE DUTIES AS GS. BUT FOR PEACE TO REIGN HE REFUSED. IF HE WISHES HE COULD INVOKE HIS SUPERVISORY POWER BY DISSOLVING PRESBETRIESBAND REAPPOINT NEW ONCE.

Parties to Execution:
There are two parties to enforcement of a judgment. These are known as the judgment creditor and the judgment debtor. Almost in every case they are the [parties to the suit, - the successful party and unsuccessful opponent, respectively.
A judgment creditor means any person for the time being entitled to enforce a judgment and a judgment debtor means a person liable under a judgment. The use of the words �creditor� and �debtor� does not imply that the judgment must be for payment of money. The terms therefore are used for every type of judgment or order. Thus, parties to an order of mandamus can be described as judgment creditor and judgment debtor, the former being the person entitled to enforce the order or to see that it is enforced and carried out to the latter, the one liable under the order to carry out the contents of same. A judgment debt itself is a debt or damage of other monetary award which has been pronounced upon by the court of competent jurisdiction. It begins when the court has pronounced its judgment in favour of the plaintiff. Such a debt or damage or award does not become a judgment debt until the court or Judge adjudges the defendant liable to pay it.
There are few exceptional cases in which a judgment creditor or debtor is not a party to the suit. Where, for, example, there is devolution of the rights and liabilities under a judgment as a result of death or otherwise, the successor, in the title of either of the two parties may enforce or be liable under the judgment. Thus, on the death of a judgment debtor before execution, application for execution of the judgment may be made against his legal representative or estate and if the court grants the application, the judgment may be executed accordingly. Notice of this application must be served on the personal representative. For the purpose of this sort of execution the property of the deceased judgment debtor may be attached and sold if the judgment is for money to be paid out of the property.
If no property of the deceased can be found and the legal representative fails to satisfy the court that he has duly applied, such property of the deceased, as shall be proved to have come into his possession, the judgment had been against the legal representative to the extent of the property not duly applied by him in the same manner as if the judgment had been against him personally.
Where the judgment creditor has died, his legal representative may also apply to the court for leave to enforce the judgment. Such application may be made ex parte.
An assignee of judgment can only levy execution if the whole judgment is assigned, but not where the assignment is of part only of the judgment.
Also any person, not being a party to the suit, who obtains an order or in whose favour any order is made, is entitled to enforce obedience to the order by the same process as if he were a party. Conversely, any person not being a party to the suit, against whom obedience to any judgment or order may be enforced, is liable to the same process for obedience to the judgment or order as if he were a party.
Execution may issued on behalf of any person not a party to the suit by leave of the court, upon proof of his title to the benefit of the judgment and upon substitution of the same of the new judgment creditor together with a statement of his derivative.....
In representative proceedings, as noted elsewhere, the representatives as well as any person represented are bound by the judgment. The representatives who are the named parties and are actually before the court are the judgment creditors and judgment debtors of any judgment or order given or made in the suit. The judgment entered against a representative defendant is enforceable personally against his goods and land, even though he was sued for and on behalf of the trustees of a school which trustees is a corporation and could have been sued as such.
Where a judgment is against a firm, execution may issue as follows:
(a) Against its property, (b). against any person who has admitted in the proceedings that he was a partner when the cause of action arose or who has been adjudged to be liable as a partner, and (c). against any person who was individually served with summons as a partner or a person sought to be made liable, if there was a trial and the person so served failed to appear at the trial, or if the proceeding was an action on the undefended list or default action, judgment was entered in default of defense.
If the judgment creditor claims to be entitled to issue execution against any other person as a partiner, he may apply to the court by motion on notice served on the alleged partner personally and on the hearing of the application, the court may give leave to issue execution of liability to be tried in such manner as the court thinks fit, and may give all necessary direction for that purpose.

IF THEIR IS A MATTER THAT SHOULD HAVE DIRECT EFFECT ON THE CHURCH, IT IS ABAKILIKI MATTER NOT THIS FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN RIGHT. By the principles of LIS PENDIS, only when the matter is determined, that only matter that could be executed. 

Time Within Which Execution May Be Levied
The judgment of a court should be complied with without demand and it becomes operative from the moment it is delivered unless the court otherwise orders. Our own court order takes effect immediately.
However, if there is no immediate compliance, execution can only commence after the expiration of a specified period of time the date of judgment. Under the Rules, no process other than the writ of possession shall, except by express leave of court, be issued until after the expiration of three days from the day one which judgment is given. For a writ of possession the stipulated time of issue after the expiration of the day on which the defendant is ordered to give possession, or if no day is fixed by the court for giving possession, then after the expiration of fourteen days from the day on which judgment is given. As between the original parties, process, otherwise than against the person, may issue at any time within six years and against the person at any time within two years, from the date of the judgment which immediately sought to be enforced. In other words, where the execution of the judgment is by way of proceedings against the person of the judgment debtor for example, his committal to prison, the necessary process or writ must issue within two years from the date of the judgment and when execution is by way of proceeding against his property, for example their attachment and sale, the corresponding period is six years.
With the leave of court, however, execution may still be levied after the expiration of the prescribed period in each case. The application for such leave is made ex pate. Where leave is given a note thereof is made on the process. Failure to endorse the process to show that leave has been given amounts to an irregularity the effect of which is not only that a process was not taken out as required by law but also that no process was taken out at all. The judgment creditor is however in such a case at liberty to cause a fresh process to issue.
A writ of execution remains valid for one year only from the date of its issue, but the court may, on the application of the judgment creditor, extend its life beyond this period. A new writ may however be issued instead of applying for the extension. But the disadvantage in so doing is that the new writ takes priority from its date, whereas by renewing a writ its priority is preserved.
Execution is effected between 6 a.m and 6 p.m of any day other than in a Sunday or Public holiday unless the judge or magistrate directs otherwise by order endorsed on the process to be executed. You don�t execute on a Sunday or public holiday, you may invite a Pastor/Deacon to the police before property is sealed..

The Court from which Process is issue
By rule 24 of Order 2 of the judgment (Enforcement) Rules, save in the exceptional cases mentioned therein, �process shall issue from the court before which the proceeding is pending or �..which gave the judgment sought to be enforced, as the case may be, and from no other court�. As a general rule therefore, a judgment may be enforced in the court which gave the judgment and in no other court. The only exceptions to this rule are those stated in rule 24, Order 2 or provided for in any other statute. The judgment given on appeal by an appellate court becomes the judgment of the court from which the appeal came. If therefore, in an appeal against the judgment of a court, the appeal court makes an order, that order becomes an order of the court and should be enforced therein and not in the appeal court. The Rules of an appellate court may expressly empower it or the lower or any other court to enforce the judgments or orders of the appellate court. The Supreme Court, in J. O. Anakwere v Louis Aneke and others held that the Court of Appeal being a superior court of record, has an inherent power to enforce a judgment given by it on appeal. Apart from this power, the Court of Appeal Rules 1981 and the Supreme Court rules 1985 empower the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court, respectively, to enforce their judgment or to remit same to the court below for enforcement.
The exceptional cases referred to in rule 24 of Oder 2 in which execution may issue in a court other than the one that gave the judgment are, (i) where a judgment has been obtained in a magistrate�s court, execution against the immovable property of the judgment debtor issues only from the High Court and not the Magistrate�s Court. (ii) a judgment summons against a judgment debtor is issued by the court in the district or division in which the judgment debtor resides or carries on business, or in the case of two or more judgment debtors, in which one of them resides or carries on business which court may not necessarily be the one that gave the judgment, (iii) a writ of sequestration or a writ of interim attachment directed against any immovable property of a defendant or judgment debts in execution of a judgment of a Magistrate�s Court can only issue out of the High Court upon the transfer thereto of the proceedings. (iv) Garnishee proceedings may be instituted in courts other than the ones that gave the judgment and (v) a judgment given in one state�s court may be enforced in a court of another state under the provisions of the sheriffs and Civil Process Act.

The Place Where Execution to be Levied
The general rule is that process shall be executed by or through the court for the division or district where the judgment debtor or the property to be affected is or is situate and by no other court. If the execution is against the person of judgment debtor, then the venue for execution is the division or district he is and, as against his property in that in which it is situate. There are however, some exceptions to the rules which will be considered in due course.

Application for Process
A judgment creditor who wants to enforce a judgment may make an application for the appropriate process to the registrar. If the required process is one which may issue without an order of the court or judge or magistrate he shall apply to the registrar in the first instance for it. But if it is one for which such order is necessary, the application to the registrar is made after the order for its issue shall have been obtained.
For application for issue of some process, a praecipe or form is required or prescribed. In such a case, the judgment creditor has only to obtain the praecipe from the court, duly complete it and then return it as completed to the registrar.
If a precipice is not necessary the application to the registrar is made by the judgment creditor filing a written request for the issue of the process specifying the number and title of the suit, the date of judgment, the nature of the process and the name of the party against whom, and the amount, if any, for which it is to be executed.
Upon the application, the registrar, subject to the provisions of the rules, issues the process. He also records in a book kept by him the précised time of the making of the application to as well as on the writ. Where more than one writ are issued they should be executed in the order of the times so entered.
The registrar may, at any time, take direction of the court as to any application, and in the meanwhile refuse to issue the process.

Concurrent Writes of Execution
Each of the various writ of execution is meant to enforce a specific type of judgment or order. Thus, to enforce a judgment for delivery and a writ of fifa to enforce a judgment for payment of money.
Where a judgment creditor is granted reliefs which are enforceable by different writs, he may apply for the issue of such writs concurrently. Therefore if the judgment is that a chattel be delivered to him in addition to damages for their detention, he may have the two writs of delivery and fifa respectively issue simultaneously.
Even in the case of a judgment for payment of money, a judgment creditor may issue two or more writs of fifa for execution in different districts or divisions within the jurisdiction, particular where the debtor�s goods in each of them are not substantial enough to satisfy the judgment. He may also issue writs in succession without waiting for a return to the first. Although each of the concurrent writs is for the levy of the amount of the judgment debt he should not levy more than that amount in the process of executing all of them.
A judgment creditor cannot, however, issue a series of writs of execution, each covering a portion only of one single judgment. This situation is most likely to arise in a judgment. This situation is most likely to arise in a judgment for payment of money. He cannot split the amount involve into smaller parts and then issue a writ of fifa for each. This is because if the general rule of practice is to the effect that upon one judgment, a judgment creditor can issue only one execution.
This principle is expressed in the maxim �One judgment, one execution�. So, where part of the judgment debt is assigned, two separate writs of fifa cannot be issued by the judgment creditor and the assignee for the balance and the part assigned.
Processes may be issued concurrently for execution in one or more division or districts but the costs of more than one process and execution shall not be allowed against the judgment debtor except by order of the court.
Where a judgment summons is pending or an order or warrant of commitment is outstanding in respect of money payable under a judgment, no other writ of execution can issue in respect of the money so payable except by leave of court.
So that no other writ of execution should be issued concurrently with a pending judgment summons.

Execution By Leave of Court
There are some cases where a writ of execution to enforce a judgment will not issue without the leave of court. Normally the judgment creditor proceeds to enforce the judgment as of right as soon as the necessary procedural requirements have been fulfilled. No recourse to the court is necessary.
Where leave is necessary the judgment creditor applies to the court for it by motion supported by affidavit. The motion may be required to be on notice or ex part according as the Rules provide.
It is within the discretion of the court to grant leave to execute. Dismissal of an application for leave is no bar to a second one where such a later application is founded on new facts and it can only be granted on facts not before the court on the first application.
Where leave is required, any execution proceedings initiated without such leave are incompetent and should be dismissed.
Nearly all the cases where leave is required before execution can ensue are provided in the Rules under different Orders and rules.
These are collated and are as follows:
Execution on Sunday and Public Holiday: As a rule execution is not permitted on these days. But a Judge or Magistrate may otherwise direct by order endorsed on the process to be executed. The need for such execution may arise in case of urgency. The judgment creditor may then apply to a judge or magistrate, not necessarily in open court for the required endorsement.
Where judgment is conditional: The need for leave in this instance has already been explained above.
Judgment against personal representative of deceased person: Judgment may be executed against a personal representative of a deceased judgment debtor if no property of the latter can be found and the personal representative fails to satisfy the court that he has duly applied for such property of the deceased as shall be proved to have come into his possession to the extent of the property not duly applied by him. The forgoing condition under which execution may be levied against the personal representative implies that leave of court is necessary.
Execution of a judgment against a partnership against a person claimed by the judgment creditor to be a partner of the firm: The circumstance under which leave of court is required under this head has already been dealt with. The person is not apparently concerned in the proceedings, but, nonetheless, the judgment creditor claims that that person is a partner. The judgment Creditor will them apply by motion on notice to the person for leave of court to execute the judgment against him. On the hearing of the application, the court may give leave if liability is not disputed by the person, otherwise it may order the issue of liability to be tried.
Execution against the person or property of the judgment debtor: After two years or six years from the date of judgment respectively. By the express term of the relevant rule, application for leave here is by motion ex parte
Execution where change has taken place by death, or otherwise, in the parties entitled or liable to execution: Devolution of rights and liabilities under judgment may arise by death or bankruptcy of parties. As noted earlier, on the death of the judgment creditor application is ex parte while if it is the judgment debtor, who has died, to enforce the judgment, the judgment creditor will apply for leave by motion on notice to the personal representative of the deceased.
In the case of bankruptcy of a party, his trustees in bankruptcy step into his shoes. Thus, the judgment creditor�s trustee in bankruptcy may, by leave of court, enforce a judgment in favour of the bankrupt and without the need of his being added as a party.
Devolution of right can arise by assignment of judgment debt. Any assignee of the judgment debt may therefore, by leave of court, enforce it. But he cannot do this if part only of the debt is assigned as execution can only be levied against the whole judgment. The assignor does not have to be added as a party. But �the court may upon the application by the plaintiff order that execution shall issue for the delivery of the property without giving the defendant the option of retaining it upon paying the value assessed (if any)�.

Wrongful Execution
From its nature and purpose, an execution is lawfully levied if it is based on a process duly issued and is in accordance with that process. The process itself must be in accordance with the judgment to be enforced. It must be the correct process for the execution of the particular type of judgment. Any execution which does not fulfill these requirements is wrongful. The procedure laid down for the execution must be meticulously observed (It is better following the procedure laid down than to jump the line and destroy your God given victory.
A writ must be issued bona fide and for the purpose of enforcing a judgment. It is wrongful to issue it maliciously or without good reason or for a larger sum than is due under the judgment. A wrongful execution is not necessarily void but renders the Sheriff liable for damages. Compliance with the relevant provisions of the Act and Rules is necessary for the due execution of a process. Execution is illegal if it is levied outside the jurisdiction authorized by the writ of fifa.
The Sheriff, Deputy sheriff and bailiff are public officers and are paid for their services by the state.
Duties, Liabilities of the Judgment Creditor, The Sheriff and Bailiffs and Also their Protection
An execution is commenced at the instance of the judgment creditor. All the steps in it are taken on his demand. He provides the means for the identification of the judgment debtor and pays all the fees for and incidental to the execution.
He is therefore liable for any damage arising from any illegal or irregular proceeding taken at his instance, although the bailiff or any other officer is not thereby exempted from any liability to which he would otherwise be liable. The judgment creditor is thus vicariously liable for any illegal or irregular proceeding taken on his behalf by the bailiff or any officer of the court but the tortuous liability of the sheriff, bailiff or any officer of the court at common law for wrongful execution still remains unchanged. Accordingly, the judgment creditor, the sheriff and the bailiff are all liable for damages for any irregular or illegal proceedings in the execution. A sheriff, or deputy sheriff or bailiff is liable for wrongful imprisonment of any person by him.
Where a sheriff, deputy sheriff or bailiff or any other officer of the court charged with enforcement of a writ, warrant or other process of execution, sells any good seized by him from the possession of the judgment debtor, without any notice of claim to the goods, he is not liable in any action brought in respect of the sale. Any claimant to the goods may, however, pursue whatever remedy to which he may be entitled against any other but not the sheriff, deputy sheriff or bailiff.
Neither the sheriff nor the deputy sheriff is liable to be sued for any act or omission of any police officer or other person in the execution of any process, which has been done or may have occurred either through disobedience or neglect of the orders or instruction given by the sheriff or the deputy sheriff.
Where a bailiff, employed to execute any process against the person or property of a judgment debtor loses the opportunity of executing the process by reason of neglect, connivance or omission, any party aggrieved therefore may complain to the court issuing the process. On such a complaint being made, the registrar of the court issues a summons in Form 34 of the First Schedule to the Rules which is then served on the bailiff as an ordinary summons. There must be ten clear days between the service and the return date. The complaint is tried by the court and evidence from the complainant and by the bailiff taken. If the neglect connivance or omission is proved to the satisfaction of the court, the bailiff will be ordered to pay such damages as the complainant might have suffered as a result, though such damages should not exceed the sum for which the execution issued.
A sheriff or may officer executing any process of the court or the person at whose instance the process is executed shall not be deemed a trespasser by reason of any irregularity or informality in any proceedings on the validity of which the process depends, or in the form of the process or in the mode of executing it. But any person aggrieved may bring an action for any �special damage� sustained by him by reason of the irregularity of informality against the person guilty thereof. The term �special damage� in this context does not mean �special damages� in a restricted sense as opposed to �general damages� but means particular damage suffered as a result of irregularity in executing a court�s process. In an action for such damage no cost are recoverable unless the damages awarded exceed four naira. An action against a bailiff for anything done in obedience to any process issued by a court should not be commenced unless.
To be ordered to give possession of land to the judgment creditor or to return a chattel to him or to do or refrain from doing certain acts.

Enforcement of a Judgment for Possession in Action For Recovery of Land
Judgment for possession of land are very common. The judgment may require the defendant to give the plaintiff possession of the land or order that the plaintiff recover possession of the land.
As provided in the Rule, a judgment or order for the recovery of land or for the delivery of possession of land in an action other than an action between landlord and tenant under the Recovery of Premises Law is enforceable by a writ of possession � False land vs Real land.
In an action between landlord and tenant, judgment in favour of the landlord is enforced by a warrant of possession � Landlord vs Tenant
A writ of possession in like form as a warrant of possession which is Form N of the Schedule to the Recovery of Premises Law with such variations as the circumstances of the particular case may require. The writ is addressed to the sheriff and commands him to enter the land and cause the plaintiff/judgment creditor to have possession of it.
Judgment creditor applies for the issue of a writ of possession by filing a praecipe in Form 3 to the Schedule of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act and paying the requisite court fees. The praecipe is filed in the registry of the court that gave the judgment or made the order.
No leave of court is required for the issue of the writ. The registrar causes it to be issued after praecipe has been submitted to him and the court fees paid by the judgment creditor. Furthermore, a pastor and Deacons with members that refuse to comply or quit our premises amounts to disobedience to court order. It is better they quit the premises to any other place for worship than insisting on our properties
For the purpose of executing a writ to give possession of any premises, it is not necessary to remove any goods or chattels from those premises. Where judgment is for recovery of possession as well as payment of money, a writ of fifa may be issued in addition to the writ of possession. The two writs may be combined together in a prescribed form in any appropriate case.
Execution by the writ is to recover possession and is entirely different from execution upon immovable property which is by way of attachment and sale of the property.
An action like demolition of a structure on the land done in the execution of a regular and valid writ of possession cannot be termed illegal.

Enforcement of Judgment to or to Refrain from Doing an Act
A judgment may require a judgment debtor to do a specific act or to abstain from doing such an act. An order of injunction may be made restraining a defendant from trespassing upon the plaintiff�s land. He may also in an action for breach of contract, be ordered to carry out his obligation. Judgment ordering delivery of goods and execution of deeds discussed above are specific examples in this class.
The Sheriff and civil Process Act provides an alternative mode of enforcing such judgments to those applicable to specific cases. This alternative mode of execution does however apply to enforcement of judgment for payment of money. The essence of the mode of execution is that default in carrying out the act or abstaining from it, as decreed in the judgment is disobedience of the court�s judgment and thus contempt of the court. The defaulting judgment debtor is therefore dealt with as a contemnor, namely by attachment and committal to prison and detention. Alternatively, we can as well use police contempt as provided in the criminal code / penal code. If we are using police contempt, as soon as police finish investigation and secures the statement from the suspect, quickly go through the DPP (Director of Public Prosecution) of the state and apply for transfer of the case file from the police to the DPP or apply for personal prosecution from your Lawyer (personal fiat for onward prosecution to avoid (IG, or Monitoring Units) transferring the case file.
The material section on the Act is Section 72 and it provides thus: �If any person refuses or neglect to comply with an order made against him, other than for payment of money, the court instead of dealing with him as a judgment debtor guilty of misconduct defined in paragraph (f) of Section 66, may order that he be committed to prison and detained in custody until he has obeyed the order�.� These provisions relate to any order of court other than one for payment of money, it is therefore not correct to say that only an order of injunction can be enforced under them.
The procedure for enforcement by committal to prison thus set out is regulated by rule 13 of Order 9 of the judgments (Enforcement) Rules. For some time it used to be thought that under rule 13 of Order 9 a restrictive injunction could not be enforced in Nigerian courts and that for the enforcement of such injunction resort should be had to English practice and procedure. This was as a result of the decision of the Lagos High Court in Doherty to that effect. But the Supreme Court in Uhunmwangho v Okojie overruled Doherty v Doherty supra holding that a careful reading of rules 13 (1) and (2) of Order 9 and Forms 48 and 49 shows that no distinction between mandatory and restrictive injunction was contemplated and that the procedure in rule 13 of Order 9 therefore applies to both types of injunctions. When an order enforceable by committal under the said Section 72, that is, an order requiring the judgment debtor to do or abstain from doing an act, is made by the court and a judgment creditor wants to enforce it by the same mode, he has to apply to the registrar for the issue of a copy of the order. Where such an order is made in the absence of the judgment debtor and is for the delivery of goods without the option of paying their value or is in the nature of an injunction, the registrar is enjoined by the Rules to serve a copy of the injunction, the registrar is enjoined by the Rules to serve a copy of the order drawn up and endorsed with a notice in Form 48 on the judgment debtor.

AG NATIONAL SECRETARIAT INTACT

Yesterday went down history as the Assemblies of God Nigeria court case at the Apex court was read out. Many misunderstood the judgment. Many has also said so many things about the judgment. Some even posted false documents claiming it was the judgment but the documents are expected to be out by Monday.

Lies also spreads like wide fire but truth no matter how long it takes, would still occupy its position when it finally reaches it destination. Truth cannot be ignored no matter what.

Amongst the news of yesterday, it was claimed that the National Secretariat has been sealed and also taken over by the other faction of the church. Few minutes ago when the Media Director of Assemblies of God Nigeria posted a picture of himself inside the secretariat with the Royal Rangers Commander, our team stormed the premises and saw that the news was true. Activities are still on-going as at the time of this report. It was never sealed. The NPF only came there to make sure that the enemies of the Church didn't succeed.

We therefore, urge everyone to go about his business. This is weekend. Monday, work resumes in earnest according to what we gathered. Meanwhile, we decided to storm the house of the General Superintendent, Rev. Prof. Paul Emeka to know what was happening there and behold, we were welcomed with a basket of BONS prepared by the wife of the General Superintendent, Dr. Sharon Emeka.

We also gathered that this act of wild fire media rantings by the other faction of the church, happened in 2014 just to morally distablize the members and pastors of Assemblies of God Nigeria. But no matter how much one tries to kill the TRUTH, after 3days, it would sure resurrect.

Ali
Reporting.

Assemblies Of God Leadership Tussle: Supreme Court Judgment

THE TRUTH ABOUT THE SUPREME COURT JUDGEMENT ON THE ASSEMBLIES OF GOD CHURCH NIGERIA CRISIS.

We all can recall that for the past three years (3years), there was a purported suspension on the General Superintendent of Assemblies of God Nigeria. This singular act has brought about division in the church and the church has been from one court to the other.

The case between the General Superintendent, Rev. Prof. Paul Emeka vs Chidi Okoroafor and others started from the Enugu High Court and then the Appeal and today was the 90th day at the Supreme Court.

Within the last few hours of the Judgment at the Supreme Court, a lot has been said but the question remains: WHAT DID THE SUPREME COURT SAY? WHAT WAS THE JUDGEMENT GIVEN? WHAT IS THE TRUE STATE OF THE CHURCH?

The Supreme Court (a) declared null and void the March 6th meeting. (b) Suspension and dismissal of Prof. Paul Emeka, was also declared null and void (c) Chidi Okoroafor was not declared General Superintendent (d) Appeal Court pronouncement on suspension, dismissal were thrown out from the window and called obiter dictum.

The Supreme Court then asked for a reserve. And that Rev Prof Paul Emeka, remains the General Superintendent of AGN.

IMPLICATIONS:

1. That the case was not meant to be a human right case.

2. If it is to be a human right case, The General Council should serve it right because, the service was not properly DONE; that Dr. Chidi should have been served at plot R8, Ozubulu Street and not his residence, as in the case of appeal which gives non of the parties reason to rejoice over the other. Anyone doing otherwise is only pretending or being ignorant of the true situation on ground.

3. The matter should come under civil.

4. That everybody should return to High Court to start over again.

5. Prof Paul Emeka, is still the General Superintendent of AGN.

6. In conclusion No winner, No loser.

IN GENERAL:

THE LOSS:
N30MILLION DAMAGES WERE WITHDRAWN BECAUSE CHIDI OKOROAFOR CAN'T PAY IT, AND PAUL EMEKA WAS ASKED TO GO BACK AND SERVE THEM WELL SO THAT THEY WILL NOT HAVE ANY EXCUSE.


Isaac Ali O.
Reporter.