Otedola’s N250bn suit against Tambuwal, Lawan adjourned indefinitely

The N250bn lawsuit filed by a businessman, Chief Femi Otedola, against the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Aminu Tambuwal, and the former chairman of the House Ad hoc Committee on Fuel Subsidy, Farouk Lawan, has been adjourned indefinitely.
Otedola is asking an Abuja High Court to order the lawmakers to pay him the sum as damages for allegedly harassing,  intimidating  and  causing him to suffer loss of patronage in his business.
The suit stemmed from Otedola’s allegation that Lawan demanded a $3m bribe from him in order to remove his company, Zenon, from the list of companies indicted in the adhoc committee’s report.
However, proceedings in the matter was suspended indefinitely by the trial judge, Justice Peter Kekemeke, after Lawan moved to challenge the jurisdiction of the AHC at the Court of   Appeal.
Kekemeke had in  on January 30, 2013, held that his  court had  the power to entertain the suit against the two lawmakers.
Insisting that the court lacked the jurisdiction to entertain the case, Lawan   filed a motion on notice for a stay of proceedings at the trial court.
Moving the motion for stay of proceedings, Lawan’s counsel, Mr. Kehinde Ogunwumiju, of the chambers of Chief Afe Bebalola, said the former committee chairman   was not satisfied with the AHC’s   decision to hear the case against him.
He informed the court that a notice of appeal had already been filed at the Abuja division of the Court of Appeal.
The lawmaker therefore asked the AHC t to stop further hearing in the suit pending the decision of the appellate court.
In a brief ruling,  Kekemeke held that Lawan, the first defendant in the suit, had satisfied the conditions for a stay of proceedings.
As a result, he adjourned the case sine die (indefinitely).
They argued that they Tambuwal and Lawan had claimed immunity while arguing that the court lacked the jurisdiction to try them. They argued that they could not   be prosecuted for any action they took on the floor of the House.
The lawmakers  also asked the court to dismiss the suit for being too hasty because the House of Representatives had not adopted the report on the subsidy probe and   a White paper on it had also not been issued.
The lawmakers had  contended that, being agents of the House of Representatives, they  could  only be sued at  the  FHC  because the House is an organ of the Federal Government and as such no AHC  has jurisdiction to entertain the suit.