|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
The federal high court sitting in Enugu has struck out an application brought before it by incorporated trustees of initiative for eradication of poverty and empowerment of the disabled (IFEPED) for an order for the enforcement of their fundamental right to peaceful assembly and association against incorporated trustees of Joint National Association of People with Disability (JONAPWD) and others.
The applicant in a suit no FHC/EN/CS/78/2017 asked the court to declare it a legal personality registered under part c of the companies and allied matter act cap. c20 2014; and that it is separate and distinct from Joint National Association of Persons with Disability.
The applicant is also seeking an order of perpetual injunction, restraining the respondents, their representative, from suspending or interfering with its activities in any manner whatsoever.
The group alleged that the joint national association of people with disability disrupted its events of 3rd December 2016 and suspended its activities, mandating it to affiliate with the respondents and equally remit 20% of its income to JONAPWD.
IFEPED urged the court to declare JONAPWD’S demand as illegal and unconstitutional as it constitutes a threat to the applicant’s fundamental right to peaceful assembly and association as guaranteed by relevant laws.
The applicant is also asking for ten million naira as general damages and two million, six hundred and seventy-seven thousand naira for specific damages from the joint national association of people with disability for using the police to disrupt its activities on the 3rd of December 2016.
Delivering judgement on the matter, the Presiding Judge, Justice Rose Oghoghorie, maintained that the relief sought by the applicant are not contained in chapter 4 of the 1999 constitution and struck out the suit citing lack of jurisdiction to hear and entertain the case by the federal high court.
Counsel to the applicant, Jonas Udensi expressed dissatisfaction with the position of the court and said he will seek redress at the court of appeal to determine whether of not the rights of his client were infringed on.
