Alleged assault suit against Metuh for ruling May 18

         

Justice Folashade Ojo of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Abuja, has fixed next Wednesday for ruling in a N500 million suit against Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) spokesman, Olisa Metuh, his wife, Kanayo and one of their aides, Oche Gambo.

They were sued in 2011 by owners and some workers of a school,  formerly attended by Metuh’s son, Derrick.

The owners and officials of British Nigerian Academy, Abuja, sued Metuh and the others for allegedly assaulting two workers on the school premises, for confiscating Derrick’s mobile phone, on February 19, 2011.

Metuh’s wife and son were said to have visited the woman’s nephew, Kamsi Aghaji (a student), when an official of the school, Miss Amauche Igbe, allegedly saw Derrick giving his phone to some students in the boys’ hostel, in violation of the rules (no phone was allowed in the hostels) seized the phone.

The plaintiffs – British Nigerian Academy, Kola Pele and Hamzat Maftau – said, in an amended statement of claim, that Kanayo allegedly invited her husband when she was unable to secure the release of her son’s phone.

They said Metuh, “accompanied by armed mobile policemen, arrived on the school premises in a convoy of three black jeeps, all with head lamps on, and the drivers navigating the vehicles dangerously, almost colliding with some students, who were clearing up after visiting day, and observed by some parents leaving after visiting day.

“The first defendant (Metuh) alighted from his vehicle at the entrance of the Sports Hall of the first plaintiff (the school) and demanded to see the second plaintiff (Pele) and, upon locating the second plaintiff, the first defendant demanded forcefully that his son’s phone be returned to him, but the second plaintiff refused to release the phone.

“The first defendant then proceeded to grab the throat of the second plaintiff and started to hit him several times with the third defendant (Gambo, Metuh’s bodyguard) joining in the assault in the presence of a large crowd of staff, students and parents, who looked on worrying and in fear.

“The first defendant, on several occasions, threatened to kill the second plaintiff if his son’s phone was not returned to him and boasted that even the inspector general of Police (IGP) would do nothing about the situation.

“At one point, the first defendant and third defendant even attempted to bundle the second plaintiff into the first defendant’s car and but, for the intervention of the staff of the first plaintiff, who were on the scene they would have succeeded in doing so.

“The third plaintiff tried to act as peacemaker in the scuffle and when attempting to pacify the first defendant, the third defendant kicked the third plaintiff, knocking him off balance and causing him to fall on his head.

“The first defendant seized the second plaintiff’s office keys and mobile phone and threatened not to return them until his son’s mobile phone was returned. It was only after several staff and parents pleaded with the second plaintiff to return the phone for fear of serious injury being inflicted on him by the first and third defendants that the second plaintiff reluctantly returned Derrick’s phone to the first defendant,” the plaintiffs said.

They argued that the actions of the first and third defendants “undermined the right of staff of the first plaintiff to work in a safe and secure environment without fear and intimidation from any quarters.”

The plaintiffs prayed the court to award N500 million damages against the defendants (N150 million in special and general damages for assault, harassment, intimidation, mental pain, severe humiliation and injury to the person and integrity of Pele and Maftau; N100 million for exemplary damages for trespass and unlawful entry into the school premises and N250 million aggravated damages for grave injury caused to the commercial reputation and protective integrity of the school).

They also seek a declaration that the actions of the defendants on February 19, 2011, at the school amounted to trespass and unlawful entry into the school premises.

Metuh and his wife denied the plaintiffs’ allegation and urged the court to dismiss the suit on the grounds that the claims were frivolous and vindictive.

Metuh admitted being informed of the seizure of his son’s phone by his wife, but denied forcefully invading the school premises with armed security personnel, who drove recklessly, as alleged by the plaintiffs.

“The first defendant never made forceful demand of his son’s mobile phone and never grabbed the throat of the second plaintiff and never knocked him. The first defendant and third defendant (whoever he may be) never attempted to bundle the second plaintiff into the boot of the first defendant’s car and could not have done so.

“The third plaintiff tried to pacify the first defendant because he knew that the second plaintiff had been most unreasonable but nobody kicked him and knocked him off balance. The first defendant never seized any key or mobile phone belonging to the second plaintiff or anybody,” the defendants said in their statement.

Parties adopted their final written addresses on March 10, following which the judge adjourned to May 18, for judgment.