Judgment in the suit instituted by Maryam Sherif, divorced wife of Alhaji Atiku Abubakar, for custody of their three sons has been fixed for October 27, 2020.
Sherif instituted a case last year against Abubakar at the Upper Court, Gudu with number CV/41/2019.
The matter was later transferred to the Upper Area Court, Kubwa with number CV/16/2020. She sought custody of the three children, who are presently with Abubakar.
Abubakar is the son of former Vice President with whom he shares the same names.
When the matter came up for the submission of final addresses by the counsels of the claimant and the defendant in the court in Kubwa, the defense counsel rather submitted a notice on motion to appeal a previous order of the court that directed the children be brought to court every sitting.
The defense counsel argued the motion be exhausted first before continuing with the main business of the day which was the presentation of final addresses.
But the claimant’s lawyer, Nasir Saidu, objected saying the motion was incompetent and a ploy to delay the progress of the matter. He said justice delayed was justice denied.
But Hassan,on the other hand, said justice rushed was justice denied and the main matter should be stood down until the motion is addressed.
Saidu argued that the motion does not affect the progress of the main suit in any way.
Hassan eventually did not file an address saying a decision had already been taken and there was no need for him to say anything.
In Saidu’s address, he argued that the five witnesses the defendant produced in the course of the matter be discredited, among others, on the grounds they were too close to the the defendant and their testimonies would biased.
It was a long session that lasted from around 10 in the morning until about 5.30pm, with the Judge, Hon Bashir Danmaisule standing down proceedings a couple of time for breaks.
After taking heated arguments from both counsels, at the end of the day, the Judge, Hon Danmaisule, fixed October 27, 2020 for judgment on the matter.
Danmaisule said business of the day for the court had to be conducted as there was no order for stay of proceedings before the court by an Appelate Court.