The criminal case brought against Umo Eno, the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) candidate for governor of Akwa Ibom state, has been dismissed by a chief magistrate court in Abuja.
Emmanuel Iyanna, the presiding chief magistrate, said at the court session on Friday that “the issue is thus ended” as a result of the defendant (Eno) filing an affidavit of urgency on Monday and having it granted on Tuesday.
On December 23, Iyanna issued an arrest warrant for the governorship candidate after finding him guilty of “cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.”
Edet Godwin Etim is the complainant in the lawsuit with the case number CR/94/2022.
Eno’s campaign organization initially claimed to be unaware about the lawsuit; however, it later submitted a request to dismiss the injunction on the grounds that it had not been properly served the hearing notice.
The arrest warrant was lifted during the hearing. Additionally, the chief magistrate annulled the whole trial and verdict.
Eno filed a suit against the chief magistrate for the “issuance of irregular and illegal warrant of arrest” through his legal team, which was managed by Samuel Ikpo.
The chief magistrate was alerted to the petition against him via a letter dated January 10 that was signed by Oluseyi Amose on the chief judge’s behalf.

The petitioners have “asked for disciplinary action to be taken” against the magistrate, according to the letter.
Saatsaha Yenge, an attorney, declared legal counsel for the complainant at the resumed hearing on Friday.
The defendant, however, was not represented in court.
Yenge said: “We received the notice by pasting that this matter will be coming up for hearing of the defendant applicant’s motion filed on January 9.”
“We responded by filing a counter affidavit on January 12,” he continued.
“The applicant is not in court. It appears that they are not interested in moving their motion.
“We made attempts to serve our counter affidavits on the applicant but we discovered that the address provided is a business centre. We hoped they would be in court so that we could serve them. This court is not a place for dumping processes.
“We urge the court to strike out their application for want of diligent prosecution.”
The complainant’s responder was not present when the motion of urgency was heard, the chief magistrate stated in his decision.

He declared that “the matter is thus terminated” because he had previously vacated the arrest warrant and the ruling.
The complainant’s attorney stated that he was not told about the hearing of the motion of urgency in response to the decision made immediately after the court session.
He further criticized the court for vacating the verdict and the entire case on the grounds that the defendant never requested that relief in his application.
He promised to talk with his client about the next steps.
The complainant claimed that he worked on a contract for the defendant that lasted for roughly six years and for which he was due about N28 million in compensation.
He claimed that the defendant violated the terms of the agreement by failing to pay him.
src