Adamawa State High Court sitting in Yola, the State Capital has ordered the Yola Electricity Distribution Company (YEDC) to pay the whopping sum of #34.9million to the State Board of Internal Revenue.
The court's order followed the rejection of a motion for stay of execution instituted by the Electricity Distribution Company dated 9th December, 2019 against earlier judgement delivered in favour of the Board of Internal Revenue.
The company had prayed for an order of the Honourable Court presided by Justice Andul-Aziz Waziri for stay of execution of the judgement delivered by the same court on the 18th November, 2019, pending the determination of its appeal at the Yola Court of Appeal.
It could be recalled that in its earlier judgement in suit number ADSY/93/2019 filed by the State Board of Internal Revenue, the Court ordered the Company to pay over #34.9million to the Board.
The Board had dragged the Company to the Court and urged it to order the Company to pay the sum of #227, 222, 413. 57 being under deducted Pay As You Earn from its employee's emoluments residents in the state for the year 2017.
It also demanded the payment of #2, 722, 241.36 being 10% statutory penalty per annum, and payment of #5, 172, 258. 58 being statutory interest of 19% of the Central Bankof Nigeria (CBN) commercial lending rate.
The decision of the court which did not go down well with it, the Company appealed the matter and urged the Appeal Court to set the judgement aside so as not to pay the money.
In its desperate moves to achieve its objectives, the Company went back to the High Court and filed a motion for stay of execution pending the determination of the suit lodged at the Appeal Court.
But in its ruling on the motion, the Court presided by Justice Abdul-Aziz Waziri held that the affidavit in support of the motion relied upon by the Company does not contain requisite ingredients to warrant an order for stay of execution.
Justice Waziri declared that the applicant made mention in a summary form what challenges being encountered by her without any supporting evidence, saying that the glaring flaw is that there is no description of the applicant's income, asset, interest and properties as well as obligation and liabilities in the affidavit in support to offer a helping hand in the exercise of the court's discretion.
According to him, order 48 Rule 1 of the Rules of the Court, 2013, provides that where any application is made to the Court for a stay of execution or of proceedings under any judgement or decision, the application must be made by notice of motion supported by affidavit setting forth the grounds upon which a stay of execution or of proceedings is sought and a written address in respect of the application.
The sole issue identified by the applicant according to him, failed and here by dismissed as no evidence supporting its grant, saying that it is part of the gains and the stability of the administration of justice for a successful litigant to be allowed the benefit of enjoying the fruits of his success.
Justice Abdu-Aziz added that the law requires that for the successful litigant to be denied the immediate enjoyment of the fruits of his success, the application for an order of stay of execution must show special circumstances in relation to the application for the stay of execution.
No comments:
Post a Comment