By Innocent Anaba
A Senior Magistrate Court in Karu, Abuja, has dismissed a criminal case against four officials and workers associated with Royal Anchor Estate after the complainant repeatedly failed to appear for the hearing.
The defendants, Henry Ortese, Attahiru Musa, Tanko Pani and Abraham Osezu were consequently discharged in case number CR/124/24.
The case, which arose from a dispute over access to the estate’s electricity infrastructure, ended after the court rejected another request for an adjournment and upheld the defence’s objection that the complainant had not shown sufficient commitment to pursue the matter.
Defence counsel, Joe Abah urged the court to dismiss the complaint, citing the repeated absence of the complainant, Abolarinwa Olatunbosun, and the delays that had prevented the trial from progressing.
Counsel holding brief for Olatunbosun’s substantive lawyer, D. Aaka, had sought another adjournment, explaining that Aaka was engaged in a separate matter at Court 44 in Kuje.
She also informed the court that Olatunbosun was outside Nigeria and was expected to return at the end of June.
The matter had been scheduled for the continuation of the cross-examination of the first prosecution witness.
Abah opposed the application, arguing that the court had already granted several adjournments without meaningful progress.
The defence counsel recalled that the parties last appeared before the court on December 15, 2025, when the matter was adjourned until February 11, 2026. The court did not sit on that date, while another hearing fixed for April 23, also failed to hold.
The case was subsequently adjourned until May 14, but the complainant was again absent.
Abah maintained that Olatunbosun should have taken steps to confirm the hearing date and demonstrate his willingness to continue the prosecution. He relied on Section 351 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015, which empowers a court to dismiss a complaint when a duly notified complainant fails to appear.
In his ruling, presiding Senior Magistrate Punarinam Balogun examined the history of the proceedings and the repeated adjournments before refusing the latest application.
Balogun stressed that the court’s discretion to grant an adjournment must be exercised “judicially and judiciously.”
The magistrate observed that counsel for the complainant could have written formally to the court explaining the absence of both Olatunbosun and his substantive lawyer.
Such communication, he said, could have provided grounds for the court to consider protection under Section 351(2) of the ACJA.
In the absence of a sufficient explanation, the court dismissed the complaint and discharged all four defendants.
The criminal complaint was linked to a disagreement over the use of Royal Anchor Estate’s electricity network.
According to the estate management, Olatunbosun sought to connect his property to the network without paying a N4 million infrastructure levy reportedly contributed by other residents toward developing the facility.
The estate officials maintained that permitting the connection without payment would have undermined the collective investment of residents who had paid the levy. The disagreement subsequently escalated into a criminal complaint against members of the estate leadership and some workers.
These claims formed the estate management’s account of the dispute and were not determined on their merits in the dismissal. The criminal case ended because of the complainant’s absence and the failure to proceed with the prosecution, rather than a full trial of the underlying allegations.
Reacting to the ruling, the estate management thanked residents who attended court proceedings and supported the defendants throughout the case.
It also disclosed that a separate civil action instituted by Olatunbosun remains pending before the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory.
The civil suit reportedly lists Royal Anchor Estate, members of its leadership, the Abuja Electricity Distribution Company and the Nigerian Electricity Regulatory Commission as defendants.
While the criminal proceedings have ended at the magistrate court, the estate management said the questions surrounding the electricity infrastructure and the disputed levy would continue to be addressed through the pending civil action.
Comments
Start the conversation about this story.