By Tony Okafor, Awka
Anambra-based activist, Comrade Osita Obi, and six others have asked a Magistrate Court sitting in Amawbia, Awka South Local Government Area of Anambra State, to set aside a judgment they allege was fraudulently obtained against them by the Catholic Diocese of Awka.
In a suit marked MAW/1075/2025, between Mr. Chidi Osakwe and six others versus the Catholic Diocese of Awka and another, the plaintiffs alleged that the diocese obtained the judgment without properly serving them with the necessary court processes.
The matter came up on Thursday, October 15, 2026, before Magistrate E.C. Chukwu at Magistrate Court 4, Amawbia, where counsel to the plaintiffs, Mr. Martin Obi, Esq., urged the court to nullify the judgment and set aside its execution.
Addressing the court, Martin Obi alleged that the diocese had previously instituted a criminal case against his clients, whom it described as unknown persons, and subsequently obtained a judgment after claiming that the necessary court processes had been served.
He argued that his clients only became aware of the earlier proceedings when the judgment was being executed against them.
According to him, agents of the diocese subsequently broke into the premises occupied by his clients and threw their belongings outside in the rain.
The lawyer maintained that the persons described as unknown were known to the diocese, alleging that evidence existed to establish that the diocese was aware of their identities.
He said the present suit was intended to establish that the earlier judgment was obtained through a fraudulent process and that its execution should consequently be set aside.
Citing Section 6(6)(a) and (b) of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, alongside common law principles and judicial precedents, Martin Obi argued that courts of record possessed inherent powers to set aside judgments established to be nullities or obtained through fraud.
However, counsel to the defendants, Mr. J.A. Obiajulu, Esq., informed the court that he had filed a preliminary objection challenging its jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
Relying on Section 272(1) of the Constitution, Obiajulu argued that the dispute concerned property ownership, a matter he said fell within the jurisdiction of a State High Court.
In response, Martin Obi acknowledged that a magistrate court lacked jurisdiction to determine questions of land ownership or title but maintained that the suit before the court was not an action to determine ownership of the property.
He argued that the plaintiffs were challenging the circumstances under which the earlier judgment was obtained and its subsequent execution.
He added that magistrate courts could hear matters relating to recovery of premises and landlord-tenant disputes within their jurisdiction.
After listening to the arguments, Magistrate Chukwu adjourned the matter until November 26, 2026, for further hearing.
Speaking to journalists after the proceedings, Osita Obi, convener of the Recover Nigeria Project, said that the dispute arose after his wife, following her retirement, rented a shop in Awka to operate a business.
He said agents of the diocese broke into the shop and threw her goods outside in the rain, allegedly relying on a court judgment obtained without serving her the processes that led to it.
Osita Obi accused the diocese of portraying his wife as a criminal and subjecting her to public humiliation, vowing to pursue the matter to its logical conclusion.
In a separate case before the same court on Thursday, the defence counsel to Osita Obi complained that the police had yet to release documents relating to an investigation into an alleged criminal defamation case instituted by the Catholic Diocese of Awka, nearly a year after the materials were formally requested.
The case, marked MAW/345C/2025, came up before Magistrate E.C. Chukwu, with Martin Obi informing the court that he had filed a Notice to Produce in November 2025, requesting documents relating to the police investigation to enable him to prepare an adequate defence for his client.
He said the requested materials had yet to be made available to the defence.
Citing Section 36(6)(b) of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, the lawyer argued that an accused person was entitled to adequate facilities to prepare a defence, stressing that access to relevant information was essential to safeguarding the right to a fair hearing.
The complaint arose during proceedings on an application for adjournment by counsel representing the Catholic Diocese of Awka, J.A. Obiajulu, who informed the court that he had obtained a fiat authorising him to take over the prosecution from A.G. Obi, Esq., who had handled the case from its inception.
Obiajulu sought an adjournment to enable him to obtain the relevant case files and documents from the police, study the materials and prepare for the prosecution.
Although the defence did not oppose the application, Martin Obi questioned the need for further delay, arguing that the fiat had been obtained more than seven months earlier and that sufficient time had elapsed for the new prosecutor to secure the necessary documents.
After hearing both parties, the magistrate adjourned the matter until January 28, 2027, for hearing and to allow the parties to obtain the documents required for the proceedings.
Background to the Defamation Case
Osita Obi is facing trial over allegations that he knowingly and intentionally published defamatory statements about the Catholic Diocese of Awka on his Facebook pages, identified as OSITA OBI and IGBO HISTORY.
According to the charge, the activist allegedly described the diocese as being no better than Boko Haram bandits and reportedly stated that it was better to deal with Lucifer than with the diocese.
The charge was instituted by Rev. Fr. Chudy Aguinam on behalf of the diocese, which alleged that the statements were false and intended to damage the reputation of the priest and the diocese by exposing them to hatred, contempt and ridicule.
Osita Obi has acknowledged that disputes occurred between him and the diocese but has also made allegations concerning the treatment of his wife.
He alleged that the diocese had previously petitioned the police against his wife, a retired Deputy Director of the Federal Inland Revenue Service (FIRS), accusing her of aiding and abetting kidnapping.
According to him, police officers visited his wife’s shop, arrested her and detained her for several hours.
He further alleged that he petitioned the Commissioner of Police for details of the investigation but had yet to receive a report.
Obi said the situation had caused concern for his family and children, reiterating his allegation that his wife’s shop was subsequently broken into and her goods thrown outside in the rain.
He maintained that the diocese had relied on a court judgment against his wife without serving her the necessary court processes.
The allegations and counter-allegations in the separate cases remain subject to the determination of the appropriate courts.
