On Wednesday, the Kano State High Court fixed November 20 for a hearing in pending applications in the ongoing case of alleged bribery and misappropriation against the chairman of All Progressives Congress, Abdullahi Ganduje, and seven others.

The Kano government instituted an eight-count charge bordering on bribery allegations, misappropriation, and division of public funds, which ran into billions of Niara against Mr Ganduje, alongside his wife, Hafsat Umar.

Others are Abubakar Bawuro, Umar Abdullahi Umar, Jibrilla Muhammad, Lamash Properties Limited, Safari Textiles Limited and Lasage General Enterprises Limited.

When the case came up for hearing of the sixth defendant’s preliminary objection, counsel to the state, Adeola Adedipe, told the court that he was not ready to proceed.

“My lord we have filed our counter affidavit and one of our witnesses is hear before the court all the way from Lagos State,” counsel to Mr Ganduje, how wife, Offiong Offiong, told the court that he did not serve the preliminary objection and the plaintiff’s counter affidavit.

”My lord, we are not ready. We are asking for another date to move the application,” he stated.

Counsel to the third and seventh defendant, Taye Falola, informed the court that he had yet to be served the applications and counter-affidavit.

“We filed our preliminary objection on motion on notice dated and filed Oct.10, 2024. We humbly apply for another date for hearing,” Mr Falola explained.

Counsel to the sixth respondent, Nureini Jimoh, told the court that he filed a notice of preliminary objection dated July 9.

”We are ready to proceed and move the application,” he stated.

Counsel to the fifth and eighth defendants, Abdul Adam and Faruk Asekome, said they had not been served with the preliminary objection or a counter affidavit.

“We equally filed our notice of preliminary objection dated October 17 and filed October 18. My lord, we are also asking for another date,” stated the counsel.

Justice Amina Adamu-Aliyu said that the service of processes is very important and overruled the plaintiff’s application.

The judge adjourned the matter until November 20, for a hearing of all pending applications.

The court had on July 11 insisted that the trial of the defendants must continue even in their absence.

(NAN)