Activist Osita Obi Challenges Awka Catholic Diocese Over Alleged Fraudulent Court Judgment

By Solo Mokwugwo | AnambraDaily

Anambra-based activist, Comrade Osita Obi, has approached a Magistrate Court in Amawbia, Awka South Local Government Area of Anambra State, seeking to set aside an earlier judgment allegedly obtained fraudulently by the Catholic Diocese of Awka against him and other plaintiffs.

The suit, marked MAW/1075/2025, involves Mr. Chidi Osakwe and six others as plaintiffs against the Catholic Diocese of Awka and another defendant, including Rev. Fr. Chudy Aguinam.

The matter came up for hearing on Thursday, October 15, 2026, before Magistrate Court 4, presided over by Her Worship E.C. Chukwu.

Through their counsel, Mr. Martins Obi, Esq., the plaintiffs urged the court to set aside the earlier judgment, alleging that it was obtained through improper service of court processes and the misrepresentation of the identities of the affected occupants.

The defendants, however, challenged the court’s jurisdiction to entertain the suit, arguing that the dispute bordered on property ownership, a matter they said fell within the jurisdiction of the State High Court.

Plaintiffs Allege Judgment Was Obtained Through the “Backdoor”

Addressing the court, counsel to the plaintiffs, Martins Obi, alleged that the Catholic Diocese of Awka had previously instituted a criminal case against his clients, whom it reportedly described as unknown persons.

He told the court that the earlier proceedings allegedly continued on the basis that the necessary court processes had been served on the affected individuals.

According to him, the plaintiffs only became aware of the earlier case and judgment when steps were taken to execute the judgment against occupants of the property.

“Her Worship, what brought about this suit is that the Catholic Diocese of Awka had filed a criminal suit in this court against my clients, Osita Obi and others, whom they described as unknown persons,” the lawyer said.

He alleged that the court proceeded with the case and delivered judgment in favour of the diocese based on representations that his clients had been served.

The lawyer further claimed that, during the execution of the judgment, agents of the diocese entered the premises occupied by his clients, allegedly forcing about 10 tenants out of their apartments and throwing their belongings outside in the rain.

He maintained that the affected occupants subsequently obtained copies of the court documents and discovered circumstances they believed amounted to fraud in the earlier proceedings.

“This is why they filed this suit to tell the court that the judgment was obtained by fraud,” he told the court.

Lawyer Questions Description of Occupants as ‘Unknown Persons’

A central argument advanced by the plaintiffs was that the individuals described as unknown persons were allegedly known to the diocese.

Martins Obi argued that evidence existed to establish that the diocese was aware of the identities of the tenants affected by the earlier proceedings.

He therefore urged the court to examine the circumstances under which the judgment was obtained and determine whether the process was legally sustainable.

“We want to establish that the procedure the diocese used in obtaining their judgment against my clients was fraudulent,” he said.

The plaintiffs relied on Section 6(6)(a) and (b) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, as amended, alongside common-law principles and judicial precedents.

Their counsel argued that courts of record possess inherent powers to protect the integrity of judicial proceedings and set aside judgments established to be nullities or products of fraud. The court is yet to determine the allegations.

Diocese Challenges Court’s Jurisdiction

Reacting to the application, 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 matter.

Obiajulu cited Section 272(1) of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, arguing that disputes concerning land ownership and title fall within the jurisdiction of a State High Court.

He contended that the plaintiffs’ suit was fundamentally a property dispute and should therefore not be heard by the Magistrate Court.

The objection introduced a jurisdictional question that the court will have to consider as proceedings continue.

Plaintiffs Insist Suit Is About Alleged Fraud, Not Land Ownership

In response, Martins Obi acknowledged that a Magistrate Court does not possess general jurisdiction to determine competing claims of ownership or title to land.

However, he maintained that the purpose of the present suit was not to determine who owned the property but to challenge the manner in which the earlier judgment was allegedly obtained and executed.

According to the plaintiffs’ counsel, the application seeks to establish that the previous judgment was procured through fraudulent means and should consequently be set aside, alongside the execution proceedings based on it.

He further argued that Magistrate Courts have jurisdiction over recovery-of-premises and landlord-and-tenant matters, distinguishing such proceedings from disputes over title to land.

The opposing arguments left the court with issues concerning both the alleged circumstances surrounding the earlier judgment and the jurisdictional objection raised by the defendants.

Osita Obi: ‘We Will Follow the Matter to a Logical End’

Speaking to journalists after the proceedings, Comrade Osita Obi alleged that the dispute arose after his wife’s retirement, when she rented a shop in Awka to operate a business.

According to Obi, agents of the Catholic Diocese of Awka allegedly broke into the shop and threw his wife’s goods outside in the rain.

He further alleged that those involved in executing the judgment claimed that a court order had been obtained against her without serving her the court processes that led to the judgment.

Obi accused the diocese of portraying his wife as a criminal and subjecting her to public humiliation.

He vowed to pursue the matter until its conclusion, insisting that the circumstances surrounding the judgment and its execution should be examined by the court.

The allegations made by the plaintiffs and the activist have yet to be established by a judicial determination in the present suit. The defendants’ position on the substantive allegations was not detailed beyond their jurisdictional objection during the reported proceedings.

Court Adjourns to November 26

After listening to arguments from both sides, Magistrate Chukwu adjourned the matter to November 26, 2026, for further hearing.

The next sitting is expected to provide an opportunity for the court to continue considering the parties’ arguments, including the objection challenging its jurisdiction.

The case raises questions about due process in the execution of court judgments, the proper identification and service of parties to legal proceedings, and the limits of a Magistrate Court’s jurisdiction in disputes involving premises and land.

#