The battle for the control of the Delta State chapter of
the All Progressives Congress (APC) has moved to the Supreme Court.
The Cyril Ogodo-led faction of the party has asked the apex
court to set aside the judgment of the Court of Appeal which had sacked it and
reinstated Jones Erue leadership as the executive committee of the party in the
State.
The Court of Appeal had in a judgment delivered by Justices
Jimi Olukayode Bada, Chidi Nwaoma Uwa and Muhammed Shuaibu on May 19 set aside
the judgment of the Federal High Court, Asaba Division, which had upheld the
Ogodo-led Executive Committee as the authentic leadership of the party in Delta
State.
It would be recalled that the Federal High Court, Asaba
Division, had on March 18 sacked the Jones Erue-led executive of the party in
Delta State. The court had also voided the participation of Mr Omo-Agege and
Great Ogboru as the All Progressive Congress (APC) candidates in the 2019
elections in Delta.
The court’s decision followed the case filed by the Cyril
Ogodo-led faction of the party, urging the court to recognise it as the authentic
APC executive in Delta State. The Ogodo-led faction had also urged the court to
sack the Erue-led executive which produced Mr Omo-Agege and Mr Ogboru as the
party’s candidates.
The court in its judgement similarly upheld the full
template of the Ogodo faction’s candidates, including Pat Utomi, O’tega Emerhor
and Ima Niboro as the party’s authentic candidates in the just concluded
elections.
The Ogodo faction fielded Olorogun Emerhor for the Delta
Central Senatorial District election and Mr Niboro for the Ughelli
North/South/Udu Federal Constituency seat in the House of Representatives.
However, not satisfied, the Erue-led faction of the party
and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) had gone to the Court
of Appeal to challenge the decision of the lower court. The Court of Appeal in
a unanimous decision allowed the appeal and restored the Erue-led leadership on
the grounds that the matter was filed out of time and therefore statute barred.
In the unanimous judgment delivered on March 17 and read by
Justice Chidi Nwaoma Uwa, the court held that the lower court lacked
jurisdiction to entertain the suit as it bordered on an intra-party matter.
The court stated that the failure of the respondents to
file their suit within 14 days of the issue complained of (pre-election)
extinguished their rights.
But in a swift reaction, the Ogodo-led State Executive
Committee of the party through their counsel, O.J Oghenejakpor, in an appeal at
the Supreme Court asked the apex court to set aside the judgment of the
appellate court on the grounds that the justices of the Court of Appeal erred
in law when they held that the appellants have abandoned their preliminary
objection and thereby refused to entertain the preliminary objection properly
raised before them and ended up striking same out without considering it.
The appellants also contended that the justices of the
Court of Appeal misdirected themselves in law in their consideration of the
cause of action of the appellants when they held in pages 17-18 of the judgment
in part thus, “It is clear that the crux of the suit at the lower court is the
status of the Executive of 4th respondent (APC) at the State, Later cal
Government and Wards levels in Delta State.
“The positions sought to be declared as authentic, legal
and valid are various levels of political party (4th respondent and 1st
defendant at the trial) officials in Delta State. It is not a suit in respect
of the selection or nomination of a candidate of a political party for election
who were to be sponsored by the 4th respondent. It is a case purely concerning
members of the State Executives of the 4th respondent in Delta State”.
The appellants further averted that their claim as
disclosed from the record of appeal was a complaint against the breach of the
APC Constitution, APC guidelines for the conduct of primaries, Electoral Act
2010(as amended) and the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999
by the respondents which has vested them with a cause of action.
The appellants further contended that the lower court by
limiting its consideration to reliefs 1-6 of the statement of claim amounted to
a denial of fair hearing.
They stated that the lower court took a one-sided view of
the case and ignored to positively look at the case of the appellants and the
findings of the Federal High Court made in respect of the issues placed before
the trial court.
The appellants maintained that the Court of Appeal erred in
law when they entertained the appeal of the 1st respondent and allowed even
when the 1st respondent failed to lead any evidence at the trail court in
support of The averments contained in its statement of defense.
They asked the apex court to allow the appeal in its
entirety, an order setting aside the judgment of the Court of Appeal including
the order as to costs and and order affirming the judgment of the Trail Court.
No comments:
Post a comment