The court of appeal in Abuja has set aside the judgment of a federal high court which faulted the conduct of the governorship primary of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) in Edo.
The poll produced Asue Ighodalo as the party’s candidate for the Sept. 21 election.
A three-member panel of the appellate court, set aside the judgement of Justice Inyang Ekwo delivered on the July 4, on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction.
In a unanimous decision, delivered by Justice Musali , in the appeal marked
CA/ABJ/CV/763/24 , the court held that it cannot interfere with how the PDP select it’s candidate for the Sept. 21 governorship election in Edo .
Besides, the appellate court held that those who instituted the suit lacked the necessary legal standing to do so.
The apeal court ruled that the Federal High Court cannot interfere with how the PDP selected its candidate for the Sept. 21 governorship election in Edo.
The court held further, that the plaintiffs lacked the locus standi to have approached the trial court since they were not aspirants who participated in the primary poll.
“The lower court has no jurisdiction to interfere with how the PDP conducts its internal affairs.
” The appeal succeeds. The judgment of the federal high court delivered on July 4, 2024 is set aside for lack of jurisdiction,” the court held.
Some aggrieved members of the party Kelvin Mohammed, Gabriel Okoduwa and Ederaho Osagie had challenged the exercise and sued for themselves and on behalf of the 378 other delegates in 12 LGAs and 127 wards on the outcome of the election.
They prayed the court to grant a mandatory order restraining the defendants from unlawfully excluding them and other lawfully elected delegates from participating as ad hoc ward delegates.
NAN reports that Justice Inyang Ekwo, in that judgment held that both the provisions of the Electoral Act 2022 and the PDP guidelines were violated in the conduct of the primary election at the Samuel Ogbemudia Stadium in Benin City.
Ekwo, held that Exhibit PDP 1 tendered by the party was bereft of evidence, held that the plaintiffs, through the exhibits tendered, were able to establish their case against the defendants.
The judge held that from the exhibit presented by the PDP, he found that the returning officers who prepared the result sheets just manufactured the results.
He held that the exclusion of the 381 delegates, including the plaintiffs, was against the provisions of the law. (NAN)
