It is not yet uhuru for Olumide Akpata, the governorship candidate of the Labour Party(LP), in the forthcoming September 21st governorship election in Edo State as a former governorship aspirant of the party, Barrister Kenneth Imansuangbon, has dragged Akpata, LP and Independent National Electoral Commission(INEC) before the Court of Appeal.
Dissatisfied with the decisions by Justice Quadri of the Federal High Court in Benin and Justice Obiora Egwuatu Abuja which dismissed his applications on the 15th and 22nd July, 2024 respectively and headed to the appellate court.
In the notice before the Appellate Court Abuja with suit no:
suit no FHC/ABJ/CS/472/2024, on the first ground of his appeal, Imansuangbon stated that “the learned trial judge erred in law and arrived at a perverse decision occasioning a miscarriage of justice to the plaintiff/appellant when he dismissed the plaintiff/appellant’s suit on the strength of the 1st defendant/respondent’s contention in his preliminary objection at the lower court.
“That the suit was statue barred, without considering Section 285(13A) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999(fifth alteration) act, (No. 10), 2023, to which the attention of the lower court was drawn at the hearing of the suit.
Particulars of the ground being that “the learned trial judge found as a fact in his decision that the letter forwarding the personal particulars of the 1st and 2nd defendants/respondents as in INEC Form EC9 to 4th defendant/respondent(the Independent National Electoral Commission) was received by the 4th defendant/respondent on the 24th of March, 2024.”
Also, that “the learned trial judge further found as a fact that the commencement date of computation thereof, of time allowed for filling of pre-election matters in the circumstance, was the 24th of March, 2024.
“A simple arithmetical computation of the 14 days provided for under the law, from the date of submission of the said INEC Form EC9 of the 1st and 2nd defendants/respondents(that’s 24th of March, 2024), to the 12th of April, 2024, when the plaintiff/appellant filed his suit, reveals a total number of 18 days in between.”
Imansuangbon is seeking for an order allowing the appeal; an order setting aside the decision of the lower court; an order directing the 3rd defendant/respondent to immediately issue certificate of return to the plaintiff/appellant as winner of the primary election organized on Friday, 23rd February, 2024.
Also challenging the ruling by the Federal High Court, Benin in the notice of appeal with suit no. FHC/ABJ/CS/472/2024, Imansuangbon set his appeal on nine grounds which include that “the learned trial judge erred in law when he failed, refused and or neglected to consider, pronounce upon, decide, one way or the other, the 1st defendant’s motion/application for extension of time to file his responsive processes to the originating summons which the plaintiff/appellant ferociously or vehemently opposed on the strength of the constitutional provision prohibiting extension of time in election related cases and thereby breached the plaintiff/appellant’s right to fair hearing.”
Imansuagbon on ground two, stated that “the learned trial judge erred in law and thus occasioned a miscarriage of justice on the plaintiff/appellant.”
On the third ground he asserted that the trial judge misdirected himself when he held that “the plaintiff has argued that since every pre-election matter must be filled not later than 14 days from the date of the occurrence of the event, decision or action complained of in the suit that an aggrieved aspirant need not wait to exhaust the internal dispute resolution mechanism of the second defendant.”
Reliefs that Imansuangbon sought include an order allowing the appeal; an order setting aside the decision of the lower court; an order striking out all the processes filed by the 1st defendant at the trial court; an order directing the 2nd defendant to immediately issue a certificate of return to the plaintiff as the winner of the primary election organized on Friday, 23rd February, 2024 and an order directing, commanding or otherwise mandating the 2nd defendant to submit, forward or otherwise transmit the plaintiff’s name to the 3rd defendant as winner of the primary election.
In his ruling Justice Quadri had declared that the lawsuit was premature and without substantial evidence to support its claims. The Court, therefore, upheld Olumide Akpata’s position as the LP’s gubernatorial candidate for the upcoming election.
