The Court of Appeal Abuja, has reserved judgement in an appeal filed by the sacked Akwa Ibom governorship candidate of the All Progressives Congress (APC), Akanimo Udofia, against the judgement of a lower court.
The three-member panel headed by Elfreda Williams – Dawodu, made this known after counsel to the appellant, Damian Dodo, SAN, and Senator Ita Enang’s lawyer, Mba Ukweni, SAN, adopted their briefs and presented their arguments for and against the appeal.
Recall that a Federal High Court (FHC) in Uyo had, on 14 November, nullified the nomination of Mr Udofia as the governorship candidate of the APC in Akwa Ibom.
The judge, Agatha Okeke, ordered the APC to conduct a fresh governorship primary within two weeks but barred Mr Udofia from participating in the new primary.
The case was instituted by Senator Enang, a former presidential aide, who was an aspirant in the primary.
Enang had prayed the court to declare him the validly elected candidate of the party arguing that Udofia was not a member of the party as of the time of the primary.
But Udofia challenged the judgement of the lower court.
In the appeal, Enang is the 1st respondent, the APC is the 2nd, and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) is the 3rd.
Also, in another appeal filed by the APC through its lawyer, J.Y. Musa, SAN, on the same matter, Messrs Enang and Udofia are 1st and 2nd respondents respectively, while INEC is 3rd.
Upon resumed hearing in Mr Udofia’s appeal on Saturday, his lawyer, Mr Dodo, said the brief which the appellant relied upon was dated 9 December and filed the same date.
He adopted all his court documents and urged the court to set aside the judgment of the lower court.
Arguing his case, the lawyer said the lower court erred in its judgement as the suit, which was commenced via an originating summons, ought to have been instituted through a writ of summons, citing an Appeal Court judgement which was affirmed by the Supreme Court on 21 October to support his submission.
He said the apex court held that whenever parties are in dispute, especially in pre-election matters, what should be filed was the writ of summons where parties would call their witnesses to enable the court to make an unbiased decision since it would be difficult for a court to find two parties agreeing on a fact.
He said in the instant case where there were allegations of results being fabricated, and votes being allocated to certain people, Enang (1st respondent) should have commenced the suit by writ of summons.
Mr Dodo also argued that Enang’s amended originating summons was filed at the lower court outside the 14 days prescribed by law.
