By Joshua Egbodo
Abuja
A Federal High Court sitting in yesterday Abuja adjourned till April 13th, 2015 a suit challenging the emergence of the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Aminu Waziri Tambuwal as gubernatorial candidate of the All Progressives Congress (APC).
Senator Umaru Dahiru had challenged the party over the manner it conducted its primary election that saw the emergence of Tambuwal.
Dahiru had alleged that the process was flawed and wanted the court to bar the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) from listing Tambuwal as governorship candidate for Sokoto State on the platform of the APC.
When the case came up yesterday, Justice Evoh Chukwu however adjourned it to 13 April, 2015 to enable the defendants respond to a motion served on the plaintiff yesterday morning in court.
Tambuwal’s lawyer, Sunday Ameh (SAN) while explaining why the case was adjourned said his team would require time to go through the processes served on the defendant by the plaintiff.
He said: “There were pending applications to be taken this morning but counsels to the plaintiff served us with some processes this morning that will require our action but we had to apply to the court to give us the opportunity to react to those processes. The court granted our application and fixed 13 April, 2015 for the hearing of that application.”
According to him, the competence of the Federal High Court Abuja to handle the case is being challenged, saying, “The process the plaintiff used in beginning this action of originating summons is not suitable for the kind of claim they have forwarded in this court.
“They have allegations of intimidation, treating of delegates malpractices and so on but we said this is not one of those actions or claims that can begin with originating summons.
“Secondly, that this primary election took place in Sokoto State, while are filing the case in Abuja and series of other actions that we have filled challenging the competence of this court.
“The case has not gone into the substantive matter, all we have done so far is the preliminaries. We served the motion on notice on the plaintiff on 31st, the plaintiff did not take any step.
“Being a pre-election matter and with claims that time is of the essence, they did not take any step to react to the application until this morning. They served us in court this morning and we do not have the opportunity of going through the processes, and it is impossible to react to something we have read.
“That was what informed our application to the court for an adjournment with proof and that we are entitled to reply to he processes served on us his morning”.
