The Abuja Division of the Court of Appeal, yesterday fixed July 16 for hearing in the appeal brought by the members of the party in Rivers State. A three-man panel of the appellate court, led by Justice Stephen Ada, announced the date for hearing in the substantive suit after the court dismissed the preliminary objection raised by the ousted Chairman of the caretaker committee the party in Rivers State, Igo Aguma.
The sacked Chairman of the party’s Caretaker Committee, Mr. Isaac Ogbobula, had approached the Court of Appeal to challenge the judgment of the Rivers State High Court that sacked his committee and affirmed Aguma as the acting chairman of the APC in the state. Aguma, APC and former National Chairman of the APC, Adams Oshiomhole, are the first, second and third respondents.
Justice George Omereji of a Rivers State High Court had on June 9 declared Aguma as the acting chairman of the party in the state. The court also compelled the party to allow all members of the party loyal to Abe to participate in the new congresses. The court voided the caretaker committee appointed by the now-dissolved NWC of the party in 2018.
Dissatisfied with the judgment, Ogbobula went to the appellate court, praying the court to set aside Justice Omereji’s judgment and restore him as the chairman in the state. When the matter came up yesterday, counsel to Aguma, Emeka Etiaba (SAN), raised a preliminary objection, arguing that the appellant did not comply with the rule of the court in compiling and transmitting records to the Appeal Court.
He said it was near impossible for a court to have delivered a judgment on Thursday and the record filed and transmitted to the Court of Appeal in Abuja the following day. He held further that the Appeal Court cannot depart from its own rule to give vent to non-proper filing and regularisation of application, especially when it was not yet time to file.
He said the appellant put “the horse before the cart” in transmitting records to Appeal Court in that as at when the application was filed, the records had not been properly compiled. Etiaba also raised the issue of non-proper service on one of the respondents. But the appellant’s counsel Tuduru Ede (SAN), said the court could set aside and depart from its own rules when the need arises to regularise a process.
Tuduru held that the court has the power to deem an application properly filed and start running from the time. “I hold this honourable court has the power to grant prayers we are seeking,” Tuduru added. In a short ruling, the Court of Appeal dismissed the objection on the grounds that the argument of the first respondent was misconceived and, therefore, liable to dismissal.
Justice Ada held further that the appellant’s application complied with the rule of the Appeal Court, adding that the application for preliminary objection “was a complete waste of court’s time and abuse of court process.” The panel further said that Etiaba’s objection was a disgraceful act that ought not to be at the Court of Appeal.
