Facts have emerged that the Court of Appeal, Abuja division, sitting in Abuja, the Federal Capital Territory, has dismissed the suit filed by an Ogun State governorship aspirant of the Peoples Democratic Party, PDP, Segun Sowunmi, for being incompetent.

This is contrary to the reports in some section of the media to the effect that Sowunmi floored his opponent and the Candiddate of the Party in the 2023 governorship election, Ladi Adebutu, at the appellate Court.

According to the Certified True Copy of the judgement obtained by HorizonTimes, although, the three-man panel of the court decided the three grounds of appeal filed by Sowunmi in his favour, it however struck out the suit describing it as incompetent.

The Court, though, faulted the ruling of an Ogun State High Court which dismissed the case on lack of jurisdiction, it however raised a fresh jurisdictional ground upon which the case was struck out.

Sowunmi, in a suit number AB/267/2022, had approached the lower court alleging bias on the part of the Ogun State Executive Council of the PDP, saying the Executive bought nomination form for Ladi Adebutu, who was an aspirant and not others.

Sowunmi however prayed the court to order dissolution of the ‘entire executive of the 1st Respondent (PDP) in Ogun State from State to Ward levels with immediate effect,’ and an order directing the PDP to appoint a caretaker committee to oversea the affairs of the Party for the purpose of State Congress.

In the alternative, Sowunmi also sought for the order of the court ‘barring the entire members of the Executive Committee…from participating, conducting or supervising any congress in Ogun State’, and an order directing the PDP ‘to appoint the 3 – man ad-hoc ward delegates’ for electing the governorship candidate.

Justice Biodun Akinyemi had declined jurisdiction in the case and subsequently struck it out on the ground that the matter was a pre-election matter, and ought to have been filed before a Federal High court and not a State High Court.

He relied on sections 84(14) of the Electoral Act, 2022.

The court further raised issue of non-joinder of the parties that are likely to be affected by the judgement, adding further that Sowunmi’s prayers were internal affairs of the party, should the case be heard on its merit, which the court is not allowed to pry into.

Not satisfied with the ruling, Sowunmi approached the appellate court in the suit number CA/IB/243/2022 where three grounds of appeal were formulated for determination.

Unlike the lower court, the Court of Appeal heared the matter on its merit and dismissed all prayers therein.

The grounds of appeal read, “Whether the Appellant’s complaint before the lower court was a pre-election matter; whether the Federal High Court has exclusive jurisdiction over pre-election matters, assuming the Appellant’s complaint is a pre-election dispute; and whether the suit before the lower court is incompetent for non-joinder of the Ogun State Executive of the 1st Respondent (PDP).

In determining the matter, the appeal panel of Justices Chidi Nwaoma Uwa, Abba B. Mohammed and Usman Musale, narrowed the case to the alleged bias on the part of the Executive of the Party buying nomination form for one aspirant ‘without doing so for the Appellant...’.

Delivering its judgement read by Justice Nwaoma, the Court affirmed that contrary to the ruling of the lower court, the case was not a pre-election matter. It  added that ‘section 285(14)(a)(c) did not include the purchase of nomination form for an intending aspirant of a political, which is clearly the issue at hand, if it was intended, the section would have said so.’

On the main prayers of the suit to dissolve the Exco and appoint a 3 – man committee, the Court said, “The court is not part of the decision making machinery of the 1st Respondent (PDP).

“Also, the court is not in a position to ban the members of the 1st Respondent’s Executive Council from State to ward level from participating, conducting or supervising any congress in Ogun State.

“The Court is also not empowered to appoint a three (3) man ad-hoc committee ward delegates for the purpose of electing their gubernatorial candidate in the proposed state congress.

“The court is not empowered to run the party for the members. A political party is like as association where members are to run it themselves. These are domestic affairs of the 1st Respondent and it is not the duty of the Court to choose for a political party who their leaders and executives to run the party affairs should be.”

The court further affirmed that the complaint of the Appellant is not justiciable because the party has internal mechanisms to resolve such complaints saying, ‘the court cannot delve into it at this stage. The complaint of the Appellant is not justiciable.’

The court further said that the lower court had stated the right position of the law by holding that court does not have jurisdiction to pry into the internal affairs of a political party by questioning the purchase of nomination form for an aspirant.

It further affirmed that the court was wrong to have labelled the case a pre-election matter, saying, ‘domestic affairs of a political party are to be settled by the party itself not the court.’

Striking out the entire case, the court held, “I am of the humble but firm view that the Appellant’s complaint at the no jurisdiction (sics) to have entertained same as such.

“Even though the matter was struck out for a different reason of non-joinder of the Exco members of the 1st Respondent against whom the complaints were made and who will be directly affected by the orders sought at the lower court. I allow the appeal on issue one alone and hold that the lower court had no jurisdiction to have entertained the incompetent suit at the lower court, same is hereby struck out.”