The Federal High Court sitting in Lagos per Honorable Justice P.O. Lifu
on the 8 th of February, 2023 dismissed a suit filed by Peoples Democratic
Party, against the All-Progressives Congress candidates for the Lagos
State House of Assembly and Gubernatorial candidate, Governor
Olusola Sanwo-Olu in Suit No: FHC/ABJ/CS/ 1979/ 2022. Other party
sued; the Independent National Electoral Commission.
The suit, which was filed on the 17 th of October, 2022, prayed the Court for
reliefs with the main reliefs as follows:
a. A DECLARATION that upon proper construction and interpretation of
the combined provisions of sections 29 and 30(1) of the Electoral Act
2022, it is mandatory for a political party such as the 2 nd Defendant to
submit the Nomination Forms of candidates it proposes to sponsor for
elections to the 1 st Defendant not later than 180 days to the conduct
of such elections.
b. A DECLARATION that the 2 nd _ 43 rd Defendants stand disqualified for
failing to submit the Nomination Forms of the 3 rd -43 rd Defendants to
the 1 st Defendant not later than 180 days to the elections into the
office of the Governor of Lagos State and member of the state House
of Assembly of Lagos State scheduled to hold on March 11 th , 2023.
c. A DECLARATION that upon a proper interpretation of Sections
106(d), 177(c) and 221 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic
of Nigeria, 1999 (as Amended), section 29, 30(1) and 84(13) of the
Electoral Act, 2022 and other enabling laws in that behalf, the 1 st
defendant is NOT permitted by law to all the 2 nd Defendant to sponsor
the 3 rd -43 rd Defendants for the Governorship and State House of
Assembly Elections into the office of the Governor of Lagos State
and member, State House of Assembly of Lagos State; having
contravened the revered and mandatory provisions of Section 29
and 30(1) of the Electoral Act.
d. AN ORDER SETTING ASIDE OR NULLYFYING forthwith the
purported sponsorship and/or nomination of the 3 rd -43 rd Defendants
by the 2 nd Defendant to the 1 st Defendant in respect of the forthcoming
Governorship and State House of Assembly Elections in Lagos State.
e. AN ORDER OF INJUNCTION restraining the 2 nd -43 rd Defendants
either by herself, agents, privies, surrogates or any other person(s)
whosoever from according recognition to the 2 nd -43 rd Defendants or in
any manner whatsoever featuring or parading the 2 nd – 43 rd
Defendants as a political party and candidate respectively in the
forthcoming Governship and State House of Assembly Elections in
Lagos State.
f. AN ORDER OF INJUNCTION restraining the 2 nd – 43 rd Defendants
either by themselves, agents, privies, surrogates or any other
person(s) whosoever from parading themselves as a political party
and candidates respectively to contest the forthcoming Governorship
and State House of Assembly Elections in Lagos State.
In defense of the suit, the Law office of Babatunde Ogala (SAN) & Co, on
behalf of All Progressives Congress candidates of the House of Assembly,
Lagos State filed its’ Memorandum of Conditional Appearance, a Notice of
Preliminary Objection and a Counter-Affidavit with Written Address. The
Preliminary objection was premised on the following grounds:
a. That the Plaintiffs lacked the Locus standi to institute and
maintain the suit against the 4 th – 43 rd Defendants not being
Aspirants in the Primaries election of the 2 nd Defendant.
b. The action was barred by statute of Limitation.
c. The suit did not disclose any cause of action as the Plaintiff
failed to establish her interest in the suit.
d. The Issue of nomination or sponsorship of a candidate is a sole
prerogative and domestic affairs of a political party.
e. And the suit constituted an abuse of Court Process.
The matter came up 30 th January, 2023 for further directives, the Plaintiff
Counsel requested for a further date so as to enable them file a response
to the Preliminary Objection of the 4 th – 43 rd Defendants. Learned Silk,
Babatunde Ogala SAN, Principal of the law firm Babatunde Ogala SAN &
Co representing the APC candidates of the House of Assembly, Lagos
State, informed the court that service of the preliminary objection, Counter
Affidavit and Written Address on the Plaintiff Counsel was a problem as the
Plaintiff’s Counsel address on the Originating Process is wrong, he had to
resort to e-service via E-mail. He further submitted that the suit ought to be
struck out as the Plaintiff is not diligent in the prosecution of the suit.
The Court addressed the issues of incompetency of the Plaintiff counsel
and also agreed that the Plaintiff is not diligent in the prosecution of the
suit. The suit was adjourned to 8 th February, 2023 for hearing of the
Preliminary Objections and the Originating process with the directive that
the Plaintiff has 48 hours to respond to the Preliminary Objection and the
Defendants subsequently have 48 hours to reply same.
On 8 th February, 2023, when the matter came up for hearing, Babatunde
Ogala, SAN informed the court that the Plaintiff failed to serve the
Defendants their response to the Preliminary Objections. He further
informed the Court since the Plaintiff did not respond to their Preliminary
Objection, the suit and Preliminary Objection are ripe for hearing and he’s
ready to move the Preliminary Objection, after which the Plaintiff Counsel
can move their Originating Process.
The Plaintiff Counsel in response informed the Court that they had
prepared and served the Defendants their response however, they sought
to withdraw the suit due to an intervening circumstance which necessitated
for them to withdraw the suit.
Babatunde Ogala, SAN objected to the withdrawal of the suit, he prayed
the court to dismiss the suit outrightly. He sought the guidance of the
Honourable Court to find out if the Plaintiff actually filed their responses as
the Defendants have not been served with any process and in the likely
event it turned out the Plaintiff counsel didn’t file their response, he urged
the Court to sanction the Plaintiff Counsel. He submitted that issues have
been joined as the 4 th -43 rd Defendants have already filed a Counter Affidavit
and Written Address in opposition to the Originating Summons of the
Plaintiff and a Notice of Preliminary Objection challenging the competency
of the suit and going by Order 50 Rule 2 of the Federal High Court (Civil
Procedure) Rules 2019, the Plaintiff counsel ought to have filed their
Notice of Withdrawal within 14days. He urged the Honourable Court to
dismiss the suit.
The trial judge in delivering his judgment agreed with the submissions of
the Learned Silk, 1 st , 2 nd and 3 rd Defendants counsel since issues have been
joined.
The Suit was dismissed.
Thank you.
