The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN), reports that a presidential aspirant, Mr Cosmas Ndukwe, filed an ex-parte application for an order of injunction restraining the PDP from proceeding with its scheduled primary election.

When the matter was called on Thursday, counsel to the plaintiff, Mr Paul Erokoro (SAN), told the court that he received PDP’s affidavit stating why the primary election should not be stopped late on Wednesday.

Erokoro prayed the court for an adjournment to enable him to peruse the document and respond to the reasons adduced to by the PDP against the suit of his client.

Counsel to the PDP, Mr Mahmud Magaji (SAN), as well as counsel to the other defendants, did not oppose the request for an adjournment.

Justice Donatus Okorowo, subsequently fixed May 10, to hear the matter and asked parties to file and exchange their processes ahead of the day.

NAN reports that Ndukwe, former Deputy Speaker, Abia House of Assembly, had on April 28, filed an ex parte application for an order of injunction restraining the PDP from proceeding with its scheduled primary election.

He said the primary election should be put on hold pending the hearing and determination of his suit, challenging the position of the party on the issue of zoning the party’s presidential ticket.

Justice Okorowo, rather than grant Ndukwe’s request, ordered that the PDP should appear before him on May 5, and show cause why the court should not grant Ndukwe’s request.

Ndukwe listed the PDP, its National Chairman, Mr Iyorchia Ayu, Sen. Samuel Anyanwu and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), as defendants in the suit marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/508/2022.

garfield1 vicdom kahal29 penguin2 indispensable85 ejimatic AAA593 agberaorogboye

He said the primary election should be put on hold pending the hearing and determination of his suit[b], challenging the position of the party on the issue of zoning the party’s presidential ticket[/b].

fergie001:
This case is DoA:

1. Ndukwe lacks the locus standi to institute same.
2. This case is non-justiceable.
3. By virtue of s84(15), the Court lacks jurisdiction.

Case dismissed.

Malory:
APC mole

Indispensable85:
Absolutely I agree with you. Some cases are just ridiculous and you see lawyers taking them up just to make money from the client. Too bad! Lawyers should be fined sometimes when they bring some of these obvious jokes before the courts.

fergie001:
This case is DoA:

1. Ndukwe lacks the locus standi to institute same.
2. This case is non-justiceable.
3. By virtue of s84(15), the Court lacks jurisdiction.

Case dismissed.