The Court of Appeal, Abuja Division on Wednesday, affirmed Julius Abure as the national chairman of the Labour Party (LP).
The Court, in a judgement delivered by Justice Hamman Barka in the appeal filed by Abure, set aside the judgement of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) which restrained Abure and two others from parading themselves as national officers of the party.
Justice Barka held that the high court was wrong to have assumed jurisdiction on the matter, having
held that Abure’s appeal had merit and accordingly allowed it.
He said, “The judgement of the lower court is hereby set aside” he held and awarded a cost of N1 million in favour of the appellants.
A High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) had, on May 12, 2023 dismissed the objection raised by Abure challenging his removal as chairman of the Labour Party (LP).
Ruling on an ex parte application on April 5, Justice Hamza Muazu restrained Abure and three others — Farouk Ibrahim, Clement Ojukwu, and Oluchi Opara — from acting as national officers of the LP.
The plaintiffs in the suit marked CV/2930/2023 told the court that the defendants forged several documents of the FCT High Court to carry out unlawful substitutions in the last elections.
The suit was filed by Martins Esikpali John, Lucky Shaibu, Isah Zekeri, Omogbai Frank, Abokhaiu Aliu, Ayohkaire Lateef, John Elomah, and Abayomi Arabambi.
The defendants, through their lawyer, Alex Ejesieme (SAN) filed a preliminary objection against the suit.
Ejesieme said the allegation of forgery against his clients cannot be brought before the court through originating summon.
He also alleged that the plaintiffs are not members of the LP and therefore, lack the locus standi (Legal right) to institute the suit.
The counsel said the matter borders on the internal issues of the party which the court cannot interfere with.
But, Justice Muazu, in his ruling on the application, held that the court has jurisdiction to adjudicate on issues relating to the party’s internal affairs, adding that, if the party had been at peace, there would be no need for the court to interfere in its affairs.
“When there is no crack on the wall, there will not be need for an outsider to come to mend it,” he said and added that, the plaintiffs were right to have instituted the case by originating summons.