Appeal court reserves ruling of makarfi's motion over jimoh Ibrahim

The Court of Appeal Abuja division yesterday evening reserved in the motion filed by a factional Chairman of the Peoples Democratic Party, Ahmed Makarfi, and the faction's Secretary, Ben Obi, seeking leave to appeal against the Federal High Court's judgment which recognised Jimoh Ibrahim as the PDP's governorship candidate in Ondo State.

A three-man panel of the court presided over by Justice Jumai Sankey announced the reservation of ruling after entertaining arguments from parties.

The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) on Thursday, acting on the June 29 judgment of Justice Okon Abang and another enforcement judgment of the same judge on October 14, dropped Eyitayo Jegede's name and replaced it with that of Ibrahim.

Yesterday's proceedings, which witnessed the hearing of the motion jointly filed by Makarfi, Obi, and others, lasted about six and a half hours.

Makarfi and Obi filed their motion in the appeal CA/A/155/2016 seeking an extension of time to appeal and the leave to appeal as interested parties against the June 29.

Jegede also filed similar motion in his appeal numbered CA/A/155C/2016, but was adjourned till Tuesday for hearing to enable the respondents filed their responses.

The motions by Makarfi, Obi and Jegede were necessitated by the fact that they were not parties to the suit at the Federal High Court and failed to appeal within the statutory 90 days within which they ought to do so.

Makarfi and Obi's motion argued by their lawyer, Dayo Akinlaja (SAN), was opposed by the lawyer to the respondents, including the Biyi Poroye-led faction of the PDP in Ondo State, Alex Izinyon (SAN).

Poroye's faction which produced Ibrahim as the party's candidate belonged to the Ali Modu Sheriff, while Jegede belonged to Makarfi faction.

PDP's lawyer, Olagoke Fakunle (SAN), also opposed the motion.

But INEC's lawyer, Mr. Nelson Anih, said the commission would remain neutral.

A mild drama however played out when a lawyer representing the Ahmed Makarfi's leadership of the PDP, Robert Emukperho, made attempt to identify the appeal and other processes he filed for the PDP.

Fakunle, who claimed to also be appearing for the PDP asked that the court strike out the processes filed by Emukperho.

Justice Sankey adjourned hearing of the processes by Emukperho and Fakule's motion, asking the court to strike them out till today.

Sheriff, Makarfi and Obi were present in court on yesterday.

Meanwhile, Jegede withdrew his motion before the Court of Appeal in Abuja seeking to restrain the Independent National Electoral Commission over his candidacy in the forthcoming November 26 election.

The Chairman of the Makarfi-led faction of the PDP in Ondo State, Mr. Clement Faboyede, and the Secretary, Chief Oyedele Ibine, also withdrew their joint motion for stay of execution yesterday.

Their lawyer, Akinlaja, told the Justice Jumai Shankey-led three-man appeal panel that the withdrawal of the motions for stay of execution had been overtaken by the event of the INEC's decision to substitute Jegede's name with that of Jimoh Ibrahim late on Thursday.

While Jegede's motion was filed on October 25 in the appeal numbered CA/A/551C/2016, Faboyede's was filed on October 14 in the appeal numbered CA/551A/2016.

While earlier withdrawing Faboyede's motion, Akinlaja said the motion had become stale in view of the action the INEC took on Thursday.

He said, "We have a motion filed on October 14, 2014 seeking stay of execution and other injunction.

"But in view of the pre-emptive action taken by the 10th respondent (INEC) in doing exactly what the applicant (Faboyede) sought to stop by substituting a candidate that has already been submitted, the application has become stale," Akinlaja said.

But when it was the turn of Jegede's case, Akinlaja was reluctant to withdraw the motion for stay of execution.

Rather he urged the court to order INEC to reverse the substition of Jegede's name with that of Ibrahim.

On whether his application was proper in view of the fact that his client's motion, seeking the leave to appeal as an interested party was yet to be heard, he cited section 30 of the Court of Appeal Rules to argue that an application to appeal also constituted a proper appeal.

He however agreed to withdraw the motion when he realised the stance of the appeal panel.

 The court then struck it out but refused to grant the prayer of the some of the respondents' lawyers for an award of cost against the applicant.  

Posted via Festechvibes panels.