Ondo poll: Court dismisses suit challenging Akeredolu’s reelection poll


Get real time updates directly on you device, subscribe now.

The Federal High Court in Abuja, on Wednesday, dismissed a suit challenging the validity of the emergence of Gov. Rotimi Akeredolu as the candidate of the  All Progressives Congress (APC) in the July 20 primary election.

Delivering judgment, Justice Inyang Ekwo, dismissed the suit filed by Mrs Olajumoke Anifowose, an APC aspirant in the poll.

Ekwo held that the application was statute-barred on the grounds that being a pre-election matter, it was filed outside the 14 days provided in Section 185(9) of the constitution.

The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that Akeredolu was declared the winner of the Oct. 11, 2020 governorship election in the state after polling 292, 830 votes to defeat his closest rival, Mr Eyitayo Jegede of the PDP, who scored 195, 791 votes.

However, Mrs. Anifowose, in the suit, marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/881/2020, had challenged the adoption of indirect primary by the APC on July 20, 2020 in nominating its governorship candidate for the last election in Ondo State.

Read Also: Volkswagen cuts production further over semiconductor shortage

She prayed the court to void the outcome of the primary, from which Akeredolu emerged as APC’s candidate.

Justice Ekwo held that, though the suit, originally filed on July 29, 2020 was instituted within the 14 days prescribed under Section 185(9) of the constitution, it was wrongly commenced when the plaintiff chose to sue the Governor of Ondo State as against Oluwarotimi Akeredolu.

The judge said the amendment effected by the plaintiff on the originating summons, to substitute the Governor of Ondo State with Oluwarotimi Akeredolu, was done on Aug. 13, 2020, outside the 14 days allowed by the constitution.

The judge said the amendment of the originating process for the purpose of substituting the first defendant would have been in order if it was done within the 14 days allowed for the commencement of pre-election cases under Section 185(9) of the constitution.

He noted that the Governor of Ondo State is not the same as Oluwarotimi Akeredolu, and that while the former is an office, the latter is a human being, who was a participant in the primary held on July 20, 2020.

The judge added that it was Akeredolu, who participated in the primary, which was challenged, and not the Governor of Ondo State, earlier sued by the plaintiff before the amendment was effected on the originating summons.

“When the plaintiff amended their originating summons on 13th August, 2020 and substituted the initial first defendant (the Governor of Ondo State) with the present 1st defendant, Oluwarotimi Odunayo Akeredolu (SAN), (who actually participated in the primaries), the plaintiff created a constitutional debacle for herself by not considering the import of that decision against the provisions of S. 285 (9) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended),” the judge said.

Justice Ekwo faulted the argument by the plaintiff that the substitution of the Governor of Ondo State with Oluwarotimi Akeredolu (as the 1st defendant) was a mere misnomer.

He said since the original suit was defective, the correction/substitution effected by the plaintiff outside the constitutionally stipulated 14 days could not be regarded as misnomer.

“It must be understood that where misnomer is the issue concerning parties to an action, it must have to do with the correction of a typographical error or clerical mistake in the name of the party and not the replacement or substitution of party in a suit with another person as it happened in this suit.

“It is wrong for the plaintiff to use the process of amendment to substitute the Governor of Ondo State which they sued originally with Oluwarotimi Odunayo Akeredolu (SAN) and claim that the former was misnomer.

“If the plaintiff now claims that they wrongly sued the Governor of Ondo State at the commencement of this suit instead of the present first defendant, they cannot now say that it was a misnomer. It was without mincing words, a fatal error.

“The position of the plaintiff that the Governor of Ondo State at the time the action was filed was no other than the present first defendant is wrong in all ramifications.

“Misnomer will in appropriate circumstances operate to allow correction of letter(s) in a name or even the whole word that constitutes a name so that the person therein named is not mistaken for another entity.

“The substitution of a person or party with another person in the course of proceedings is outside the realm of misnomer.

“In this case, the plaintiff was bringing in the present first defendant through the back-door in the course of proceedings in the name of misnomer.

“It is neither plausible nor sensible to argue, as the plaintiff has done, that the amendment, which brought in the present first defendant dates back to when this suit was originally commenced.

“If the suit was improperly constituted ab initio, no amendment can cure such defect.

“I find that this suit was not instituted against the present first defendant, that is, Oluwarotimi Odunayo Akeredolu, SAN (who actually participated in the primaries of 20th July 2020) within 14 days as prescribed by Section 285(9) of the 1999 Constitution.

“I therefore hold that it is statute-barred. Consequently, I therefore make an order dismissing this case for being statute-barred,” Justice Ekwo said.

NAN also reports that on Dec. 16, 2020, a Federal High Court dismissed another suit challenging the validity of the July 20, 2020, primary election which produced Akeredolu as the APC candidate in the October 2020 election in the state.

Justice Okon Abang, while delivering judgment in that matter instituted by an APC governorship aspirant in Ondo State, Dr Nath Adojutelegan, also held that the case was statute-barred as it was not filed within 14 days of the arising of the cause of action.

The judge in upholding the notices of preliminary objection filed by Akeredolu and the APC held that from the facts presented by the plaintiff the crux of his grouse was about the use of the indirect mode of the primary election, which he objected.(NAN)

Leave a Reply

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.