The Appeal Court, Abuja will deliver judgement in Mr. Akan Okon’s appeal against the ruling of the Federal High Court, Uyo division that dismissed the alleged forgery case against Pastor Umo Eno, the Akwa Ibom PDP governorship candidate.
Mr. Okon who contested the May 25 PDP governorship primary had dragged Umo Eno, the winner of the primary, to Federal High Court, Uyo on allegation of presenting forged academic credentials to PDP and INEC.
After months of legal battle, the court ruled that Okon’s case challenging Eno’s academic qualification lacked merit, whereupon he appealed against the judgment in the Court of Appeal.
Also read: Forgery case: Eno triumphs as court awards N15m against Okon
Arising from Okon’s appeal, Akwa Ibom State chapter of the PDP had on January 4, 2023 filed an interlocutory appeal at the Supreme Court against the ruling of the Court of Appeal in Abuja delivered on December 24, 2022 foreclosing PDP and Umo Eno (1st and 2nd respondents respectively) from filing their brief of argument having been filed out of the five days period allowed by law.
Apparently, the application by Umo Eno and PDP before the Supreme Court to disband the Appeal Court Special panel was ignored by the Apex Court.
PDP counsel petitions Supreme Court
The Peoples Democratic Party petitioned the Supreme Court not only to overturn the December 24, 2022, ruling, but also to dismiss the Court of Appeal’s panel hearing the case of perjury between its governorship candidate, Umo Eno, and a former aspirant, Akan Okon.
In an appeal No. CA/C/369/2022, the party expressed dissatisfaction with the decision involving its candidate at the Court of Appeal, Abuja Division.
It did, however, name Akan Okon, Umo Eno, and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) as respondents to the case.
The petition dated January 4, 2023, was signed by PDP’s Counsel and Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Paul Usoro.
The PDP stated that it disagreed with the entire decision made by the Court of Appeal panel, which was presided over by its President, Justice Monica Dongban-Mensem, and two other justices.
It, therefore, sought the order of the Supreme Court allowing its appeal and setting aside the Appeal Court’s ruling delivered on December 24, 2022.
Part of the reliefs sought by the embattled ruling party in Akwa Ibom State reads, “An order of this honourable court (a) setting aside the proceedings of the lower court on the 24 December 2022;
“Granting a departure from the Election Judicial Proceedings Practice Direction, 2022 by extending time for the filling of the respondent’s briefs of arguments of the appellant and the 2nd respondent and deeming the briefs as duly and properly filed and served in the terms of the appellant’s motion, pursuant to the powers of the Supreme Court under Section 22 of the Supreme Court Act, Cap S15, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004;
“And ordering the re-hearing of the appeal by the lower court before a fresh and different panel,” the PDP stated.
The party, among other grounds, noted that the Appeal Court was misdirected in refusing the applicant’s motion that was filed on December 22, 2022, and which prayed the court for a departure from the Election Judicial Proceedings Practice Direction, 2022 in extending time for the filling of the appellant’s brief of arguments for hearing of the appeal and deeming the already filed briefs of arguments as duly filed and served on the first respondent thereof.
It also held that the lower court (Appeal Court) was misdirected in refusing the appellant’s motion for departure from the Practice Direction and holding that “one is unable to found any provision for the extension of time for the brief to be filed,” and that “this court continues to rule that based on the provision of the Practice Direction this court cannot exercise any discretion to enlarge time for the respondent’s brief to be filed.”
On the third ground, the PDP held that the Appeal Court was misdirected in holding that “in Udom Udo Ekpoudom v APC and another delivered 14/11/2022 based on the decision of the apex court in Maku v Sule this application cannot be allowed; it is hereby refused.”
Its ground four was that by refusing the appellant’s motion and proceeding to hear the appeal on December 24, 2022 without the joint respondents’ briefs of arguments of the appellant and the 2nd respondent, the Appeal Court denied the appellant the fundamental right to be heard on the appeal in terms of and pursuant to Section 36(1) of the 1999 Constitution.
The Court of Appeal had on December 24, 2022, reserved judgement in an appeal brought before it by Mr. Okon challenging the ruling of the Federal High Court, which held that Mr. Eno was the legitimate candidate of the PDP.
At the resumed hearing of the appeal, Mr. Usoro, the PDP counsel, had drawn the court’s attention to the motion filed by the first and second respondents on December 22, 2022, for concessions regarding the late filing of the brief of reply.
Based on that, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), Offiong Offiong, proceeded to move a motion supported by an affidavit for the court to grant their prayers for extended time, saying that an unfortunate incident of kidnap of the administrative staff of the first and second respondents caused the delay in the filling of the reply.
The application was opposed by Okey Amaechi, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), and counsel to Mr. Okon, arguing that the court has no power to grant such extension.
The court subsequently ruled that it has no discretionary powers to extend time for the first and second respondents to file their replies and thereby struck out their briefs while also reserving judgment on the substantial suit before it.
