Ahead of the 2023 general elections, the Court of Appeal, Abuja has restored Pastor Umo Eno as the authentic Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) candidate for Akwa Ibom State.
The Federal High Court, Abuja had on January 20 declared Michael Enyong, a two-term member representing Uyo/Uruan/Nsit Atai/Ibesikpo Asutan Federal Constituency in the House of Representatives, as the winner of the governorship race.
Consequently, Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) had on February 15 published the name of Michael Enyong in its portal as the PDP governorship candidate in the state.
Also read: Pastor Umo Eno’s lawyers Resume legal fireworks at Court of Appeal
Delivering judgement on Tuesday, February 21, Justice Hamma Barka agreed with counsels to Eno that the Federal High Court judgment was delivered in error and that the court was misled by the plaintiff in the matter to arrive at an Unjust conclusion.
This was after the counsels to both parties had adopted their briefs of argument on February 17, 2023 at the Court of Appeal, Abuja.
The court ruled that it had previously resolved the issue of the use of statutory delegates in Akwa Ibom State.
The appellate court held that the issue of statutory delegates who voted at the primary election is an internal affair of the party and that the lower court ought not to have enquired into the issue.
Justice Barka also agreed that it is only the National Working Committee of a political party that has the power to conduct primary elections for the purpose of the nomination of candidates for general election.
The appellate court further held that since the lower court has no jurisdiction to inquire into the internal affairs of PDP, the Judge has no discretion in law to exercise in the matter.
Justice Barka thereafter upheld the appeal of the PDP and vacated all orders made by the Federal High Court judgment in favour of Michael Enyong.
The Court further ordered Mr. Michael Enyong, to pay N1 million to the appellant as a cost of litigation.
In suit No. CA/ABJ/CV/120/2023 in a case of PDP Vs Hon. Michael Enyong, the PDP led by Paul Usoro, SAN, Offiong Offiong, SAN, Uwemedimo Nwoko, SAN, Ime Edem-Nse, Ikechukwu Duru, Alhassan Mohammed had filed the matter.
Three issues were raised by PDP for determination by the Lordships: Was the Lower Court seized with jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate upon Enyong suit pursuant to Section 285(9) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended)?
Was the Appellant served with the Enyong Originating Summons hereof and/or Hearing Notices for the Lower Court’s seized with jurisdiction to entertain with adjudicate entertain the case?
Did Enyong merit the Judgment of the Lower Court?
Counsels to the 1st Respondent, Michael Enyong were Barr A. C. Peters and Nyaknno-Abasi Jacob Etuk.
Abdul Mohammed and A Abubakar appeared for the 2nd Respondent, INEC.
Barr Samuel Ikpo was in court to witness proceedings on behalf of the PDP candidate, Pastor Umo Eno.
Recall that PDP reported to the court that efforts to serve Michael Enyong a motion on the appeal by the PDP had been futile as the Uyo Federal Constituency lawmaker evaded service.
The Appeal Court, therefore, directed the bailiff to serve him through substituted service by pasting the service on his office door at the National Assembly and at the door of his residence in Abuja.
To stall the suit, Enyong had filed an appeal No. CA/Abj/PRE/ROA/CU/134/2023, and challenged the decision of the court to have summoned him by a substituted service.
The suit also urged the court to stay proceedings in the appeal brought by the PDP against the judgment of the lower court.
However, the Appeal Court on Monday, February 20, in dismissing the appeal filed by Rt. Hon. Mike Enyong struck it out.
The court frowned at the appeal, describing it as frivolous and a waste of judicial time.
After the judgement, Nwoko speaking with XL FM said the three-man Appeal Court looked at the case and ruled that the Federal High Court had erred by entertaining.
Reacting in case Enyong’s counsels want to take the matter to Supreme Court, Nwoko, counsel to the plaintiff, advised the defendant not to dissipate energy in furthering the case to any other court.
‘‘Anyway, if they take us to Supreme Court, we will meet them there,’’ he added.
Also, Nyaknno-Abasi Etuk, counsel to the defendant, said his legal team will collect the court order, study it and then decide on the next line of action.
