By Kingsley Ohens
It was jubilations galore for supporters and lovers of Dr Asue Ighodalo on Monday as the Appeal Court sitting in Abuja reaffirmed his nomination in five different cases as the undisputed and authentic governorship candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party(PDP) for the September 21 election in Edo State.
The Appeal Court ruled that the opposition’s arguments in each case were unmeritorious and on each occasion pronounced and affirmed Ighodalo’s candidacy.
In appeal NO: CA/ABJ/CV/763/2024
with the PDP as appellant Vs Hon. Kelvin Mohammed & 5 Ors as respondents,
the court held as follows:
It is only an aspirant or the political party that has the locus to institute a pre election matter. An adhoc delegate has no right to institute a pre- election matter.
Adhoc delegates are only entitled to nominate candidates for an election.
And that the 1st -3rd Respondents have no right of appeal.
“The appeal is hereby allowed. The judgment of the lower court is hereby set aside.”
In Appeal No: CA/ABJ/CV/764/2024 with PDP as Appellant Vs Hon Kelvin Mohammed & 5 Ors as Respondents, the court held as follows:
“Reply brief is hereby discountenanced.
Motion granting leave to the respondents to file written address was wrongly granted.
The 1st- 3rd Respondents have no right of action.
“Appeal is allowed.
Ruling of the lower court is hereby set aside
In Appeal No: CA/ABJ/CV/765/24 with the National Secretary of PDP v. Hon Kelvin Mohammed & 5 Ors,
the court held as follows:
“At the time the judgment was delivered the lower court had nothing to restrain. An injunction cannot be granted in respect of a complete act.
“Adhoc members do not have the locus to institute pre-election matters.
“The appeal is allowed . Judgment of the lower court is hereby set aside for want of jurisdiction.”
In Appeal No: CA/ABJ/CV/766/24 between the National Secretary of the PDP, the PDP v. Hon Kelvin Mohammed v & 5 Ors, the court held as follows:
“The Adhoc members have no locus to ventilate their grievances in court.
They are only exclusively allowed to nominate the candidate for the election and do not have the right to vote.
“The 1st- 3rd Respondents do not have a right of action
“An injunctive relief cannot be granted in respect of a completed act.
The appeal is allowed.
The ruling of the lower court is set aside for lack of jurisdiction.”
In Appeal with No: CA/ABJ/CV/775/2024 with Anselm Ojezua as Appeallant v. Asuerinme Ighodalo, the court held as follows:
“The lower court was right in holding that the party’s internal dispute mechanism was not exhausted before approaching the court, thereby robbing the court the jurisdiction to entertain the suit
“The attempt of the Appellant to invoke its power and determine the main issue is not attainable.
“The lower court held that it has no jurisdiction and therefore there is nothing for the court to determine.
“The judgement of the Federal High Court is hereby affirmed and the suit is accordingly dismissed.”
The sun total of Monday’s ruling was a crushing blow to the opposition which had hoped to secure a favourable ruling against Ighodalo thereby denying the ruling party in the state the benefit of fielding a candidate for the election. But that hope came crashing down, leaving the opposition empty handed.
