A Federal High Court
sitting in Ado Ekiti, Ekiti State, on Thursday, commenced trial on a suit filed
by an APC Chieftain in Ekiti State, Mr Michael Akinleye against former Oyo
State Governor, Senator Abiola Ajimobi over his appointment as the Deputy
National Chairman (South) by the party’s National Working Committee(NWC).
The suit with registration
number FHC/AD/C8/8/2020 filed by one of the aspirants for the seat and APC
chairman in Ado Ekiti Local Government, was contending the propriety of the
action taken by the APC National Working Committee’s appointment of Ajimobi via
alleged imposition.
Joined in the suit
are: APC National Chairman, Adams Oshiomhole(1st respondent), National Working
Committee(2nd) , National Vice Chairman, South West(3rd) , APC South West Zonal
Caucus(4th), Ekiti State Chairman of APC(5th, Ekiti State Caucus of APC(6th),
All Progressives Congress (7th) and Senator Abiola Ajimobi(8th).
The seat became
vacant following the appointment of Otiba Niyi Adebayo as a Minister of
Industry, Trade and Investment, which brought the feeling by Ekiti APC that
Senator Gbenga Aluko should be allowed to fill the vacancy in respect of the
party’s micro-zoning rather than moving it to Oyo State.
During yesterday’s
proceeding, Oshiomhole, Ajimobi and other respondents, with the exception of
5th and 6th respondents were absent in court, but they were represented by
their Lawyer, Chief Tony Adeniyi.
In the originating
summons filed by his lawyer, Taiwo Omidoyin, the applicant sought an
interlocutory order stopping the party from either announcing or appointing
Ajimobi pending the determination of the suit.
He urged the court
to restrain the 8th respondent (Ajimobi) from parading himself as the Deputy
National Chairman.
Akinleye urged the
court to determine among other things whether his rights had not been abridged
as an aspirant looking up to elect the Deputy National Chairman before Ajimobi
was suddenly imposed.
But in the
preliminary objection filed by Adeniyi, who is representing all the respondents
with the exemption of 5th and 6th, contended that the court lacks jurisdiction
to hear the matter and that the suit be dismissed on this premise.
The hearing of the
preliminary objection could not be argued because the lawyer to the applicant
said he had not been properly served to be able to respond appropriately.
Omidoyin argued that
he needed some time to file a counter affidavit to the Notice of Preliminary
objection raised by the respondents .
“We are seeking for
time to react appropriately to all the issues raised therein .
“All we are praying
for is time to react appropriately . The reason why we didn’t react to them was
that we were not sure about who is representing the 5th and 6th
respondents/defendants in the case and now that we have got the clarification,
we can now respond .
“Another confusion
is that, Chief Adeniyi didn’t respond to our originating summons . We are
confused about the cause, maybe it was an omission or whether he was not
served, he said .
The counsel to the
respondents didn’t object to adjournment sought by the counsel to the applicant
.
The presiding Judge,
Justice U. N. Agoma in her brief ruling adjourned the case to March 23 for
hearing of the pending applications.
Click to signup for FREE news updates, latest information and hottest gists everyday
Advertise on NigerianEye.com to reach thousands of our daily users
No comments
Post a Comment
Kindly drop a comment below.
(Comments are moderated. Clean comments will be approved immediately)
Advert Enquires - Reach out to us at NigerianEye@gmail.com