A judge of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), sitting in Bwari, Mohammed Madugu, has restrained Chief Victor Oye from parading himself as National Chairman of the All Progressives Grand Alliance (APGA).
Akelicious gathered that the judge also restrained Oye from holding any meetings or gatherings, be it NWC, NEC etc Congresses or Convention in the name of APGA, pending the determination of a suit filed in respect of the party’s leadership crisis.
The order was given following a motion on notice filed against Victor Oye and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) by Kamaru Ogidan (National Vice Chairman, South West Geopolitical Zone of APGA) and Alhaji Rabiu Mustapha (National Welfare Officer of APGA), two APGA National Working Committee members under the leadership of Edozie Njoku.
The court also made an order stopping INEC from recognising Victor Oye as National Chairman of APGA based on the Supreme Court Judgement of March 24, 2023.
The judge ordered parties in the suit to maintain status quo ante bellum pending the determination of the originating summon, warning parties not to indulge in activity that would over reach the court.
Addressing the court on Wednesday, counsel to the plaintiffs, Michael Ajara, said that the business of the day was for the court to hear his motion on notice, which he said was ripe for hearing
He recalled that the court had on May 3, 2023 declined an ex parte motion brought by the plaintiffs, and instead ordered the applicants to put the respondents on notice.
But counsel to the respondents said he had filed a memorandum of conditional appearance and preliminary objection on May 9.
The respondents lawyer insisted that the option on notice was not ripe, and instead pleaded the court to proceed to hear the originating summon which he said, he had responded to.
However, Ajara told the court that the defence counsel submission was misleading and not true.
Consequently, Ajara asked the court to discountenance submission of defence counsel, while admitting that the preliminary objection is not ripe for hearing.
In the face of the argument by the two lawyers representing parties in the case, the court went on to rule on the submissions of counsel.
Justice Madugu noted that the court had asked the plaintiff to put the respondents on notice, but at the same time the respondents filed a preliminary objection.
The judge aadjournedthe case to May 17, for hearing of the preliminary objection.