The People’s Democratic Party, has approached the Court of Appeal, Abuja division, to appeal the Federal High Court judgment that invalidated the primaries that produced Asue Ighodalo as its gubernatorial candidate in the forthcoming 2024 governorship election in Edo State.
The appellant (PDP), in an appeal hinged on 25 grounds, asked the appellate court to set aside the judgment of the lower court delivered on July 4, 2024.Justice Inyang Ekwo of the Federal High Court, Abuja, had declared the PDP primary election held on February 22 in Edo State as invalid.Justice Ekwo held that the PDP did not comply with the relevant provisions of its constitution or the electoral guidelines for primary elections when it excluded 378 elected ward delegates from participating in the primary election.
PDP, in the appeal dated July 9, marked CA/ABJ/CV/2024 and filed by the National Legal Advise, lawyer Adeyemi Ajibade (SAN), said the decision of the trial court is against the weight of evidence.
The respondents in the appeal were Kelvin Mohammed, Gabriel Okoduwa, Ederaho Osagie (for themselves and on behalf of the 378 ad-hoc delegates), Independent National Electoral Commission, The National Secretary of the PDP, and The Vice Chairman, PDP South-South, as 1st to 6th respondents respectively.PDP said in the appeal that, “The lower court erred in law when it granted reliefs 2, 3, and 4 sought by the 1st to 3rd respondents,” adding that, there was no basis for the trial court to have arrived at its decision.
It said on February 4, it conducted a three-man ad-hoc ward congress across the 18 local governments in Edo State, and the 1st to 3rd respondents did not participate and were not among the persons who emerged as elected delegates.
According to the PDP in the appeal, its candidate (Asue Ighodalo) was duly elected by the ad-hoc delegates who participated in its primary election.PDP also said the court misapprehended their case as the lower court wrongly evaluated their evidence, saying, “The lower court judgement is unsupported in law.”PDP insisted it did not breach any of the applicable laws and “the respondents’ relief two, being declaratory, ought to have been supported by cogent and compelling evidence.”
Onthese grounds, they sought the following reliefs: “An order allowing the appeal, an order setting aside the judgement of the lower court, and an order striking out or dismissing the entire suit for want of jurisdiction.”
