Akeredolu fails to stop suit seeking his removal from office

Governor Oluwarotimi Akeredolu of Ondo State and his party, the
All Progressives Congress, on Friday, failed in their bid to have
the Federal High Court in Abuja dismiss a pre-election suit seeking
the governor’s removal from office.

The plaintiff in the suit, which Akeredolu and the APC wanted
the court to dismiss, was instituted by Mr. Olusegun Abraham, the
first runner-up in the September 3, 2016 governorship primary of
the APC in Ondo State.

In a ruling on Friday, Justice Nnamdi Dimgba dismissed the
separate notices of preliminary objection filed by the governor and
the APC against the suit.

The judge, however, agreed with the applicants that due to the
contentious nature of the dispute in the suit, the suit was wrongly
commenced via originating summons instead of writ of summons which
would entail calling witnesses by the parties.

But rather than dismiss the suit as prayed by Akeredolu and the
APC, the judge ordered that the matter be properly commenced via a
writ of summons.

The judge, therefore, directed parties to file their pleadings
and all necessary processes in the suit on or before November
30.

He fixed adjourned till December 6 and 7 for the hearing.

Akeredolu had emerged from the September 3, 2016 primary as the
governorship candidate of the APC in Ondo State and proceeded to
contest and won the November 26, 2016 main election in the
state.

However, dissatisfied with the conduct of the primary and its
outcome, Abraham had, through his lawyer, Prof. Joash Amupitan
(SAN), filed his suit seeking an order of court nullifying
Akeredolu’s emergence from the primary as the party’s candidate on
the basis that the primary was flawed as a result of the usage of
an illegal delegates’ list.

But Akeredolu, through his lawyer, Chief Akin Olujinmi (SAN),
and the APC, through Mr. Lateef Fagbemi (SAN), had filed separate
notices of preliminary objection in which they sought an order
dismissing the suit on the basis that the suit was incompetent and
that the court lacked jurisdiction to entertain it.