Court Dismisses Suit Challenging Aiyedatiwa, Deputy’s Qualifications

The Federal High Court sitting in Akure, the Ondo State capital, on Monday dismissed the suit challenging the qualifications of Governor Lucky Aiyedatiwa and his deputy, Dr. Olaiyide Adelami for the November 16 governorship election in the state.

The court, presided over by Justice Toyin Adegoke based her judgment on the refusal of the plaintiff, Olugbenga Edema, who was the candidate of the New Nigeria People’s Party (NNPP) in the governorship election to obey an earlier order of the court.

Recall that Edema in a suit had sought the court’s order to compel the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to withdraw the nomination and the publication of the names of Governor Aiyedatiwa of the All Progressives Congress (APC) and his deputy as candidates.

He also asked the court to interpret Section 15 of the Third Schedule to the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) over the nomination of the APC candidates.

The suit had Edema and NNPP as plaintiffs, just as it had Aiyedatiwa, Adelami, INEC, and the APC as defendants.

During the hearing of the suit, NNPP prayed the court to be removed from the list of plaintiffs, which the court granted.

The court also made an order for the plaintiff to adjust his pleadings before the court.

However, when the case came up for hearing on Monday, the counsel to the plaintiff, Soladoye Ekundayo said he had filed an appeal against the ruling of the court that struck out the NNPP from the suit.

He told the court to grant an adjournment for the plaintiff to amend his pleadings.

But counsel to Aiyedatiwa, Adelami, INEC and APC, Charles Edosanwon, Banjo Aiyenakin, Ebun-Olu Adegboruwa, and Remi Olatubora asked the court to dismiss the suit for want of diligent prosecution.

Edosomwan, who led the defendants said the order at the last adjourned date was for the parties to make consequential adjustments to their pleas, having struck out the name of the first plaintiff from the suit.

The counsel who said the fact that an appeal has been filed is not a stay of proceeding, noted that the plaintiff had not made any application before the court and asked the court to dismiss the case.

He said the case must end so that the parties can take all the issues to the Court of Appeal.

Aiyenakin, who aligned himself with the position of Edosomwan said the failure of the plaintiff to amend his pleadings was tantamount to disobedience to the lawful order of the court.

He said the case is deemed to have been abandoned.

Olatubora also adopted the submission of the defendants. He said his client has joined issues with the plaintiffs through the counter-affidavit, adding that parties have filed their pleadings and led evidence.

He then added that the court has got to the point of no return in law.

Similarly, Adegboruwa said that the adjustment the court ordered was supposed to have come by February 18, and up till March 10, the plaintiff did not comply with the court order.

Adegboruwa then moved for the dismissal of the plaintiff’s case for want of diligent prosecution and for not complying with the order of the court. He added that the appeal was an interlocutory and cannot stop the hearing of the substantive suit.

In her verdict, Justice Adegoke who held that mere notice of appeal does not operate as a stay of proceeding, noted that there is no affidavit to support the claim of the pending appeal.

While saying that the plaintiff’s disregard for the order of the court was an indication of self-help, Justice Adegoke said failure to adjust the pleadings had a great impact on the suit and consequently dismissed the suit.