A Federal High Court in Abuja, on Friday, refused to grant an application filed by former Gov. Sule Lamido of Jigawa, seeking an order restraining the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) from proceeding with its scheduled national convention.
Lamido, in the motion ex-parte moved by his lawyer, Jeph Njikonye, SAN, had prayed the court to make the interim order, pending the hearing and determination of the motion on notice filed alongside.
Justice Peter Lifu, in a ruling, rather ordered the PDP and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) that are defendants in the suit to come and show cause why the ex-governor’s reliefs should not be granted.
Justice Lifu, who gave the defendants within 72 hours from the date they were served to respond, adjourned the matter until Nov. 6 for hearing.
Lamido, who is the plaintiff in the fresh suit marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/2299/2025, named the PDP and INEC as 1st and 2nd defendants.
In the ex-parte motion dated and filed on Oct. 28 by his team of lawyers led by Njikonye, Lamido sought two orders;
“An interim order of the honourable court restraining the 1st defendant from conducting its national convention scheduled to hold in Ibadan, Oyo State (or any other place or state) Nov. 15 and Nov. 16 or any other date(s) .
“An interim order of court restraining the 2nd defendant (INEC) from monitoring, supervising and recognising the 1st defendant’s national convention”.
Giving seven grounds why his application should be considered, Lamido averred that once an action is pending in court. parties are bound to maintain status quo to avoid subjecting the court or the plaintiff to a fait accompli.
The ex-governor said the court has an inherent jurisdiction to preserve the subject matter of litigation.
He said if the PDP is not restrained by the court, the party would be violating its constitution, and by implication denying him the opportunity to contest for the position of the national chairman of the party of which he is eminently qualified to contest.
“The plaintiff/applicant has established a prima facie legal interest in the subject matter of litigation entitling him to the grant of the interim preservative relief sought,” he said.
Lamido said where an action sought to be restrained had already been completed, the equitable remedy of interim injunction may no longer be available to him, “hence why this application is necessary at this stage.”
According to him, the plaintiff’s suit raises a serious triable issue.
He also averred that balance of convenience is in favour of the grant of the interim preservative reliefs sought.
The matter, which was the only one on Friday’s cause list, was heard in the judge’s chamber.
After Njikonye moved the motion, the judge said it would be necessary to hear from the parties.
“The court has carefully perused and painstakingly considered the motion ex-parte, the affidavits, exhibits and the written address, including the decided cases commended to the court by learned senior advocate.
“I have equally advised myself on the issues raised in the originating summons which of cause raises triable issues,” he said.
Justice Lifu said that the court was not also unmindful of the balance of convenience and the undertaking as to damages as held in the three cases cited.
“I have also averted my mind to Order 26 Rules, 8(c) of the Rules of this court and the need to exercise my discretion judicially and judiciously.
“Consequently, considering the entire gamut of the entire suit, it is my considered view that Order 26 rule 8(c) of the 2019 Rules of this court be invoked to enable this court balance the scale and equities of the parties.
“In that wise, the respondents in this suit are herein ordered to show cause within the next 72 hours effective from the date and time of service of this order on them why the prayers of the applicant should not be so granted,” the judge ruled.
He adjourned the matter until Nov. 6 for further proceedings.
