Court Strikes Out Ned Nwoko’s Suit Challenging Ifeanyi Okowa’s APC Ticket
The Federal High Court in Abuja has struck out a suit filed by Senator Ned Nwoko seeking to nullify the emergence of former Delta State governor Ifeanyi Okowa as the All Progressives Congress (APC) candidate for the forthcoming Delta North senatorial election.
The suit, marked FCT/ABJ/CS/1062/2026, named the APC, Okowa and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) as defendants. Nwoko instituted the action in his name but through Dr Mike Nwoko, who was described in the originating processes as his lawful attorney.
Later, Nwoko applied to amend the court documents to show that the pre‑election case had been filed personally by him rather than through an attorney. The defendants opposed the application, arguing that the suit was incompetent from the moment it was instituted and could not be revived through an amendment.
Counsel for the APC, Kehinde Ogunwumiju (SAN), was among the lawyers who urged the court to reject the application.
Judge’s Ruling on Standing and Jurisdiction
Justice Umar examined the originating summons and found that the action had indeed been commenced by Nwoko through his purported attorney. The judge held that the form and content of the documents showed that the suit was instituted in a representative capacity.
Relying on Section 285(14) of the Constitution and Section 88(2) of the Electoral Act, 2026, Justice Umar said the law clearly identified those entitled to institute pre‑election cases. He held that “the provisions were clear, explicit and unambiguous in vesting the right to institute a pre‑election action in an aspirant who participated in the relevant party primary.”
The judge ruled that the right to challenge the conduct, outcome or validity of a political party’s primary election belonged exclusively to the affected aspirant. According to him, it was a personal statutory right and not an ordinary civil claim that could be transferred, assigned or exercised through an agent.
Justice Umar agreed with the defendants that an aspirant dissatisfied with a primary election must personally approach the court in the manner prescribed by law. He said such a right could not be transferred to another person through a power of attorney.
The judge added that if the Constitution or Electoral Act intended to permit an aspirant to institute a pre‑election suit through an attorney or representative, the laws would have expressly provided for it. He noted that neither Section 285(14) of the Constitution nor Section 88(2) of the Electoral Act extended the right to an aspirant’s agent, attorney or representative.
Application to Amend Denied and Suit Struck Out
Justice Umar also rejected Nwoko’s application to amend the originating summons. He held that an amendment could not revive a suit that was incurably defective from the date it was filed.
According to the judge, no amendment could “breathe life” into an originating process that was already a nullity. He said there must first be a competent and subsisting case before a court could exercise its discretion to permit an amendment.
Where the originating process was void and incapable of conferring jurisdiction, the judge held that an amendment could not operate retrospectively to create a valid action.
Justice Umar consequently dismissed Nwoko’s application for leave to amend the originating summons. He then struck out the substantive suit for want of jurisdiction after finding that the process through which it was commenced was incompetent.
About the Author
