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 Delta North Senatorial District.
Justice Mohammed Umar, in a ruling delivered on Monday, upheld preliminary objections raised by the defendants, including Senior Advocate of Nigeria Kehinde Ogunwumiju, holding that the suit was fundamentally defective and incompetent from the outset.
The court also ruled that the originating summons could not be amended as requested by Nwoko.
The suit, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/1062/2026, was initially instituted in Nwoko’s name through a person identified as his attorney, Dr. Mike Nwoko.
During the proceedings, Nwoko sought leave to amend the originating processes to reflect that the pre election suit had been filed personally by him rather than through his attorney. However, the defendants, including the APC, Ifeanyi Okowa and the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, opposed the application.
In his ruling, Justice Umar held that the originating summons clearly showed the action was filed in a representative capacity through an attorney.
The judge relied on Section 285(14) of the 1999 Constitution and Section 88(2) of the Electoral Act 2026, which specify that only an aspirant who participated in the relevant party primary has the legal standing to institute a pre election suit.
According to the court, the right to challenge the conduct or outcome of a party primary is a personal statutory right that belongs solely to the affected aspirant and cannot be delegated or exercised through an attorney or representative.
Justice Umar further held that neither the Constitution nor the Electoral Act provides for an aspirant to file a pre election action through an agent or attorney. He noted that if such an arrangement had been intended, it would have been expressly stated in the relevant laws.
The court rejected Nwoko’s application to amend the suit, ruling that an amendment cannot revive proceedings that were fundamentally defective from inception.
The judge stressed that there must first be a competent and valid action before a court can exercise its discretion to permit an amendment, adding that the originating process was void and incapable of conferring jurisdiction.
Consequently, Justice Umar dismissed the application for amendment and struck out the substantive suit for want of jurisdiction.
