The Federal High Court in Abuja has struck out a suit filed by Senator Ned Nwoko seeking to void the emergence of former Governor Ifeanyi Okowa as the All Progressives Congress (APC) candidate for the Delta North Senatorial District. Justice Mohammed Umar delivered the ruling on Monday, upholding the arguments of the defendants' lawyers, including Kehinde Ogunwumiju, SAN, that the suit was fundamentally defective and incompetent from its inception.
Originating summons found defective
Justice Umar agreed with the defence that the originating summons could not be amended as sought by Mr Nwoko. According to the News Agency of Nigeria, Mr Nwoko commenced the suit, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/1062/2026, in his name but through a person described in the originating processes as his attorney, Mike Nwoko. At a point, Mr Nwoko applied to amend the originating processes to reflect that the pre-election suit was personally commenced by him rather than through his purported attorney. However, the defendants objected to the application.
Listed as defendants in the suit were the APC, Mr Okowa, and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).
Court rules on personal right of action
Delivering the ruling, Justice Umar examined the originating summons and found that the suit was indeed commenced by the senator through his attorney. The judge held that the form and content of the originating process showed that the suit was instituted in a representative capacity. Relying on the provisions of Section 285(14) of the 1999 Constitution and Section 88(2) of the Electoral Act, 2026, which prescribe the category of persons entitled to commence a pre-election suit, Justice Umar stated 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 further held that the right created by the constitution and the Electoral Act is a personal statutory right that belongs exclusively to the affected aspirant, and not an ordinary civil right that may be freely assigned, transferred, or exercised through an agent or attorney. He emphasized that such an aspirant must personally invoke the court’s jurisdiction in the manner prescribed by law and cannot transfer the right of action to another person by power of attorney.
Amendment cannot revive defective suit
Justice Umar also noted that neither Section 285(14) of the Constitution nor Section 88(2) of the Electoral Act contained any provision extending the right to commence a pre-election suit to an attorney, agent, or representative of an aspirant. He therefore rejected Senator Nwoko’s application for amendment and held that an amendment could not be used to revive a suit which was incurably defective from the moment it was filed. He stressed that, in substance, no amendment could breathe life into an originating process that was already a nullity.
The judge was of the view that there must first be a competent and subsisting proceeding before the court could exercise its discretionary power to permit an amendment. He added that the originating process itself was void and incapable of conferring jurisdiction, and an amendment cannot operate retrospectively to create a valid suit. Consequently, Justice Umar dismissed Mr Nwoko’s application for leave to amend the originating summons and proceeded to strike out the substantive suit for want of jurisdiction.
