F. Segun/TnTv Network
The Court of Appeal in Abuja on Monday failed to hear the appeal by the National Chairman of the All Progressives Congress (APC), Adams Oshomhole over his suspension from office.
A three- member panel of justices of the court presided by Justice Stephen Adah, said the second panel was not ready after taking other appeals.
No date was however fixed for the hearing.
Oshiomhole appealed the ruling of an FCT High Court which suspended him from office.
In a Notice of Appeal number: FCT/HC/CV/837/2020, Oshomhole asked the appellate court to allow the appeal and set aside the ruling of the high court delivered on March 4.
The application, which has four grounds of appeal, joins the following ward members of APC in Edo as respondents: Comrade Mustapha Salihu, Anselm Ojezua, Alhaji Sani Gomina, Hon. Fani Wabulari, Evangelist Princewilll Ejogharado, the Inspector General of Police, and the State Security Services.
Oshomhole in the application by his lawyer, Damian Dodo (SAN), is contending that the issues determined by the high court at the interlocutory stage are issues that ought to be decided at the substantive stage.
He argued that the learned trial judge erred in law and “arrived at wrong conclusion which occasioned a miscarriage justice when at the interlocutory stage it decided the question that the Appellant (Oshomhole), in the performance of his duties as National Chairman of the 2nd Appellant (APC) would interfere in the St 6th Respondent (Ejogharado)s’ membership rights of the 2nd Appellant.”
He further argued that the high court erred in law when it “arrived at a wrong conclusion which occasioned a miscarriage justice when after ordering the filing of pleading, it immediately set down Motion for interlocutory injunction for hearing in the absence of pleadings and proceeded to hear and determine same in the absence of pleadings.
“The trial court determined the Motion for interlocutory injunction, without recourse to triable issues which ought to have been discerned from pleadings.”
Oshomhole is further contending that the high court erred in Law “and arrived at wrong conclusion which occasioned a miscarriage of justice when it held that the 1 st — 6th Respondent (the ward members) had disclosed a legal right that required to be protected by the grant of the interlocutory injunction.”
He submitted that the high court erred in law “and arrived at a wrong conclusion which occasioned a miscarriage of justice when in deciding the balance of convenience it held that the Appellants argument that a grant of the interlocutory injunction will disrupt its function was untenable and relied upon extraneous construction in arriving at its decision.”