Court stops PDP, Damagum from acting against south-south zonal congress outcome
The Federal High Court in Abuja, on Monday, restrained the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) Acting National Chairman, Iliya Damagun from taking any steps that could adversely affect the outcome of the South South Zonal meeting and Congress of the party.
Justice James Omotosho issued the order while ruling on an ex-parte motion moved by Ibrahim Idris, SAN, lawyer to George Turnah, the plaintiff in the suit.
Freedomonline reports that Turnah had filed the suit, marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/447/2025, for himself as Zonal Secretary, South South Zone of the PDP and members of the South South Zonal Working Committee of the party.
The plaintiff listed the acting National Chairman of PDP, Umar Damagun; the PDP and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) as defendants.
Turnah alleged that the national PDP was planning to hold a meeting on March 11 to nullify the outcome of the South South Zonal meeting of the party held in Benin in Edo on Feb. 15 and the zonal elective congress held in Calabar, Cross River, on Feb. 22.
He stated that at the Feb. 22 elective congress, Chief Dan Orbih was re-elected as the Vice Chairman of the PDP for South South Zone along with him and others as members of the Zonal Working Committee (ZWC) of the party for South South Zone.
The plaintiff is contending among others, that it is not the responsibility of the party’s national leadership to determine how zonal leadership of the party should conduct congresses and hold meetings.
In his ruling on Monday, after listening to plaintiff’s lawyer, Idris, Justice Omotosho refused to grant the motion ex-parte on the grounds that it was fair and just to afford the defendants the opportunity to be heard before the court could take a decision on the reliefs sought.
The judge held that it was the considered opinion of the court, that “the matter, facts and allegations made by the plaintiff are so weighty that granting these interim injunctions, without granting hearing to the defendants/respondents will cause serious damage to the working of party.”
The judge was of the view that “it is just and fair to give the defendants/respondents the opportunity to be heard in respect of this injunctive application.
“This is not to say that the plaintiff does not have a legal right to protect, but because it would be better to give the defendants/respondents the opportunity to present their cases,” he said.
Justice Omotosho, therefore, ordered the plaintiffs to serve the defendants/respondents with the motion on notice for interlocutory injunctions and other documents so far filed through substituted means for them to react.
By the substituted service granted by the court, the plaintiff is required to serve all the court documents on Damagun and the PDP at the party’s headquarters in Abuja by pasting or handling to any adult in the building.
“The defendants/respondents are ordered to note that it is trite law that once a party is served with a motion on notice or other processes in respect of a pending case, they are bound not to take any action to make the outcome of that suit nugatory.
“It is in this regard that the defendants/respondents are ordered not to take any steps that may render the outcome of the motion on notice dated 6th March, 2025, but filed on 7th March, 2025, nugatory.
“Where a matter is pending before a court, no party is permitted to take action that will render the suit or the outcome of the proceedings nugatory.
“The defendants/respondents must not overreach the plaintiff by taking steps to destroy the res or render the decision of this court in respect of the motion on notice dated 6th March, 2025 but filed on 7th March, 2025 nugatory and steps taken to render the judicial outcome of the motion on notice shall be a nullity,” he said.
Justice Omotosho emphasised the need for the court to protect judicial proceedings “and ordered that no party, the defendants inclusive, shall take any steps to overreach the motion on notice for interlocutory injunctions dated 6th March, 2025 but filed on 7th March, 2025.”
The judge then adjourned the matter until March 18 for the defendants/respondents to respond to the motion for interlocutory injunctions and for possible hearing of the motion.
The reliefs being sought by the plaintiff are an order of interlocutory injunction restraining the 1st and 2nd defendants and their agents from calling or holding any meeting on March 11 or any other day with a view to setting aside the resolution of the meeting of the South South Zonal Committee of 2nd defendants (PDP) held in Benin and the zonal elective congress held in Calabar.
*An order of interlocutory injunction restraining the 3rd defendant (INEC) from recognising or giving vent to any meeting convened by the 1st and 2nd defendants or their agents on March 11 or any other day or any resolution passed therein.”
