SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT

 

SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT

RE: OSUN PDP APPLAUNDS JUDICIARY AS COURT REFUSES ATTEMPT TO STOP PARTY CONGRESSES

That sometimes in August,2021 some aggrieved members of the State Working Committee/Executive Committee, Ward Chairmen and Local Government Chairmen of the PDP instituted an action against the PDP as the 1st Defendant vide an Originating Summons filed alongside were Motion Exparte and Motion on Notice.

That on the 12th of August,2021 the Honourable Court granted leave to the Plaintiffs to serve the Defendants by substituted means which was effectively and duly complied with.

It suffice to state that, Counsel to the Plaintiffs only introduced the processes in the court’s file to the Court and thereafter the Honourable Court adjourned the hearing of the Motion Exparte to the 26th of August,2021 for hearing.

That unfortunately Counsel for the Plaintiffs was informed by the Registrar of the Court of Appeal Abuja of the hearing of Appeal No: CA/AK/94/2021 & CA/AK/114/2021 respectively on the 25th of August, 2021, which became impracticable for him to be in Court and he immediately informed the court through the court clerk of his absence.

That about 4pm on the 8th of August, 2021 the Court clerk sent a text message to the Counsel informing him that that the matter was coming up on the 9th of August, 2021 for hearing of the Motion Exparte.

That counsel for the Plaintiffs unfortunately could not be in court as a result of the short notice but applied for adjournment but the bearer of the letter got to court after a little past 9am but was informed that the Motion Exparte had been struck out.

The Application that was struck out was the Motion Exparte , while the Motion on Notice was reserved with the Originating Summons still intact.

The Court in his wisdom returned the case file to the Administrative Judge for re-assignment after the annual vacation so in conclusion, the Originating Summons and Motion on Notice are still subsisting.

It is pertinent state at this point that the substantive suit and the Motion on Notice bothers on the restraining the PDP and others from conducting the ward congress and 3 adhoc delegates in Osun State in all quoted 215 wards because there is no vacancy in those until 23rd of March,2022 because the the congresses that were conducted in October,2017 was not activated until March,22nd 2018 when Adagunodo and all other State Working Committee Members of Osun PDP Chapter were elected and sworn in, it was then that their tenure was activated and started counting.

In effect, any attempt to conduct a congress in those 215 wards will amount to creating confusion and deliberate attempts to cause, more disaffection within the party. Those wards did not become effective until Adagunodo was sworn in due to the crisis in PDP Osun State. If anybody is hallucinating or basking false impression that the tenure of Ward executives had elapsed then they should have a rethink or better still wake up from their self-induced slumber.

The idea is definitely borne out of the ignorance how the PDP Constitution  works by those who are clamoring for Ward Congress in Osun State before the actual activation date of their tenure which was March 25,2018, that was what the Plaintiffs took to court.

That during the pendency of the substantive action one or more of the parties should benefit from the shift of the res of the litigation into his or their advantage/favour. The doctrine of lis pendens forbids such move. It frowns on it, so to say. It enjoins that nothing should change during the pendency of an action vide Akinboye v. Adeko (2011) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1244) 415. And regardless whether an order of temporary injunction is issued or not, the doctrine applies.Amaechi v. I.N.E.C.The Supreme Court nonetheless applied the doctrine of lis pendens to the office or position that was in dispute thus taking the doctrine beyond land or real property.

Under the doctrine, parties to proceedings pending in Court ought not to do anything which may have the effect of rendering nugatory the judgment of the Court. The Court does not allow parties in a pending litigation to foist on it a fait accompli and thus render its decision utterly nugatory - Kerewi Vs Abraham (2010) 1 NWLR (Pt 1176) 443.

For anybody to be jubilating as written by the Assistant P.R.O of the party is not only laughable but shows pitiable display of ignorance or deliberate mischief to pass the wrong information to the unwary reading public.

Any attempts to conduct the purported Ward Congress and 3 Adhoc delegtes without the hearing and determination of the Suit No: HIF/27/2021 would amount to a nullity .