The Federal High Court, Abuja Division, on Thursday ordered parties in a suit filed by Sesugh Kaaba against the All Progressives Congress (APC) and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to maintain the status quo pending determination of the case.

Justice Inyang Ekwo gave the order after counsel informed the court that parties had exchanged processes in the matter.

Mr Kaaba’s lawyer, Mohammed Ndarani-Mohammed, told the court that the matter was scheduled for the defendants to show cause why the reliefs sought in the plaintiff’s ex parte application should not be granted.

He said the plaintiff had received the affidavits to show cause filed by both defendants in compliance with the court’s order and was ready to adopt the processes.

The PAC Counsel, S. D. Swem, informed the court that the party had filed an affidavit to show cause and a counter affidavit to the plaintiff’s motion on notice but was yet to file its response to the originating summons.

The Counsel to INEC, Oluwole Olukunle, however, said the commission had responded to the processes filed by the plaintiff.

Mr Ekwo said that the parties had submitted to the court’s jurisdiction by filing their processes.

The judge stated that once a matter was pending before a court, parties were automatically restrained from taking steps outside the court’s directives.

“Once a case is pending in court, parties are automatically restrained and if you go ahead to do any other thing, you are taking the law into your hands,” he said.

The plaintiff’s counsel urged the court to caution the APC from taking any further action while the suit was pending.

“We will appreciate it if the court will caution the 1st defendant to yield to the advice given by the court,” he said.

Mr Ekwo, however, clarified that he had not given advice but that he had stated the law.

In his ruling, the judge noted that the court on July 8 ordered the defendants to show cause why the plaintiff’s ex parte application should not be granted.

He held that since parties had joined issues on the substantive suit, it would be appropriate to proceed with the substantive hearing rather than expend judicial time on the interlocutory application.

“I make an order adjourning this case to July 21 for hearing, and I also order that parties should maintain status quo ante pending the determination of this case,” he ruled. 

(NAN)