On Thursday, the Abuja Division of the Federal High Court dismissed applications by the ex-chairman of the PDP, Uche Secondus, and two others, seeking to set aside an order restraining them from attending party leadership meetings.

The order also affected Celestine Omehia, the sacked governor of Rivers, and Austin Opara, the former deputy speaker of the House of Representatives.

Justice Inyang Ekwo, in separate rulings, dismissed the trio’s separate applications on the ground that their motions for a stay of execution of the order were wrongly filed and, therefore, incompetent.

On April 5, the judge issued ex parte orders, among other things, restraining the three PDP chieftains from attending any meeting of the party’s National Executive Committee and board of trustees.

The judge restrained them from participating in deliberations or proceedings of the meetings in any manner pending the hearing and determination of the substantive suit.

The restraining orders were made in relation to three substantive suits filed against the three chieftains of the PDP by some party members in Rivers.

The suit against Secondus and seven others, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/440/2024, was filed by Titus Jones.

The second against Omehia and five others, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/436/2024, was filed by Precious Wobisike, while the third, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/438/2024 against Opara and seven others, was filed by Chisa Amadi.

Messrs Secondus, Omehia, and Opara had applied to maintain the execution of the orders pending the determination of their appeals to challenge the ex parte orders.

The judge described the applications as incompetent in the three different rulings on Thursday.

He held that under Order 26(9)(1) of the Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules (FHCCPR) 2019, what Secondus, Omehia and Opara ought to do was to apply to the court to either vary or discharge the orders, not to apply for stay.

The judge said, “By Order 26 (9) (1) of the FHCCPR 2019, it is provided that where an order is made on a motion ex -parte, any person affected by it may, within seven days after service of it, or within such further time as the court shall allow, apply to the court by motion to vary or discharge it.

“The first defendant/applicant ought to have familiarise himself with the provisions of the rules of this court before embarking on this course. What any person who is affected by ex parte order of the Federal High Court has to do is provided for in Order 26(9)(1) of the FHCCPR 2019.”

The judge added, “There is no law which provides for appeal against ex parte order of the Federal High Court. It is trite that where there is no law in support of a process or action such process or action is considered as abuse of process of court.

“I find that there is no iota of law in support of this application and I so hold. The consequence thereof also has been stated by the court in a very steady manner. I therefore make an order dismissing this application for being an abuse of process of this court.”

The judge reached the same conclusions regarding similar applications by Messrs Omehia and Opara.

The judge then adjourned until April 25 for a hearing of pending motions on notice for interim injunctions filed by the plaintiffs in the three cases.

(NAN)