The Abuja Division of the Federal High Court on Friday refused to grant an application filed by former Governor Sule Lamido of Jigawa, seeking an order restraining the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) from proceeding with its scheduled national convention.

Mr Lamido, in the motion ex parte, moved by his lawyer, Jeph Njikonye (SAN), had prayed the court to make the interim order, pending the hearing and determination of the motion on notice filed alongside.

Justice Peter Lifu, in a ruling, ordered the PDP and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), which are the defendants in the suit, to come and show cause why the ex-governor’s reliefs should not be granted.

Mr Lifu, who gave the defendants 72 hours from the date they were served to respond, adjourned the matter until November 6 for a hearing.

Mr Lamido, who is the plaintiff in the fresh suit marked FHC/ABJ/CS/2299/2025, named the PDP and INEC as the first and second defendants.

In the ex parte motion dated and filed on October 28 by his team of lawyers led by Mr Njikonye, Mr Lamido sought two orders:

“An interim order of the honourable court restraining the first defendant from conducting its national convention scheduled to be held in Ibadan, Oyo State (or any other place or state) on November 15 and November 16 or any other date(s).

“An interim order of court restraining the second defendant (INEC) from monitoring, supervising, and recognising the first defendant’s national convention.”

Giving seven grounds why his application should be considered, Mr Lamido averred that once an action is pending in court, parties are bound to maintain the status quo to avoid subjecting the court or the plaintiff to a fait accompli.

The former governor stated that the court has an inherent jurisdiction to preserve the subject matter of litigation.

He said if the PDP is not restrained by the court, the party would be violating its constitution and, by implication, denying him the opportunity to contest for the position of the national chairman of the party, which he is eminently qualified to contest.

“The plaintiff/applicant has established a prima facie legal interest in the subject matter of litigation entitling him to the grant of the interim preservative relief sought,” he said.

Mr Lamido said that where an action sought to be restrained had already been completed, the equitable remedy of interim injunction may no longer be available to him, “hence why this application is necessary at this stage.”

According to him, the plaintiff’s suit raises a serious triable issue.

He also averred that the balance of convenience is in favour of the grant of the interim preservative reliefs sought.

The matter, which was the only one on Friday’s cause list, was heard in the judge’s chamber.

After Mr Njikonye moved the motion, the judge said it would be necessary to hear from the parties.

“The court has carefully perused and painstakingly considered the motion ex parte, the affidavits, exhibits, and the written address, including the decided cases commended to the court by the learned senior advocate.

“I have equally advised myself on the issues raised in the originating summons, which of course raises triable issues,” he said.

Mr Lifu said the court was also not unmindful of the balance of convenience and the undertaking regarding damages, as held in the three cases cited.

“I have also averted my mind to Order 26 Rule 8(c) of the Rules of this court and the need to exercise my discretion judicially and judiciously.

“Consequently, considering the entire gamut of the entire suit, it is my considered view that Order 26 rule 8(c) of the 2019 Rules of this court be invoked to enable this court to balance the scales and equities of the parties.

“In that wise, the respondents in this suit are herein ordered to show cause within the next 72 hours, effective from the date and time of service of this order on them, why the prayers of the applicant should not be so granted,” the judge ruled.

He adjourned the matter until November 6 for further proceedings.

(NAN)