If a horse, as the Yoruba would say, could walk in the belly
of Senator Patrick Ifeanyi Ubah it would not tumble.
This feeling of excitement was even visible to the blind today
, Thursday, March 19, when the Court of
Appeal, Abuja division affirmed him as
the Senator representing Anambra South Senatorial District. While the court nullified the judgment of an Abuja High Court
removing Senator Ubah from the National Assembly.
A three-man panel of justices of the appellate court held
that the judgment delivered by Justice Bello Kawu of a High Court of the
Federal Capital Territory (FCT) was a nullity because the suit was unlawfully
instituted and did not comply with any known law.
Ubah, the candidate of the Young Progressive Party (YPP) in
the February 23 senatorial elections, had in January this year approached the
Court of Appeal to upturn the judgment of Justice Kawu, which ordered his
removal from the Senate over alleged act of forgery.
Delivering judgment in the appeal, the court held that its
findings revealed that the originating summons was not signed by the counsel to
the plaintiffs.
Ubah had in a motion filed on March 6, 2020 by his lead
lawyer, Dr Onyechi Ikpeazu (SAN), urged the court to hold that the trial court
lacked jurisdiction to have heard the matter in the first place because the
originating summon was incompetent having not been signed by the lawyer who
instituted the legal action.
In its ruling, the appellate court agreed that the failure
to sign the originating summons was fatal to the case, as well as the judgment
which arose from it.
According to Justice Adah, for the process to command
legitimacy, it must be duly signed, adding that the rule of the lower court
makes signing mandatory.
“An incompetent originating process cannot activate the
jurisdiction of the court. Therefore in the instant case, the court processes are
defective and incurably bad. The law is clear and unambiguous that it is
mandatory that originating process must be signed. This is fundamental that
validity of originating summon must not be in dispute. Any originating summons
not signed by a counsel who issued it out is worthless and incompetent,” he
said.
Also delivering judgment in the main appeal, Justice Adah
held that the judgment and the entire process being incompetent cannot be
affected by section 285 which makes a case invalid if not filed within 14 days.
The Court of Appeal also held that there was no evidence
that Senator Ubah was given fair hearing before judgment was entered against
him at the lower court.
Justice Adah also held that the lower court in the first
instance ought not to have heard the case since the cause of litigation arose
outside its jurisdiction.
Ubah, who represents Anambra South Senatorial District at
the upper legislative Chambers, was declared winner of the February 23 Anambra
South Senatorial election by the Independent National Electoral Commission
(INEC) and was accordingly sworn in as a Senator of the 9th Assembly last year.
His election was also upheld by the Anambra State National
Assembly Election Petition Tribunal and the Court of Appeal.
However, Justice Kawu delivering judgment on April 11, 2019
in a suit filed by one Anani Chuka, nullified
Ubah’s election on the premise that he allegedly used a forged National
Examination Council (NECO) certificate to contest the senatorial election that
brought him into office as Senator.
Justice Kawu on January 17, 2020, further upheld his
judgment in a ruling on Ubah’s application seeking a setting aside of his sack
order on the grounds that the application lacked merit.
The court after sacking Ubah ordered INEC to withdraw the
certificate of return it issued to Ubah and issue a fresh one to Dr. Obinna
Uzoh of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), who came second in the election.
Miffed by the decision, Ubah had on same day approached the
Court of Appeal to set aside the judgment which he insisted occasioned grave
miscarriage of justice against him.
Respondents in the appeal include Anani Chuka, Young
Progressive Party (YPP), INEC and Dr Obinna Uzoh as 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th
respondents respectively.
**Additional Information from Thisday.
