The Court of Appeal situated in Abuja has ruled to dismiss the appeal lodged by Sir Basil Maduka, the Labour Party’s candidate for the Imo governorship election. The dismissal was based on the grounds of lack of locus standi.
Justice Olubunmi Oyewole, in his judgment, determined that Maduka did not possess the legal right to challenge the primary election, given that he was not an aspirant in the said election.
Consequently, the court not only rejected the appeal but also levied a cost of N250,000 against the appellant.
Maduka had emerged as the candidate of the Labour Party within the Julius Abure-led faction, whereas the Lamidi Apapa faction’s candidate was recognized by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).
Following the high court’s dismissal of his suit challenging INEC’s decision, Maduka pursued his case at the court of appeal. However, the 1st and 3rd respondents, namely the Labour Party and Ikechukwu Joseph, contested his action by filing processes that disputed the appellant’s contentions.
They pointed out that the primary election of the 1st respondent occurred on April 16, 2023, as rescheduled by the national leadership of the party. Additionally, they emphasized that the appellant was not a participant in this primary election, which was won by the 3rd respondent.
Justice Oyewole, while considering the arguments from both sides’ legal representatives, underlined the concept of locus standi as a prerequisite for maintaining an action in court. He stressed that the absence of such standing undermines the court’s jurisdiction to adjudicate on the matter.
The judge further explained that the appellant failed to establish his participation in the primary election organized by the 1st respondent, rendering him unable to contest the election’s outcome. Consequently, he upheld the lower court’s decision that the appellant lacked the necessary locus standi to maintain the action.
In conclusion, the appeal was deemed meritless and dismissed. A cost of N250,000 was ordered to be paid to the 1st and 3rd respondents by the appellant.
