Senator Ned Nwoko (APC-Delta) has announced his intention to appeal a Federal High Court ruling that struck out his suit challenging Ifeanyi Okowa’s APC senatorial candidacy.
Mr Nwoko disclosed this in a statement released by his legal team on Monday in Abuja, describing the court’s decision as unfortunate.
He expressed confidence that the Court of Appeal would overturn the decision, stating that the High Court had struck out the suit rather than dismissing it.
“We have instructed our counsel to file an appeal immediately and are confident that the appellate court will overturn it,” the senator said.
Mr Nwoko alleged that the ruling failed to address the substantive merits of the case, which he contended had not yet been properly heard. He claimed that the court had previously granted him leave to amend his legal processes, only to set aside that order on its own motion subsequently.
He described the court’s action as unjustified, alleging it amounted to an attempt to frustrate the substantive suit at a preliminary stage.
“This is an attempt to sabotage the substantive suit at this preliminary stage, and the suit must be heard on its merits,” he said.
The senator affirmed his determination to pursue the appeal to ensure that justice is seen to be done, while reiterating his commitment to equity, transparency, party unity, and the overall progress of Delta State.
Background
Justice Mohammed Umar of the Federal High Court, Abuja, upheld arguments from the defendants’ lawyers, including Kehinde Ogunwumiju, SAN, that Mr Nwoko’s suit was fundamentally defective and incompetent from its inception. Mr Umar agreed with the defence that the originating summons could not be amended as sought by the claimant.
The News Agency of Nigeria reports that Mr Nwoko commenced the suit, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/1062/2026, in his own name but through a person described in the originating processes as his attorney, Mike Nwoko.
The judge held that the form and content of the originating process indicated the suit was instituted in a representative capacity. Relying on Section 285 (14) of the 1999 Constitution and Section 88 (2) of the Electoral Act 2026—which prescribe the category of persons entitled to commence a pre-election suit—Justice Umar ruled that the provisions were “clear, explicit and unambiguous in vesting the right to institute a pre-election action in an aspirant who participated in the relevant party primary.”
The judge further held that the right created by the Constitution and the Electoral Act is a personal statutory right belonging exclusively to the affected aspirant. It is not an ordinary civil right that may be freely assigned, transferred, or exercised through an agent or attorney.
Justice Umar maintained that an aspirant must personally invoke the court’s jurisdiction in the manner prescribed by law and cannot transfer the right of action to another person by power of attorney. He added that had the legislature intended to permit an aspirant to institute a pre-election action through an attorney or in a representative capacity, the relevant legislation would have expressly stated so.
He noted that neither the Constitution nor the Electoral Act contains provisions extending the right to commence a pre-election suit to an attorney, agent, or representative. Consequently, he rejected Mr Nwoko’s application for amendment, holding that an amendment cannot revive a suit that was incurably defective from the moment of filing.
The judge concluded that the originating process was void and incapable of conferring jurisdiction, adding that an amendment cannot operate retrospectively to create a valid suit. Justice Umar dismissed the application for leave to amend and struck out the substantive suit for want of jurisdiction.
