UPDATED: Ganduje’s suspension: Court fixes May 27 for hearing
A High Court in Kano on Tuesday fixed May 27, 2024, for hearing of three applications in the case of the suspension of the national chairman of the All Progressives Congress (APC), Abdullahi Ganduje.
The court sitting at Audu Bako secretariat, presided by Justice Usman Na’abba, listened to counsels from both parties before setting the date to enable both parties serve their processes and for hearing of the three applications.
The applications are preliminary objection, joinder application, and challenge of the jurisdiction of the court to entertain and hear the matter.
The applicants, Haladu Gwanjo and Laminu Sani Barguma through their counsel, Ibrahim Abdullahi Sa’ad filed a motion exparte with 13 paragraph affidavit dated April 16 sworn by the second applicant.
The applicants are seeking the Court to determine an order of interim injunction on Ganduje’s suspension.
The court had on 17th April granted an order directing parties to maintain the status quo as of the 15th day of April 2024, about the suspension of the fourth respondent from the first respondent by the Ganduje Ward executive committee restraining the respondents whether by themselves, servants, agents, privies from taking any step contrary to the decision of the executive committee of Ganduje Ward which suspends the fourth respondent from the first respondent political party pending the hearing and determination of the motion on notice.
At the resumed hearing on Tuesday, counsel to the applicant, Ibrahim Sa’ad, said they were served with the counter affidavit by the respondent Tuesday morning in court.
He asked for another date to enable them respond to the application.
Counsel to the first, second, and third respondents did not object to the request made by the counsel to the applicant for a new date to be given.
“We have filed and served all parties our motion dated April 24 challenging the jurisdiction of this Court to entertain this matter.”
Counsel to the fourth respondent, Lydia Oyewo, did not also object to the new date but told the court that her client had not been served with the court processes.
“We have not been served with the processes of the Court. The plaintiff is in contempt of the court because they have failed with the order of the Court directing him to serve all the defendants in the matter.”
“Particularly, we are appearing out of respect to the court. Our client has not been served so we could not file any processes before the Court.
“However, we have been unable to compile and transmit records. In essence, the court of appeal is not yet seized with the jurisdiction for the matter and then this court to determine and continue with the matter pending when we do the needful.
“This is an intra-party matter and the court has held severally to even to the apex court that the court does not have jurisdiction to hear and determine intra-party matters that have to do with leadership, membership, and discipline of members.”
