Court Throws Out Ned Nwoko’s Suit Against Okowa

The Federal High Court in Abuja on Monday struck out a suit filed by Sen. Ned Nwoko seeking to nullify the emergence of former Delta State governor, Ifeanyi Okowa, as the All Progressives Congress (APC) candidate for the Delta North Senatorial District.

Justice Mohammed Umar held that the suit was incompetent from the outset because it was filed through an attorney rather than by Nwoko himself, ruling that the defect could not be cured by amendment.

The judge upheld the arguments of the defendants’ lawyers, including Kehinde Ogunwumiju, SAN, and rejected Nwoko’s request to amend the originating summons.

Nwoko had filed the suit, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/1062/2026, in his name but through a person identified in the court processes as his attorney, Dr Mike Nwoko.

He later applied to amend the originating processes to show that he had personally commenced the pre-election suit instead of acting through his purported attorney. The defendants opposed the application.

The defendants in the suit are the APC, Okowa and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).

In his ruling, Justice Umar examined the originating summons and found that the action was instituted through Nwoko’s attorney and therefore filed in a representative capacity.

Relying on Section 285(14) of the 1999 Constitution and Section 88(2) of the Electoral Act, 2026, the judge held that only an aspirant who participated in the relevant party primary has the legal right to institute a pre-election suit.

He 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.”

Justice Umar held that the right created by the Constitution and the Electoral Act is a personal statutory right that belongs exclusively to the affected aspirant and cannot be assigned or exercised through an agent or attorney.

He agreed with the defendants that the right to challenge the outcome, conduct or validity of a party primary is personal to the aggrieved aspirant, who must personally invoke the court’s jurisdiction in the manner prescribed by law.

The judge added that if the Constitution or the Electoral Act intended to allow an aspirant to file a pre-election suit through an attorney or representative, the legislation would have expressly provided for it.

He noted that neither Section 285(14) of the Constitution nor Section 88(2) of the Electoral Act extends that right to an attorney, agent or representative.

Justice Umar therefore rejected Nwoko’s application to amend the suit, holding that an amendment cannot revive proceedings that were fundamentally defective from the moment they were filed.

He stressed that no amendment could breathe life into an originating process that was already a nullity.

The judge further held that a court could only exercise its discretion to permit an amendment where there was a competent and subsisting proceeding before it. Since the originating process was void and incapable of conferring jurisdiction, he said an amendment could not retrospectively create a valid suit.

Justice Umar consequently dismissed Nwoko’s application for leave to amend the originating summons and struck out the substantive suit for want of jurisdiction.