Home News APC Deputy Nat’l Chair: Ajimobi Suit Begins In Ado Ekiti

APC Deputy Nat’l Chair: Ajimobi Suit Begins In Ado Ekiti

874
0

A Federal High Court sitting in Ado Ekiti, Ekiti State, on Thursday adjourned hearing in a suit challenging the appointment of Ajimobi.

Justice U. N. Agoma, in her brief ruling after listening to counsel, adjourned the case till March 23 for hearing of the pending applications.

According to ThePUNCH, the applicant, Mr Michael Akinleye, who is the APC Chairman in Ado Ekiti Local Government Area, is in the suit with number FHC/AD/C8/8/2020, challenging the propriety of Ajimobi’s appointment by the APC NWC  through alleged imposition. Akinleye is also APC deputy chairmanship aspirant.



The position became vacant following the appointment of the immediate past occupant, Chief Niyi Adebayo, as Minister of Industry, Trade and Investment.

Consequently, the Ekiti APC is of the opinion that its nominee for the position, Senator Gbenga Aluko, should be allowed to fill the vacancy in respect of the party’s ‘micro-zoning’.

Joined in the suit are APC National Chairman, Adams Oshiomhole (1st respondent);  National Working Committee (2nd respondent), National Vice Chairman, South-West (3rd respondent), APC South-West Zonal Caucus (4th respondent), Ekiti State Chairman of APC (5th respondent), Ekiti State Caucus of APC (6th), APC (7th respondent) and Senator Ajimobi (8th respondent).

In the originating summons filed by his lawyer, Taiwo Omidoyin, the applicant sought an interlocutory order stopping the party from either announcing or appointing Ajimobi pending the determination of the suit.

Akinleye, who urged the court to restrain Ajimobi from parading himself as the Deputy National Chairman, also asked the court to determine whether his rights had not been abridged as an aspirant looking up to election as the Deputy National Chairman before Ajimobi was suddenly imposed.

But  a preliminary objection filed by Chief Tony Adeniyi, who is representing all the respondents with the exemption of 5th and 6th respondents, contended that the court lacked the jurisdiction to hear the matter and that the suit be dismissed on this premise.

Leave a Reply