The Federal High Court in Abuja on Wednesday dismissed a suit filed by the All Democratic Alliance (ADA) against the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) for being improperly commenced.
Justice Emeka Nwite, in a judgment, held that the suit was incompetent because it was initiated by originating summons despite the allegations of fraud.
“Adopting this mode of suit is in itself hostile,” Justice Nwite said.
The judge held that allegations of crime or fraud cannot be proved by an originating summons and require a writ of summons, which allows for full trial, including oral testimony and cross-examination of witnesses, unlike an originating summons which is restricted to affidavit evidence.
“It is a well-established issue of law that the appropriate mode of commencement of a suit where there is an allegation of fraud is writ of summons,” he said.
He stated that the mode of commencement of a suit is fundamental, as it determines jurisdiction, and where improperly filed, it would rob the court of jurisdiction to hear the matter.
The judge further held that the procedure adopted deprived the 2nd and 3rd defendants in the case of the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses on depositions contained in the affidavit evidence, and thus “will affect their right to fair hearing.”
The judge held that the case was instituted by improper procedure and could not be sustained.
“The preliminary objection of the defendants stands.
“I am of the view and I so hold that the appropriate order is to set aside the entire proceedings,” Justice Nwite said.
The judge held that the suit was unmeritorious and accordingly dismissed it.
The plaintiffs in the suit include Umar Ardo, who claimed to be the promoter of the party; Marjorie George, Anthony Ojeshina and Alhassan Nuhu.
Others are Qoussim Opakunle and Agbo Ndidiamaka Justina.
They had filed the suit in January against INEC and sought an order compelling the commission to register ADA.
In March, Akin Ricketts and Aminu Ahmed were joined in the suit as 2nd and 3rd defendants respectively.
The suit followed ADA’s application for registration as a political party, which it claimed met all statutory requirements.
The association argued that it satisfied the conditions under Sections 222 to 224 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), as well as Sections 75 and 79 of the Electoral Act 2022 and the INEC Regulations and Guidelines for Political Parties.
The plaintiffs contended that despite meeting these requirements, INEC failed to register the association within the timeframe provided by law.
It further argued that INEC’s response letter dated Dec. 18, 2025, was issued 71 days after its application of Oct. 9, 2025, thereby breaching the 60-day statutory window for response.
In its originating summons, they asked the court to determine whether, having met all legal requirements under the constitution and the Electoral Act, INEC was not under a legal obligation to register the association as a political party, among others.
However, the 2nd and 3rd defendants Ricketts and Ahmed challenged the suit on jurisdictional and procedural grounds.
They argued in a joint preliminary objection filed 20 April that it was incompetent because it commenced by originating summons despite raising allegations of fraud and contentious facts.
They contended that such issues required proof by oral evidence through a writ of summons, which would allow cross-examination of witnesses, among others.
Ruling on Wednesday, Justice Nwite upheld the defendants’ preliminary objection.
“Fraud or forgery is a criminal offence which needs to be proved beyond reasonable doubt,” the judge held.
The judge said that even if he was wrong on jurisdiction, he would still have considered the merits of the case.
The judge, therefore, held that the plaintiffs’ application failed to comply with Sections 222 to 224 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), Section 79 of the Electoral Act, 2022, and INEC rules and guidelines governing political party registration.
He observed that the interim national chairman and national secretary uploaded by the plaintiffs were not the same as those contained in their letter of intent.
The judge agreed with the defendants that the plaintiffs lacked legal capacity and locus standi to institute the action, as they were not the pro tem national chairman and pro tem national secretary of the association intended for registration.
According to him, an applicant seeking registration as a political party must cumulatively satisfy all requirements.
He said that failure to meet any of the requirements renders the application invalid.
