Ganduje’s suspension: Court fixes May 27 for hearing

A Kano High Court sitting at Audu Bako secretariat has fixed May 27, 2024, for the commencement of hearing of three applications in the case of the suspension of the National Chairman of the All Progressive Congress (APC), Abdullahi Umar Ganduje.

The Court presided over by Justice Usman Malam Na’abba after listening to counsels from both parties involved set the date for the hearing.

The applications are preliminary objection, joinder application and challenge of 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 for the Court to determine an order of interim injunction on Ganduje’s suspension.

Daily Trust reported that the court had on 17th April granted an order directing parties to maintain status quo as at the 15th day of April, 2024, in relation to 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 this 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 juriaoof this Court to entertain this matter.”

Counsel to the fourth respondent, Lydia Oyewo, did not also object the new date but told the court that her client was not 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 record. In essence, the court of appeal is not yet seized with the jurisdiction for the matter and then for this court to determine and continue with the matter pending when we did 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 has to do with leadership, membership and discipline of members.”

On their part, parties seeking to be joined led by Barrister S. U Jibril informed the Court of their position in joining the matter.

After listening to both counsels, Justice Usman Malam Na’abba fixed 27 May to enable both parties to serve their processes and for hearing of the three applications.