Senator Andy Uba
A Federal High Court in Abuja Thursday fixed September 17 to hear the suit filed by a member of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP)’s Board of Trustees (BoT), Chief Chris Uba, his brother, who is seeking the party's mandate to contest the Anambra State governorship election, Senator Andy Uba, and four others challenging their suspension from the party.
Other plaintiffs in the suit are Benji Udeozor, Ejike Oguegebo and Anthonia Nwakwu.
Justice A.R Mohammed fixed the date after counsel to the applicants, Mr. Taiwo Abe, told the court that the respondent had served on him four different processes in response to the ones served on them.
Abe however, prayed for a short adjournment in order to allow him respond to the new processes.
However, the judge said it would be better if the case was heard on merit since all the parties had filed their processes.
He said instead of adjourning for preliminary issues, he would prefer to go into the substance of the case.
While agreeing with the court, counsel to the PDP, Chief Joe-Kyari Gadzama (SAN), prayed the court to strike out the motion ex parte before it and agreed to make an undertaking that the party would not do anything to over reach or tamper with the subject matter of the suit pending its determination.
Counsel to the plaintiffs did not oppose Gadzama's application to make an undertaking.
Rather, he said if the court was satisfied with the undertaking, he would be bound by it.
The court consequently struck out the motion ex parte based on the undertaking made by Gadzama from the bar.
The National Working Committee (NWC) of the PDP had last week suspended Uba and others for their failure to appear before it over their roles in the parallel governoship primaries conducted in the state.
Rather than honour the invitation, they chose to go to court, asking the court to quash their suspension.
The court, however, invited the PDP to come and show cause why the plaintiffs reliefs should not be granted.
Last Friday, the court voided the suspension of their suspension from the party.
It held that a party who had been invited to come and show cause could not go ahead to carry out an act which would render the order of the court an academic exercise.
The court further noted that PDP had shown to be over reaching the court order, adding that any action that had a coloration of sanction against the plaintiffs was a deviation from the court order.
He consequently ruled:
"I thereby make an interim order suspending the suspension of the plaintiffs from the party pending the determination of the motion on notice."