Oborevwori is Governor Ifeanyi Okowa’s stooge and was allegedly imposed on the PDP in the state, causing internal ripples.
The Speaker of the Delta State House of Assembly, Sheriff Oborevwori, has appealed the Federal High Court judgement that sacked him as the Peoples Democratic Party’s governorship candidate for the 2023 general elections
Oborevwori is Governor Ifeanyi Okowa’s stooge and was allegedly imposed on the PDP in the state, causing internal ripples.
He was on Thursday sacked on account of allegedly supplying false and forged documents to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) in aid of his qualification for the governorship election.
The judge subsequently directed INEC and the PDP to recognize the plaintiff as candidate of the PDP in the 2023 governorship election in Delta State.
Olorogun David Edevbie, a former Commissioner of Finance under former Governor James Ibori, who came second in the primary had contended Oborevwori’s participation in the primary on the grounds of alleged discrepancies in his academic qualifications as well as his age.
He specifically urged the court to bar PDP from submitting the Assembly Speaker’s name as the flagbearer of the party.
Appealing the decision before the Court of Appeal in Abuja, Oborevwori stated that the Federal High Court Judge misdirected himself in law when he assumed jurisdiction to entertain the claim of the Plaintiff predicated on Section 29(5) of the Electoral Act, 2022.
The court document read, “NOTICE AND GROUNDS FOR APPEAL
1. TAKE NOTICE that the Appellant, being dissatisfied with the judgment of the Federal High Court, Abuja Judicial Division delivered on 7th July, 2022 in Suit No. FHC/ABJ/795/2022 by Honourable Justice Taiwo, doth hereby appeal to the Court of Appeal upon the grounds out in paragraph 3 and will at the hearing of the appeal seek the reliefs set out in paragraph 4 hereof.
“The Appellant further states that the names and addressesof the persons directly affected by the appeal are those set out in paragraph 5.
“2. PART OF THE DECISION COMPLAINED OF: The whole decision. 3. GROUNDS OF APPEAL
“3.1 GROUND 1
The learned trial Judge misdirected himself in law when he assumed jurisdiction to entertain the claim of the Plaintiff predicated on Section 29(5) of the Electoral Act, 2022 before submission of the name of the Appellant to the 3rd Respondent by his political party. The only time the court can be approached and not before.
“3.2 GROUND 2
The learned trial Judge misdirect himself in law when he agreed with the 1st Respondent that the Appellant failed to meet the constitutional requirement of Section 177(a) and 182(1) J of the 1998 Constitution as Amended and that his certificate are forged
“PARTICULARS OF MISDIRECTION:
3.4 GROUND 4
The trial Court erred in law and occasioned miscarriage of justice on the Appellant when it assumed jurisdiction over intra party affairs of the 2nd Respondent even though the 1st Respondent to the admission of the learned trial Judge, did not mention any infraction of the 2nd Respondent’s Constitution or Guidelines for the election.”