Ekiti APC Guber Primary: Appeal Court Slams Aspirant with N6m Costs
* Deprecates attempt to arrest court judgment
In a ruling that underscores the judiciary’s intolerance for procedural ambushes and attempts to frustrate the administration of justice, the Court of Appeal, Abuja Division, has imposed a punitive cost of N6 million on an All Progressives Congress (APC) governorship primary aspirant in Ekiti State, Mrs. Abimbola Olajumoke Olawunmi, for what the court described as a clear attempt to arrest a judgment that had already been reserved for delivery.
The decision, delivered by Justice Okon Abang in a unanimous ruling of the appellate court, reaffirmed the principle that litigation must come to an end and that courts will not permit parties to undermine the judicial process through last-minute procedural manoeuvres after a matter has been fully heard and reserved for judgment.
The appeal arises from the judgment of the Federal High Court delivered on April 15, 2026, in Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/2221/2025, which dismissed Mrs. Olawunmi’s challenge to her disqualification from the APC governorship nomination process.
The respondents in the appeal are the APC, the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), and the Governor of Ekiti State, Abiodun Abayomi Oyebanji.
Having heard arguments from all parties, the Court of Appeal reserved judgment in the appeal. However, after the matter had been concluded and awaiting judgment, the appellant filed a fresh application seeking far-reaching orders, including the setting aside of the entire appellate proceedings, leave for Chief Ebun-Olu Adegboruwa (SAN) to take over the matter as new counsel, and permission to amend the appellant’s brief of argument.
The respondents vigorously opposed the application.
Court Rejects Attempt to Reopen Concluded Proceedings
Delivering the ruling, Justice Abang meticulously reviewed the facts and procedural history of the matter and found the application wholly unmeritorious.
The court noted that the application was filed on June 16, 2026, long after the appeal had been argued and judgment reserved. Justice Abang observed that when the appeal came up on June 2, 2026, the appellant was personally present in court and was represented by counsel of her choice, who actively participated in the proceedings and adopted the relevant applications before the court.
According to the court, the appellant had fully engaged with the judicial process and could not, after the matter had been concluded, seek to unravel the proceedings merely because judgment had not yet been delivered.
Justice Abang held that by seeking to change counsel, amend briefs, and set aside proceedings after judgment had been reserved, the appellant was effectively asking the court to do the impossible.
In one of the most striking moments of the ruling, the court described the application as an attempt to arrest a reserved judgment and declared that such a procedure is unknown to law and cannot be permitted.
The court emphasized that the appellant had compiled and transmitted the record of appeal, received hearing notices, engaged counsel voluntarily, and was afforded every opportunity to present her case. Consequently, there was no factual or legal basis for any complaint of denial of fair hearing.
Justice Abang further held that a litigant cannot speculate on the outcome of a reserved judgment and then, in what he described as “indecent haste,” seek to reconfigure her legal representation and reopen proceedings that had already been concluded.
Strong Judicial Message Against Abuse of Court Process
The ruling is another illustration of the judicial philosophy that courts must safeguard the integrity of their processes and resist attempts to derail the orderly administration of justice.
By refusing to allow concluded proceedings to be reopened through a late procedural intervention, Justice Abang reinforced the long-settled principle that judicial proceedings cannot be held hostage by strategic applications aimed at delaying or frustrating the delivery of judgments.
The court also expressed surprise that the application emanated from a senior member of the Bar and concluded that the application was designed to overreach the respondents after issues had already been joined and the appeal concluded.
Finding the application entirely lacking in merit, the Court of Appeal dismissed it and awarded costs of N2 million each against the appellant in favour of the APC, INEC and Governor Oyebanji, bringing the total cost award to N6 million.
Justice Abang made it clear that the substantial costs were intended not merely to compensate the successful parties but also to serve as a deterrent against similar conduct in future litigation.
Why the Decision Matters
The ruling sends a powerful message to litigants and legal practitioners that once a court has heard a matter and reserved judgment, attempts to derail, delay, or arrest that judgment through procedural stratagems will not be tolerated. It further reinforces public confidence in the judiciary’s ability to protect its processes from abuse and to ensure that justice is administered efficiently, decisively, and in accordance with established legal principles.
Above all, the decision stands as a reaffirmation of the court’s duty to preserve the sanctity of judicial proceedings and ensure that the wheels of justice are not obstructed by last-minute tactics designed to frustrate the timely delivery of judgments.