ALGON BoT Appeals Judgement Refusing to Nullify Alabi David’s Leadership
Alex Enumah in Abuja
The Incorporated Trustees of the Association of Local Government of Nigeria (ALGON), has appealed the judgement of a Federal High Court, Abuja, which declined jurisdiction to determine whether immediate a past president of the association, Mr Alabi David, was qualified to hold office. The BoT has also filed a motion seeking the stay of execution of the judgement delivered by Justice Inyang Ekwo of the Federal High Court Abuja, last Friday.
The association had last year dragged David and seven others to court on the grounds that he was not qualified to be president, having not emerged from one of the 774 Local Government Council in the country.
In their originating summons filed by Bartholomew Opara, they maintained that Alabi was not eligible to be ALGON president as he was not a local government chairman as contemplated by the 1999 Constitution, the Constitution of ALGON and a Supreme Court decision which had touched on the dispute.
Opara contended in his process that Alabi had been removed by ALGON’s National Executive Council in 2019 but he kept parading himself as president.
He therefore, urged Justice Inyang Ekwo to uphold the removal of Alabi by NEC and perpetually restrain him from further parading as such, among other reliefs.
However, delivering judgement in the suit, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/1609/2023, Justice Ekwo dismissed the suit for want of jurisdiction.
According to him, the subject matter of the case and claims of the applicants were matters that the ALGON, by its general assembly and by applying the provisions of its constitution, could resolve.
“In other words, the subject matter of this case belongs in the realm of internal affairs of the association which no outsider, not even the court can be invited to interfere or resolve,” he added.
Dissatisfied, the plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal and also an application seeking a stay of the judgement pending the hearing and determination of the appeal.
The appeal is predicated on two grounds wherein the appellants argued that, “the learned trial Judge erred in law when he delivered judgement marred with outdated technicality in Law and lack of fair hearing to all parties in the suit”.
They also claimed that the learned trial judge erred in law when he delivered his judgement not in accordance with the provisions of Section 36 (1) of the Constitution.
They therefore prayed the appellate court to allow the appeal and set
