A Federal High Court sitting in Ibadan, Oyo State Judicial Division, on Monday, fixed Monday, October 26, 2026, for ruling in a suit on the ticket of the All Progressives Congress for Afijio/Atiba/Oyo East/Oyo West Federal Constituency (otherwise known as Oyo Federal Constituency) for the 2027 election.
Hon. Akeem Adeyemi Skimeh who is eyeing the fourth term representation of the Oyo Federal Constituency is the second defendant in the suit instituted by legal icon, Wakil Oyeleru Oyedemi.
Punch buttresses that the matter with suit number: FHC/IB/CS/64/2026 is between: Wakil Oyeleru Oyedemi vs. All Progressives Congress & 2 Ors.
The suit, which has Wakil Oyeleru Oyedemi as the plaintiff/respondent, also has the APC, Akeem Adeyemi and the Independent National Electoral Commission as the first, second and third defendants respectively in the suit.
The principal prayer of the plaintiff (Wakil Oyeleru Oyedemi) is an order of court nullifying and/or setting aside the APC House of Representatives primary conducted in Oyo Federal Constituency for non-compliance with the Electoral Act 2026 and the Guidelines of the APC.
All the parties were absent, but were all represented by their counsel.
They presented their oral submission before the court when the matter came up on Monday in Ibadan, the Oyo State capital.
A Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Musibau Adetunbi, appeared for the plaintiff/respondent; while Ibrahim Bawa (SAN) led other lawyers on behalf of the first defendant (APC); Kazeem Adedeji appeared for the second defendant (Akeem Adeyemi) and A.F Lawal represented INEC, which is the third defendant.
Adetunbi, while urging the court to grant the prayers of the plaintiff, informed the court of the various responses to the originating summons from the defendants, adding that, “all required affidavits have been presented to the Court with the necessary exhibits.”
Adopting all the processes filed in respect of the substantive suit, he urged the court to grant the prayers relying on paragraph 6 and Exhibit INEC 1 of the 3rd Defendant.
He said, “Accreditation of members was not conducted in the four LGAs as contained in the papers presented before the Court, particularly highlighting INEC’s affidavit that accreditation was not done on Wards 4, 5, 6 and 7.
“My duty as counsel was to demonstrate before the court what is contained in the written address,” urging the court to nullify the primary election and order the conduct of a fresh primary within the stipulated time.
Responding to the preliminary objections of the 1st defendant, he quoted Adeyemi Vs APC 2025 NWLR, Part 1927, 63, Page 119, arguing that he has a right to call all the agents as against the argument of the first defendant that the plaintiff did not have a right to do so.
On the 2nd objection, Adetunbi contended using paragraph 15:7 of the second defendant’s affidavit, saying “there was no issue of waiver when there was no accreditation in all the LGAs,” according to INEC.
He urged the court to refuse the case of all the defendants, appealing that the judge take a physical look at Exhibit INEC 1 (filed by the third defendant) and compare same with Exhibit A of the first defendant recently filed, indicating that the evidence presented is not signed by the same named person.
Making his submission to the plaintiff’s originating summon, counsel for the first defendant (APC), Bawa (SAN), said with a 40-paragraph affidavit presented, he urged the court to dismiss the plaintiff’s originating summon on the ground of incompetence.
He argued that the matter is a special proceeding in which parties are not allowed to call witnesses, arguing that the plaintiff presenting 39 affidavits without leave of court is against the spirit of the law guiding the proceedings.
He urged the court to dismiss the application, noting that the matter in which the application was taken is against the Evidence Act and the Electoral Act.
In his submission, counsel for the 2nd defendant, Kazeem Adedeji, said the notice of preliminary objection filed was predicated on many grounds and in consonance with the rule of the Court.
He said, “The case of the plaintiff is simple: that there was no primary election, which we have replied that the affidavit to show that there was an indirect primary election.
“Also, it was not the case of the plaintiff that the election was by consensus and therefore has no case making reference to it because his prayers were that there was no election, either consensus or primary, and as such any argument in that wise should go to no- case submission.”
He, therefore, urged the court to uphold his submissions, saying the plaintiff’s case must fail both on fact and in law.
Counsel for the third defendant (INEC), A.F. Lawal, in his submissions, aligned himself with the submissions of the first defendant, and adopted all his processes.
He urged the court to dismiss the originating summons of the plaintiff.
The presiding Judge, Nkeonye Maha, after taking all the submissions from all counsel, therefore, “adjourned till Monday, October 26, to deliver judgment on the matter.”
