Paragraph 1: The Genesis of the Dispute
The heart of this legal tussle lies in the All Progressives Congress (APC) National Convention held on March 26, 2022. Sunny Moniedafe, an aspirant vying for the position of Deputy National Chairman (North), had duly purchased a nomination form for ₦10 million. However, the convention took an unexpected turn when the party leadership, under then-President Muhammadu Buhari, intervened, urging aspirants to step down in favor of a consensus candidate from Borno State. This decision stemmed from a prior agreement to zone the position to the North-East geopolitical zone. Crucially, the leadership assured aspirants who withdrew their candidacy that their nomination fees would be refunded.
Paragraph 2: Breach of Promise and Legal Recourse
Despite the assurances given by the APC leadership, Moniedafe’s repeated requests for a refund of his ₦10 million nomination fee were met with silence. The party, according to Moniedafe, "reneged on its promise and blatantly refused, failed, and neglected" to reimburse him. This breach of promise prompted Moniedafe to seek legal redress, filing a lawsuit against the APC at the Federal Capital Territory High Court in Maitama, Abuja. The suit, marked FCT/HC/CV/2434/2024, seeks the court’s intervention to compel the APC to fulfill its obligation and refund the contested sum.
Paragraph 3: Court Proceedings and the Defendant’s Absence
The court proceedings took a notable turn during a scheduled sitting. While Moniedafe and his legal counsel, Okoi Obono-Obla, were present, the APC was conspicuously absent. No representative, legal or otherwise, appeared on behalf of the party. Presiding over the case, Justice Yusuf Halilu observed the absence and ordered the issuance of a hearing notice to the APC. This notice serves as a formal notification of the ongoing proceedings and underscores the importance of the party’s participation.
Paragraph 4: Scrutiny of Service and Procedural Matters
Justice Halilu, while acknowledging the existence of a statement of defense filed by the APC, pointed out the absence of proof that Moniedafe had been served with this document. This procedural lapse raised questions about the proper communication between the parties involved. The judge directed the court registrar to expedite the process by contacting the APC’s counsel and ensuring the timely delivery of all necessary documents. Obono-Obla, Moniedafe’s counsel, affirmed his commitment to responding promptly upon receipt of any communication from the opposing side.
Paragraph 5: APC’s Application for Extension and Adjournment
During the proceedings, the APC submitted an application seeking an extension of time, likely pertaining to their response to the suit. Justice Halilu granted this request in a brief ruling. Following this, the judge adjourned the case to July 15, 2025. This adjournment serves a dual purpose: it allows the APC the requested additional time to prepare its case and also provides a window to confirm the successful service of the hearing notice on the defendant.
Paragraph 6: The Path Ahead and Implications
The adjournment to July 15, 2025, sets the stage for the next phase of this legal battle. The primary focus will be on verifying the service of the hearing notice. This verification is critical for ensuring that the APC is duly informed of the proceedings and has an opportunity to present its defense. The outcome of this case holds significant implications, not only for the involved parties but also for the broader political landscape. It touches upon issues of accountability, transparency, and the adherence to promises made during political processes. The court’s eventual decision will set a precedent for similar situations in the future, emphasizing the importance of honoring commitments made to political aspirants.
