Court Rejects Araraume’s Bid To Claim Imo APC Senatorial Ticket

A Federal High Court in Abuja has rejected an attempt by former senator, Ifeanyi Araraume, to compel the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to recognise him as the All Progressives Congress (APC) candidate for the Imo North Senatorial District in the 2027 general elections.

Naija News reports that Justice Salim Ibrahim struck out the case after finding that another Federal High Court of coordinate jurisdiction had already dealt with the dispute.

The judge consequently held that entertaining another action concerning substantially the same dispute would amount to an abuse of the judicial process.

Although the judgment was delivered on August 26, a certified true copy of the decision was sighted on Friday. The disagreement centred on who should represent the APC in the Imo North senatorial contest.

Araraume instituted the action, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/1569/2026, against the APC, Senator Patrick Ndubueze and INEC after Ndubueze’s name was submitted as the party’s candidate.

Through his counsel, George Ibrahim, SAN, Araraume asked the court to direct the electoral commission to recognise him instead.

He also sought to restrain Ndubueze from presenting himself as the APC candidate for the senatorial seat. Central to Araraume’s case was the uploading of Ndubueze’s particulars on INEC’s portal on July 11.

The former senator asked the court to set aside the submission and direct the commission to replace Ndubueze’s name with his.

His case was brought under relevant provisions of the 1999 Constitution, the Electoral Act 2026 and the APC Constitution.

The APC and Ndubueze opposed Araraume’s attempt to reclaim the ticket. Ndubueze’s lawyer, Prof. Paul Ananaba, SAN, raised a preliminary objection challenging the competence of the fresh action.

He argued that another division of the Federal High Court had already decided a case concerning the APC primary conducted on May 18.

According to the objection, the Federal High Court sitting in Owerri delivered judgment in the earlier matter on June 25.

Ndubueze therefore urged Justice Ibrahim to dismiss Araraume’s action as “grossly an abuse of the court process” or, alternatively, strike it out for lack of jurisdiction.

INEC did not take sides in the dispute, informing the court that it would comply with whatever decision was reached.

In an affidavit and written address filed through its counsel, Johnson Usman, SAN, the commission explained how candidates’ details were submitted under the prevailing nomination procedure.

According to INEC, political parties were provided access to its platform to upload the particulars of their respective candidates.

The commission said the APC used that access to submit Ndubueze’s name on July 11. It added that Ndubueze remained listed on the portal when the case was heard.

Before examining Araraume’s substantive requests, Justice Ibrahim first considered whether the court had the jurisdiction to entertain the action.

The judge relied on established Supreme Court principles requiring jurisdictional objections to be resolved before the court considers the merits of a case.

He agreed with Ndubueze that the dispute before him and the earlier case determined by the Federal High Court in Owerri concerned the same underlying subject matter.

Justice Ibrahim consequently upheld the preliminary objection and declined to reopen the controversy through another suit before a court of equal jurisdiction.

The court described Araraume’s action as an abuse of court process and struck it out.

The judge ruled, “This court does not express any opinion upon whether the judgment of Owoibo, J. was right or wrongly decided.

“An allegedly erroneous judgment is not thereby rendered nonexistent.

“Until set aside by a court invested with appellate authority, it remains a subsisting judicial determination which a court of coordinate jurisdiction is bound to respect.

“It follows that having found that this court lacks jurisdiction to hear and determine the plaintiff/respondent’s substantive suit, the proper order to make in the circumstance is to strike out the instant suit.

“I therefore hold that, having regard to the subsisting judgment of the Federal High Court, Owerri Judicial Division, delivered by Hon. Justice I.N. Owoibo on 25th June, 2026 in Suit No. FHC/OW/CS/70/2026.

“The fact that the Federal High Court by virtue of Section 19(1) of the FHC Act which makes the court to be one but based on administrative convenience, the Chief Judge divided the court to different divisions pursuant to the powers of the Chief Judge.

“See Orji v Chima (Supra) per KEKERE-EKUN,JSC (as he then was now CJN) and also to the fact that this is a gross abuse of court process as this court is a court of coordinate jurisdiction with the Owerri division.

“I therefore find merit in the preliminary objection and hold that it ought to be sustained.

“Accordingly, I hereby sustain the preliminary objection and strike out Suit No FHC/ABJ/CS/1569/2026…There shall be no order as to costs.”