The case filed by Shuaibu Abubakar against the outcome of the APC governorship primaries in Kogi state is likely to fail on technical grounds if the court adopts the Supreme Court decision in APC vs Machina's case.
The Supreme Court had struck out the suit of Machina for having been commenced by Originating Summons rather than a Writ of Summons.

In the suit filed by Shuaibu Abubakar, he also commenced it by Originating Summons rather than Writ of Summons as decided by the Supreme Court.

Ok

Corrupt politicians everywhere

potent5:
The case filed by Shuaibu Abubakar against the outcome of the APC governorship primaries in Kogi state is likely to fail on technical grounds if the court adopts the Supreme Court decision in APC vs Machina's case.
The Supreme Court had struck out the suit of Machina for having been commenced by Originating Summons rather than a Writ of Summons.

In the suit filed by Shuaibu Abubakar, he also commenced it by Originating Summons rather than Writ of Summons as decided by the Supreme Court.

😂 I guess you are the one that will judge on the case abi. The evidence is there for everyone to know that the primary election of APC in Kogi State is a big scam. The APC indirect mode of primary election is a big scam. Yahaya bello destroyed Kogi State APC beyond repair. You will see the outcome of judgement from the court of justice

Not exactly true.

Writs of Summons will become in contention if "fraud", "theft", "forgery" or "perjury" is involved in the petitions.

It is not always compulsory that pre-election cases must commence with WoS.

fergie001:
Not exactly true.

Writs of Summons will become in contention if "fraud", "theft", "forgery" or "perjury" is involved in the petitions.

It is not always compulsory that pre-election cases must commence with WoS.

Abeg advice them well barrister fergie001

fergie001:
Not exactly true.

Writs of Summons will become in contention if "fraud", "theft", "forgery" or "perjury" is involved in the petitions.

It is not always compulsory that pre-election cases must commence with WoS.

There's bound to be contention in the suit. The facts are not settled and the suit is not purely about the interpretation of law or documents. So, Originating Summons is not appropriate.

potent5:

There's bound to be contention in the suit. The facts are not settled and the suit is not purely about the interpretation of law or documents. So, Originating Summons is not appropriate.

Yes, there will be contention but it is not a compulsion that the Court will overrule documentary evidence.

Does the Contention involve fraud, forgery, or perjury?

In the case of APC v. Machina, the petitioner alleged fraud in his suit. All contentions must not be fraud-oriented enough to be filed via WoS.

If you check very well, what you posted surrounds Section 177 of the 1999 CFRN and 29 of the EA 2022. The issues based here surrounds what happened in the Primaries, the OS filed is appropriate wrt what you posted.

fergie001:

Yes, there will be contention but it is not a compulsion that the Court will overrule documentary evidence.

Does the Contention involve fraud, forgery, or perjury?

In the case of APC v. Machina, the petitioner alleged fraud in his suit. All contentions must not be fraud-oriented enough to be filed via WoS.

If you check very well, what you posted surrounds Section 177 of the 1999 CFRN and 29 of the EA 2022. The issues based here surrounds what happened in the Primaries, the OS filed is appropriate wrt what you posted.

Well, let's see what happens.