The Court of Appeal, Abuja Division, has reversed the judgment of the Federal High Court sitting in Lokoja, which set aside its earlier judgment directing the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to register the Nigeria Democratic Congress (NDC).
The Court of Appeal reached the decision in a 2-1 judgment, with Justice Mohammed Danjuma and Justice M.L. Hassan delivering the majority judgment.
The order overturns the ruling of Justice Isah Dashen of the Federal High Court sitting in Lokoja delivered in June 2026.
On December 10, 2025, the same Lokoja court had directed INEC to register the NDC as a political party.
However, the Peace Movement Party (PMP) later approached the court, claiming ownership of the logo relied upon in securing the judgment and arguing that it was not joined as a necessary party.
The trial court had ruled that the application filed by the PMP had merit, noting that the party had successfully established its legal interest in the case.
In the majority judgment, the Appellate Court held that the PMP is not a registered political party and, therefore, could not have been a necessary party to the dispute.
The Court also held that, having not been a necessary party, the PMP operated as an “errand spoiler” and a “meddlesome interloper.”
The Court maintained that the trial court in Lokoja “wrongly and perversely declared” the PMP as a party affected by an earlier and subsisting court judgment recognizing the NDC.
The Court of Appeal upheld the appeal, holding that the trial court was wrong to assume jurisdiction and adding that “the lower court cannot sit on appeal over its decision.”
But in his dissenting judgment, Justice Okon Abang disagreed with the leading judgment, maintaining that the appeal filed by Takori Mohammed Sani and others, including the NDC, “was dead on arrival” because the trial court did not decide that the PMP was not a registered political party under the Electoral Act.
He also added that the trial court did not decide that the PMP lacked locus standi to challenge the NDC in court.
Justice Abang also held that the NDC filed its appeal 53 days after the prescribed period had elapsed and held that the Electoral Act provides 14 days within which the NDC could challenge a judgment.
According to him, the suit leading to the December judgment of the Lokoja Division was “statute-barred” in view of the Electoral Act.
He said it was a “joke taken too far” for the Lokoja Division to extend a statutory provision from 14 days to 53 days in respect of the NDC.
Justice Abang said the suit filed at the Lokoja Division, rather than the Abuja Division, amounted to forum shopping and did not augur well for democracy.
He dismissed the appeal for being incompetent and awarded N10 million cost against the appellant.
Going into the merit, Justice Abang agreed with the lower court that the PMP’s right to fair hearing was breached.
He observed that the NDC suppressed facts, deceitfully concealed the interest of PMP in respect of its logo while refusing to join PMP as a necessary party.
He agreed that PMP was a necessary party because it was the first to submit “the two finger victory sign logo to INEC” as part of the requirements for political party registration.
At the Lokoja Division, as cited by the Court of Appeal, the NDC legal team had urged the court to determine whether the trial court rightly exercised jurisdiction by granting an order setting aside its earlier judgment.
The party also urged the court to hold that the trial court was wrong to consider the PMP a necessary party that had been denied a fair hearing.
The NDC legal team also argued that the Lokoja Division was wrong to set aside a subsisting judgment in favour of the PMP, arguing that the latter had no legal capacity or locus standi, as it was not a registered political party, and that only a political party could sue.
The NDC urged the court to hold that the only available remedy for the PMP was to appeal the judgment and not file a motion asking the trial court to set aside its own judgment.
For the PMP, its legal team argued that the specific judgment made against it over the logo and other issues amounted to a denial of its right to a fair hearing, which was eventually quashed by the same court
