Appeal Court Imposes N6 million Costs on Ekiti APC Gubernatorial Primary Aspirant

* Deprecates attempt to arrest court judgment

The Court of Appeal, Abuja Division, imposed a punitive cost of N6 million on Mrs. Abimbola Olajumoke Olawunmi, an APC governorship primary aspirant from Ekiti State, after ruling that she had tried to arrest a judgment that had already been reserved for delivery.

Justice Okon Abang delivered the decision in a unanimous ruling, reaffirming that litigation must conclude and that courts will not allow parties to undermine the judicial process with last‑minute procedural manoeuvres after a matter has been fully heard and a judgment reserved.

The appeal stems from the Federal High Court judgment dated 15 April 2026 in Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/2221/2025, which dismissed Mrs. Olawunmi’s challenge to her disqualification from the APC governorship nomination process.

The respondents in the appeal are the APC, the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), and Ekiti State Governor Abiodun Abayomi Oyebanji.

After hearing all parties, the Court of Appeal reserved judgment in the appeal. However, once the matter had concluded and was awaiting judgment, the appellant filed a new application seeking far‑reaching orders, including setting aside the entire appellate proceedings, allowing Chief Ebun‑Olu Adegboruwa (SAN) to take over as new counsel, and permitting amendment of the appellant’s brief of argument.

The respondents vigorously opposed the application.

Court Rejects Attempt to Reopen Concluded Proceedings

Justice Abang carefully reviewed the facts and procedural history and found the application wholly unmeritorious.

The court noted that the application was filed on 16 June 2026, long after the appeal had been argued and judgment reserved. Justice Abang observed that when the appeal was heard on 2 June 2026, the appellant was personally present and represented by counsel of her choice, who actively participated in the proceedings and adopted the relevant applications before the court.

According to the court, the appellant had fully engaged with the judicial process and could not, after the matter had concluded, seek to unravel the proceedings simply because judgment had not yet been delivered.

Justice Abang held that by seeking to change counsel, amend briefs, and set aside proceedings after judgment had been reserved, the appellant was effectively asking the court to do the impossible.

In a striking moment of the ruling, the court described the application as an attempt to arrest a reserved judgment and declared that such a procedure is unknown to law and cannot be permitted.

The court emphasized that the appellant had compiled and transmitted the record of appeal, received hearing notices, engaged counsel voluntarily, and was afforded every opportunity to present her case. Consequently, there was no factual or legal basis for any complaint of denial of fair hearing.

Justice Abang further held that a litigant cannot speculate on the outcome of a reserved judgment and then, in what he described as “indecent haste,” seek to reconfigure her legal representation and reopen proceedings that had already been concluded.

Strong Judicial Message Against Abuse of Court Process

The ruling illustrates the judicial philosophy that courts must safeguard the integrity of their processes and resist attempts to derail the orderly administration of justice.

By refusing to allow concluded proceedings to be reopened through a late procedural intervention, Justice Abang reinforced the long‑settled principle that judicial proceedings cannot be held hostage by strategic applications aimed at delaying or frustrating the delivery of judgments.

The court also expressed surprise that the application came from a senior member of the Bar and concluded that the application was designed to overreach the respondents after issues had already been joined and the appeal concluded.

Finding the application entirely lacking in merit, the Court of Appeal dismissed it and awarded costs of N2 million each against the appellant in favour of the APC, INEC and Governor Oyebanji, bringing the total cost award to N6 million.

Justice Abang made it clear that the substantial costs were intended not merely to compensate the successful parties but also to serve as a deterrent against similar conduct in future litigation.

Why the Decision Matters

The ruling sends a powerful message to litigants and legal practitioners that once a court has heard a matter and reserved judgment, attempts to derail, delay, or arrest that judgment through procedural stratagems will not be tolerated. It further reinforces public confidence in the judiciary’s ability to protect its processes from abuse and to ensure that justice is administered efficiently, decisively, and in accordance with established legal principles.

Above all, the decision stands as a reaffirmation of the court’s duty to preserve the sanctity of judicial proceedings and ensure that the wheels of justice are not obstructed by last‑minute tactics designed to frustrate the timely delivery of judgments.