Alex Enumah in Abuja
The Court of Appeal in Abuja refused to entertain the appeal against a judgement of a Federal High Court in Ibadan, which recognised the Caretaker Committee of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), loyal to the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Mr Nyesom Wike, on the grounds, that the issue has become academic.
The three-member panel in a unanimous decision on Wednesday held that no benefit could accrue to any party in the appeal because the issue brought before the appellate court was tied to the November 2025 convention of the PDP which has already been settled by both the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court.
Justice Uche Ogomoh of the Federal High Court in Ibadan, had in a judgement nullified the November 15 and 16, National Convention of the PDP that produced the Tanimu Turaki-led faction of the party, for violating the valid orders of the court.
Justice Ogomoh had nullified the convention and went ahead to recognise the Caretaker Committee led by Abdulrahman Mohammed as the valid leadership of the PDP.
Displeased with this decision, the Turaki-led faction had approached the lower court to upturn the judgement.
However, Mohammed alongside the Secretary of National Caretaker Committee, Senator Samuel Anyanwu and the Chairman of the factional Board of Trustees (BOT) of the PDP, Mao Ohuabuwa, had filed an application asking the appellate court to dismiss the appeal for being academic, as the apex court which is the final court in the country has already resolved the issue surrounding the issue of the party’s leadership.
Responding, the Turaki faction claimed that the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court did not entertain the issue of the caretaker committee, arguing that the issue is “a live issue” before the appellate court.
They submitted among others that the recognition of the caretaker committee was not sought by any party before Justice Ogomoh, adding that the trial court went outside its powers to affirm the Mohammed-led PDP.
Delivering ruling in the motion on Wednesday, the appellate court held that in so much as the said live issue was connected to the November convention which has been nullified the appeal has become academic and cannot be adjudicated by the Court of Appeal, again.
In a Certified True Copy (CTC) of the ruling obtained by THISDAY yesterday, Justice Uchechukwu Onyemenam, who delivered the lead judgement, observed that the declaratory and injunctive reliefs being pursued by the appeal pivot around the legitimacy of the November convention and the leadership organs purportedly thrown up by, or validated through the convention.
“It is contended that this narrow issue was not expressly canvassed or resolved in CA/ABJ/1695/2025 and SC/CV/164/2026, and therefore still requires appellate interrogation.
“In the instant case, no doubt, there is a seeming live issue where it is heid that the trial court went outside the reliefs sought to recognize and uphold a factional caretaker committee; however, from the totality of the record and the uncontroverted grounds of the motion, it is evident that the foundation and substance of this appeal is the challenge to actions and structures that were themselves rooted in, or derived from, the Ibadan Convention of November 15 and 16, 2025.
“The declaratory and injunctive reliefs being pursued on appeal all pivot around the legitimacy of that Convention and the leadership organs purportedly thrown up by, or validated through, it. Therefore, once the Convention itself has been pronounced null, void and of no effect by the Supreme Court, any superstructure erected upon it is necessarily without legal foundation.
“Issues such as which organ or committee legitimately emerged from, or drew its authority from, that void Convention cannot, in law, give rise to a live controversy requiring further adjudication. As the Supreme Court stated …. courts do not act in vacuo or on a foundation that has been legally erased. Accordingly, the alleged live issue is merely superficial, cosmetic as its determination will not avail tangible benefit, relief, nor enforceable right to the Appellant.
“In effect, to entertain this appeal further would either:
(a) Lead this Court into revisiting, directly or by indirection, the validity and legal consequences of the Ibadan Convention already settled by CA/ABJ/1695/2025 and SC/CV/164/2026; or
(b) Require this Court to pronounce on derivative issues which, shorn of the now-void Convention, have no real or workable legal substratum and cannot alter the legal position now fixed by the Supreme Court.
“Either course would amount to engaging in an academic exercise, which the law frowns upon.
“I am therefore satisfied that, in light of the binding decisions in CA/ABIJ/1695/2025 and SC/CV/164/2026, this appeal no longer presents any live issue capable of affecting the rights and obligations of the parties in a practical way. Its continued prosecution would serve no utilitarian purpose and would, on the authorities, constitute an abuse of court process”, Justice Onyemenam held.
