Appeal court reserves ruling on Makarfi, Sheriff tussle

The court of appeal has reserved ruling on the leadership tussle between the Ahmed Makarfi and Ali Modu Sheriff factions of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP).

On June 29, Okon Abang, a judge of the federal high court Abuja, ordered that Sheriff’s faction be recognised as authentic.

He declared the Markafi caretaker committee as “illegal” and held that it could not perform functions on behalf of the party.

Following Abang’s ruling Makarfi asked the appellate court to set aside the decision of the lower court.

At the court on Thursday, Beluolisa Nwofor, counsel to Biyi Poroye, chairman of the Sheriff faction in Ondo state, said the court should stop hearing on the matter because a stay of proceedings application was pending at supreme court.

He said the appellant (Markafi) filed two briefs in the same suit, which was an abuse of court processes.

“This court has lost jurisdiction to entertain further proceedings in this appeal by the virtue of one; the appeal has been entered at the supreme court,” he said.

“Secondly by dependency of motion of stay of prosecution pending before the supreme court which has not been determined.

“We therefore submit that the proper thing for this court to do is to stop any hearing or further proceeding in this appeal and await the determination of the supreme court ruling.

“Furthermore, we draw your attention to the fact that the appellant filed two appellant suit in this case with different dates. One dated 10th of November, 2016 while the second one was filed on 11th of November, 2016.

“The rules of the court of appeal 2011 do not have any provision for appellant to file two appellant briefs. Order 18, rule 2 of the court of appeal 2011 allows only one brief.

“The second appellant brief is an abuse of court process. The first brief has been abandoned because he didn’t rely on it. Your lordship should deem it abandoned. We hold that there’s no appellant brief, the law says when there’s no appellant bill, the bill becomes abandoned.”

Responding, Wole Olanipekun, counsel to Makarfi faction, said filing two briefs of argument was not an abuse of court process.

“Paragraph 1.1 of our brief filed on the 11th, we stated categorically where we abandoned our brief or argument filed on the 10th. Assuming we did not, filing two briefs argument is not an abuse of court process as it is the latter one that the court takes as brief of argument,” he said.

R. A Oluyede, counsel to Makarfi, told the court that he was not able to file his brief of argument at the registry because of the Treasury Single Account (TSA) payment.

He asked the court to give him time so that he would be able to file his brief.

After hearing the arguments, the three-man panel of judges led by Ibrahim Saulawa reserved ruling on the matter.

No date has been fixed to when the ruling would be given.