ABUJA — The Federal High Court dismissed a suit filed by the All Democratic Alliance (ADA) against the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), ruling that the case was procedurally defective and lacked merit.
Justice Emeka Nwite, delivering the judgment on Wednesday, held that the plaintiffs had initiated the action by way of an originating summons, a procedural instrument inappropriate for allegations of fraud or criminal conduct. He explained that an originating summons is limited to evidence presented in an affidavit, whereas a writ of summons – the correct form for fraud claims – permits a full trial with oral testimony and cross‑examination of witnesses.
“The appropriate mode of commencement of a suit where there is an allegation of fraud is a writ of summons,” Justice Nwite said, emphasizing that the choice of pleading form is fundamental because it determines the court’s jurisdiction. He warned that employing the wrong form “robs the court of jurisdiction to hear the matter.”
The judge further noted that the procedure adopted denied the second and third defendants the opportunity to cross‑examine witnesses whose statements were contained only in the plaintiff’s affidavit. This, he said, infringed the right to a fair hearing.
On that basis, Justice Nwite sustained the defendants’ preliminary objection, set aside the entire proceedings and ordered the suit dismissed as unmeritorious.
The ruling underscores the importance of adhering to procedural rules in electoral disputes and signals that courts will scrutinise the legal foundation of such cases before allowing them to proceed. No indication was given that the ADA will consider an appeal, and INEC has not commented further.
The decision will likely influence how future election‑related challenges are filed, reinforcing the requirement that claims of fraud be pursued through the appropriate procedural channels to ensure judicial efficiency and fairness.
