Ogbeni Rauf Aregbesola, the National Secretary of African Democratic Congress (ADC) led by Sen. David Mark leadership, has appealed against the Nov. 5 judgment that nullified their emergence as party’s valid leaders.
Aregbesola, in a notice of appeal filed on Nov. 6 by his lawyer, Mohammed Sheriff, SAN, prayed the Court of Appeal to allow the appeal and vacated the judgment delivered by Justice Peter Lifu of the Federal High Court in Abuja for lack of jurisdiction.
The certified true copy of the appeal notice was received at the Federal High Court (FHC) on Nov. 7 and a copy made available to News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) on Sunday in Abuja.
Aregbesola, the appellant in the case, named Hon. Nafiu Bala Gombe, ADC, Sen. Mark, Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) and Chief Raph Nwosu as 1st to 5th respondents.
Aregbesola, who sought nine reliefs, asked for “an order setting aside the decision of the lower court assuming jurisdiction to entertain and determine the claims conceming the appellant’s emergence into office and the validity of the impugned resolutions of the 99th NEC meeting of the African Democratic Congress, to the extent that the claims are found to be outside the jurisdiction of the lower court.”
He also sought an order striking out the claims against him and the claims founded upon the impugned resolutions of the 99th National Executive Committee (NEC) meeting, insofar as the appellate “court finds that the lower court lacked jurisdiction to entertain and determine the same.”
In the alternative, he sought an order setting aside the findings and orders invalidating his assumption of office as national sescretary and setting aside the resolutions of the 99th NEC meeting, insofar as they affect him, and dismissing the claims on which those findings and orders were founded.
He sought an order setting aside the declaration that Gombe’s four-year tenure remained subsisting and that he was entitled to oversee the affairs of the ADC.
“An order setting aside Order 4, insofar as it nullifies the actions, decisions and steps taken by the Appellant as a national officer of the African Democratic Congress from 29 July 2025.
“An order setting aside or, in the alternative, varying the perpetual injunctions in Orders 7 and 8 insofar as they restrain INEC from recognising or dealing with the Appellant and restrain the Appellant from acting or holding himself out in the capacities specified in those orders.”
Aregbesola, in the further alternative if jurisdiction is upheld and a retrial is necessary, sought an order remitting the affected claims to the Federal High Court for rehearing before a different Judge.
Besides, he also prayed the court for an order awarding the costs of this appeal in his favour.
Sheriff, on behalf of the embattled ADC national secretary, gave five grounds why their reliefs should be granted.
The senior lawyer argued that the trial judge erred in law in holding that the challenge to INEC’s statutory oversight entitled the lower court to determine the competing claims to leadership of the ADC arising from the 99th NEC meeting.
He submitted that Justice Lifu erred in law in treating the absence of a democratic election at the ADC’s 99th NEC meeting as a basis for invalidating Aregbesola’s assumption of office under Section 82(3) of the Electoral Act 2022 and Section 223(1)(a) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended).
He argued that Section 82(3) governs the conduct of elections to party governing bodies, including elections to fill vacancies.
He said though Section 223(1)(a) requires provision for periodic democratic elections, the lawyer said they relied on Article 23(4) of the ADC Constitution as authorising the appropriate executive organ to appoint an eligible substitute pending election at the next convention or congress.
“The absence of voting did not resolve whether the resolutions effected an election or an interim appointment under the provision relied upon by the appellant.
“The lower court applied the requirements governing an election to fill a vacancy without first resolving whether the appellant’s assumption of office fell within the interim appointment power asserted under Article 23(4),” he argued, among other grounds.
In another motion on notice dated and filed on Nov. 7 at the Federal High Court, Aregbesola prayed the court for an order of stay of execution of the Nov. 5 judgment pending the hearing and determination of the appeal filed at the Court of Appeal on the Nov. 6.
The motion, filed by Sheriff, is marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/1819/2025..
The lawyer sought five reliefs and gave a 12-ground argument.
He sought “an order of stay of execution staying the execution, enforcement, and/or further consequential steps pursuant to Orders 7 and 8 of the judgment of this Honourable Court delivered on 5th November 2026, insofar as the said orders affect the rights, interests, offices, participation and legal position of the 3rd defendant/Applicant (Aregbesola), pending the hearing and determination of the applicant’s appeal before the Court of Appeal.
“An order of stay of execution staying the outstanding executory and consequential execution of Order 6 of the judgment delivered on 5th November 2026, to the extent that such implementation would alter the existing legal or organisational position of the parties or render nugatory the appeal already lodged by the applicant.
“An order of interlocutory injunction pending appeal restraining the plaintiff/respondent (Gombe), whether by himself, agents, privies, representatives, assigns or any person acting on his behalf, from taking or procuring any step specifically founded upon the judgment of 5th November, 2026 for the purpose of replacing, removing, displacing or otherwise altering the applicant’s position or interests in the African Democratic Congress, pending the determination of the appeal.
“An order of interlocutory injunction pending appeal restraining the parties from taking any irreversible steps to give effect to the disputed nullification and consequential injunctive orders in a manner that would prejudge the issues submitted to the Court of Appeal.”
In their grounds of argument, Sheriff submitted that although the FHC delivered its judgment on Nov. 5, Aregbesola was dissatisfied with material aspects of the judgment and had exercised his constitutional right of appeal.
According to him, the applicant’s appeal raises substantial and arguable questions of law and fact which warrant the consideration of the Court of Appeal.
The lawyer stated that the appeal challenged, amongst other things, the jurisdiction of the trial court and the proper interpretation of the ADC’s constitution and the applicable provisions of the Electoral Act, among other grounds.
NAN reports that Gombe had, in the suit, argued that following the resignation of former National Chairman of the party, Chief Nwosu, he was constitutionally entitled to take over the party’s leadership.
He consequently asked Justice Lifu to invalidate all actions taken by the Mark-led leadership and restrain Mark and Aregbesola and other members of their interim National Working Committee (NWC) from parading themselves as valid leaders of the party.
The plaintiff maintained that their emergence violated the ADC constitution and relevant provisions of the Electoral Act.
He had sued ADC, INEC, Mark, Aregbesola and Nwosu as 1st to 5th defendants respectively in the suit, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/1819/2025.
However, Mark, Aregbesola and others disagreed with Gombe, urging the court to dismiss the suit on the grounds that, as at the time Nwosu resigned, Gombe was no longer a deputy national chairman of the party.
