The suspended National Chairman of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), Uche Secondus, has taken steps to stop the convention of the party.
The development was revealed in a letter dated 21st October 2021, and released through his lawyer, Tayo Oyetibo, SAN.
Secondus in the letter disclosed that an appeal has been filed at the Court of Appeal, Port Harcourt Judicial Division in respect to the case filed by one Mr Ibeawuchi E. Alex and four others jointly instituted Suit No PHC/2183/CS/2021.
The letter reads, “We act for the Appellant in the above-captioned matter, PRINCE UCHE SECONDUS, who was the National Chairman of the Peoples’ Democratic Party (PDP), before the institution of Suit Number PHC/2183/CS/2021, and wish to bring to your attention the following facts:
“1. On 23 August 2021 one Mr Ibeawuchi E. Alex and four others jointly instituted Suit No PHC/2183/CS/2021 at the High Court of Rivers State, PortHarcourt Judicial Division against Prince Uche Seconds and the PP as Defendants.
“2. On 10 September 2021, the High Court of Rivers State delivered its judgment in the Suit whereby Prince Uche Seconds was, inter alia, restrained from performing the functions of the office of National Chairman of the PDP.
“3. An appeal has been filed and entered against the judgment at the Court of Appeal, Port Harcourt Judicial Division.
“4. In addition, an Application on Notice has been filed in which Prince Uche Secondus is seeking, inter alia, the following orders:
“5. The application has since been served on you and other Respondents in the appeal.
“6. Notwithstanding the service of the Application for an injunction, it has come to the Notice of our client that the PP and its officers continue to prepare to hold the National Convention on 30 and 31 October 2021.
“7. This letter is intended to draw your attention to the position of the law of Nigeria on this subject as encapsulated in the judgment of the Supreme Court of Nigeria in the celebrated case of GOVERNOR OF LAGOS STATE vs. CHIEF EMEKA ODUMEGWU OJUKWU (1986) I NWLR (Part 18) 621 @ 637, in which the court, reviewed various decisions on the point, and approved the following principles as the correct position of the law, that is:
The rule is well settled that where a suit is brought to enjoin certain activities of which the defendant has notice, the hands of the defendant are effectually tied pending a hearing and
determination even though no restraining order or preliminary injunction be issued.
“The conclusion to be drawn from all the cases is that after a defendant has been notified of the pendency of a suit seeking an injunction against him even though a temporary injunction be not
granted, he acts at his peril and subject to the power of the court to restore the status wholly irrespective of the merits as they may
be ultimately decided.
“8. The same position was taken by the Court of Appeal in CHIEF ELIAS OKEKE-OBA vs. IKWUKA OKOYE (1994) 8 NWLR (364) 605 @ 617-618, where the court said as follows:
“The general practice is that on the application for an order for interlocutory injunction, all activities affecting the res, ….are automatically terminated as a mark of respect to the court before whom the application is pending if parties to the suit senselessly rush their tortious trespassory activities…in the spacious belief that that would promote their unfounded claims to the res. Nothing can be farther from the truth. Such heedless posture is, to say the least, a fragrant disrespect to the court. It, in my opinion, amounts to intransigence for a party against whom an order for an injunction is sought to intensify his interference with the res. The court cannot be hoodwinked by such impropriety of unlawful acts about the res.……Nor can the person in such disrespect be allowed to take advantage of his default and flagrant intransigence.
“9. The logical corollary of the foregoing pronouncements of the courts is that having been
served with an application seeking to restrain the holding of its National Convention pending the determination of the appeal filed by Prince Uche Seconds, the PDP would be embarking upon a collision course with the court if it proceeds to hold the National
Convention before the hearing and determination of the Application.
“10. Should such contumacious conduct of holding the National Convention before the hearing and determination of the Application be embarked upon by the Party, however, we shall not hesitate to bring the full weight of the law against all national officers of the Party that
are responsible for such conduct of contempt of court.
“11. Quite apart from the fact that such contumacious conduct would impinge on the integrity of the Party, we would on our part, swiftly take steps to invoke the jurisdiction of the
court to nullify any decision, action or step taken at such Convention.
“We trust that you will wisely advise the Peoples’ Democratic Party and its officers in this regard.”