By Longwul Dakwom
The court held that Sarpiya can be best described as crying more than then bereaved because he has withdrawn his membership from participating in the primary , on that premise, he is no longer having Locus Standi to challenge what transpired during the election.
Delivery the Judgement which started some minutes after 5 pm ,the Hon. Justice Docas Agishi held that the Claimant Applicant, Danyaro Sarpiya fragrantly disobey both the Electoral Act , and the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria which make it explicitly clear that any civil servant wish to contest election most resigned his appointment with the government Thirty days before the election which Sarpiya didn’t adhere to.
The court also ruled that the matter was status bar, which means that the suit filed by the Claimant was filed out of time contrary to the electoral Act that spelt out when aggrieved person, Persons to approach the court after the election.
The court however ruled that the grounds upon which Sarpiya stand to challenge the governorship election conducted by the party is sinking , porous and to say the least didn’t hold water,as against this background,is tucked out ,held that the primary conducted by APC, which produced the governship candidate Nentawe Yilwatda,is done in accordance with the electoral Act and the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
In an exclusive interview with the parties Counsel separately, barrister Ogbole (SAN) ,Counsel for APC said the Judgement is a landslide Judgement which the judge State very clearly of the position of law in the matter.
He further stressed that the case of the Claimant lack merit,the court lack jurisdiction to entertain the matter , the case is status bar and the court also held that the Claimant is a public servant at a time even before the election.
The Court stressed that Sarpiya approached the court without merit,records has it that he withdraw from the race ,he was no longer a party in the contest under Section 84 subsection 14 of the electoral Act ,he lack Loco Standi to approach the court and challenge the matter.
So his case was dismissed of all the ground he was challenging.
On his part, the Counsel to the APC governorship candidate , explained that the matter was brought to the court by the plaintiff Danyaro Sarpiya through originating sermont that he was short changed, and didn’t participated on the party primary conducted by the party which produced the 2nd defendant Dr Nentawe as the party candidate.
He further explained that whey filed the matter on 7th June,2022 ,we come out with application to be joined in the matter because initially we were not joined in the matter. When they filed the matter initially only APC and INEC, because having taken the mandate
of the people of plateau state ,we should be joined on the matter.
The application he said the court graciously granted ,the matter proceeded and we where subsequently joined and asked the court to terminate the action .We have to come into the matter because is an action being contemplated ,in Section 84 Subsection 14 stated that you most be an aspirant before challenging such action.
“Sarpiya is not an aspirant that have participated in the election ,so therefore couldn’t have deemed to take the action of challenging or filing suit against the party challenging the conduct of the election”.
” The court also held that the plantiff been a civil servant ought have resigned from his employment Thirty days before election that he never did which was held against him.”
” The victory for our client which has showed he is line with the law,the entire Judgement is tired to Section 84 subsection 14 .
“An exhibit APC (1) written by Sarpiya that he has pulled out of the election ,if have pulled out of the primary,how then did you Come to court to challenge action you are not a part, that is what they held that by virtue of exhibit APC (1) he didn’t take part in the primary , you are not aspirant .”
“We asked for a cost of 200 million,but my Lord in her wisdom and magnanimity granted One Hundred Thousand Naira which to us is still fair to serve as deterrent to people who come to court with flimsy cases trying to wast the precious time of the Court.”