The All Progressives Congress (APC) has filed an appeal challenging the Federal High Court judgment that declared former Imo State Governor Rochas Okorocha the party’s candidate for the Imo West Senatorial District in the 2027 general elections, citing four grounds on which it is asking the Court of Appeal to set aside the decision.
The ruling party has also filed a separate application before the Federal High Court in Abuja, seeking a stay of execution of the judgment and an injunction restraining the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) from replacing Governor Hope Uzodimma’s name with that of Okorocha pending the determination of the appeal.
The two processes, dated October 30, 2026, were filed barely 24 hours after Justice Obiora Egwuatu delivered judgment on October 29, declaring Okorocha the lawful winner of the APC senatorial primary conducted on May 18, 2026.
The judgment, delivered in suit number FHC/ABJ/CS/1854/2026, instituted by Okorocha against INEC, the APC and Uzodimma, ordered the party to submit Okorocha’s name to the electoral commission as its candidate for the January 16, 2027, senatorial election.
Justice Egwuatu also directed INEC to recognise and publish Okorocha’s name in place of Uzodimma and restrained the governor from continuing to present himself as the APC candidate for the senatorial district.
Dissatisfied with the decision, the APC, through its counsel, Robert Emukperuo, SAN, filed a notice of appeal before the Court of Appeal, Abuja Division, challenging the trial court’s findings on jurisdiction, allegations of document forgery, the procedure adopted in determining the suit and the evaluation of evidence presented by the parties.
In its first ground of appeal, the party contended that Justice Egwuatu erred in law by entertaining Okorocha’s suit despite its alleged failure to comply with the 14-day constitutional period prescribed for instituting pre-election matters.
Relying on Section 285(9) of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, the APC argued that a pre-election action must be commenced within 14 days of the occurrence of the event, decision or action being challenged.
The party maintained that Okorocha’s cause of action arose from the conduct and outcome of the APC primary election held on May 18, 2026, or, at the latest, from the submission of Uzodimma’s name to INEC on July 14, 2026.
According to the APC, Okorocha did not institute his action until August 13, 2026, well outside the constitutional period if calculated from either of those dates.
However, Justice Egwuatu had rejected that argument, holding that the cause of action arose on August 1, 2026, when INEC published Uzodimma’s name as the APC candidate.
The trial judge consequently found that the action filed on August 13 fell within the prescribed 14-day period.
The APC is now asking the appellate court to overturn that finding, arguing that the trial court wrongly treated INEC’s publication of Uzodimma’s name as the event giving rise to the dispute rather than the earlier primary election and nomination processes.
The party contended that the questions raised and reliefs sought by Okorocha were substantially connected to the conduct of the May 18 primary and the subsequent submission of Uzodimma’s name to INEC.
It argued that the Federal High Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the suit because it was statute-barred.
In its second ground of appeal, the APC challenged the trial court’s handling of allegations of forgery and fraud concerning documents presented by the parties.
The ruling party maintained that the proceedings involved serious accusations that certain documents relating to the primary election were forged or fabricated.
It argued that the allegations could not properly be determined through originating summons where the parties presented conflicting affidavit evidence on material issues.
According to the APC, the allegations required a procedure that would permit the presentation and testing of evidence, including the examination of witnesses where necessary.
The party further contended that Justice Egwuatu failed to properly resolve its preliminary objection concerning the suitability of originating summons before proceeding to determine the substantive dispute.
In its third ground of appeal, the APC again challenged the procedure adopted by the trial court, arguing that the existence of substantial conflicts in the affidavit evidence made the use of originating summons inappropriate.
The party relied on the Supreme Court decision in APC v. Sheriff (2024) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1921) 49, which it cited in support of its argument that disputes involving serious allegations of fraud and forgery should not be resolved solely through originating summons where the facts are fundamentally contested.
The APC maintained that the conflicting accounts of the senatorial primary required a proper examination of the evidence rather than a determination based principally on affidavit depositions and documentary exhibits.
It is asking the Court of Appeal to determine whether the trial judge adopted the correct procedure and whether the alleged procedural errors affected the validity of the judgment.
The fourth ground of appeal challenges the trial court’s evaluation of the evidence concerning the outcome of the May 18 primary election.
The APC argued that Justice Egwuatu wrongly concluded that Okorocha established that he won the primary despite what the party described as insufficient and unreliable evidence.
The party maintained that the evidence presented by the respondents supported Uzodimma’s emergence as the winner of the primary election.
According to the APC, Okorocha failed to produce credible and compelling evidence establishing that he secured the majority of lawful votes cast.
The party further accused the trial court of placing excessive reliance on discrepancies in documents presented in support of Uzodimma’s nomination while accepting what it considered weak and unsupported evidence from Okorocha.
The APC argued that the trial judge’s findings were inconsistent with the weight of evidence before the court and should consequently be set aside.
The dispute followed the APC senatorial primary conducted on May 18, during which the party’s returning officer, retired Rear Admiral Williams Kayoda, declared Uzodimma the winner with 230,464 votes, while Okorocha was credited with 1,098 votes.
Okorocha rejected the declared result and approached the Federal High Court, insisting that he had won the primary election and that the documents relied upon to recognise Uzodimma as the party’s candidate were irregular.
In his October 29 judgment, Justice Egwuatu held that the evidence before the court established that Okorocha secured the majority of votes cast during the primary.
The judge relied on documents presented in support of Okorocha’s claim, including certified electoral records, and found inconsistencies in several documents tendered in support of Uzodimma’s nomination.
The court declined to attach probative value to the disputed documents and consequently declared Okorocha the lawful winner of the primary election.
It further held that the nomination and publication of Uzodimma’s name as the APC candidate did not comply with the applicable electoral provisions and the party’s guidelines.
The APC is challenging those findings and asking the Court of Appeal to set aside the entire judgment.
Beyond the notice of appeal, the party has filed a motion on notice before Justice Egwuatu, seeking an order staying execution of or suspending compliance with the judgment pending the hearing and final determination of its appeal.
In the application, the APC is also seeking an injunction restraining INEC, its officers, servants, agents and other persons acting on its behalf from enforcing or giving effect to the October 29 judgment.
Specifically, the party wants the court to stop INEC from publishing, circulating or otherwise recognising Okorocha’s name as its candidate for Imo West while the appeal remains pending.
The application is intended to prevent the electoral commission from implementing the judgment before the Court of Appeal determines whether the trial court’s decision should stand.
The party’s concern is that implementing the orders immediately could result in Okorocha’s name being formally substituted for Uzodimma’s in INEC’s records, notwithstanding the pending appeal.
However, the filing of the notice of appeal and the application for a stay does not automatically suspend the judgment.
Unless a competent court grants an order staying execution or restraining its implementation, the October 29 judgment remains the operative decision of the Federal High Court.
The development comes after the Imo State chapter of the APC rejected Justice Egwuatu’s judgment and insisted that Uzodimma remained the party’s authentic senatorial candidate.
The state chapter maintained that the governor won the primary election with the support of the majority of party members and disputed the court’s conclusion recognising Okorocha.
The national party’s decision to appeal has now formally brought the dispute before the Court of Appeal, while its separate application seeks to preserve the existing nomination position pending the outcome of the challenge.
The appeal raises questions concerning the constitutional limitation period for pre-election litigation, the proper procedure for resolving conflicting allegations of electoral fraud and forgery, and the circumstances in which an appellate court may interfere with a trial court’s evaluation of documentary evidence.
It also raises the immediate question of whether INEC should proceed with the substitution ordered by the Federal High Court while the appellate proceedings remain pending.
The Court of Appeal is expected to consider the grounds raised by the APC and determine whether the Federal High Court properly assumed jurisdiction over Okorocha’s suit and correctly evaluated the evidence relating to the disputed primary.
Meanwhile, the Federal High Court will have to determine whether sufficient grounds exist to suspend implementation of its judgment pending the appeal.
As of the filing of the applications, no order staying execution of the October 29 judgment had been established.
Post Title: “Okorocha’s Suit Was Filed Outside Constitutional Deadline” — APC Appeals Imo West Judgment, Challenges Forgery Findings And Evidence By Naijaonpoint.