Senate President, Godswill Akpabio, has filed an appeal before the Supreme Court, challenging a decision of the Court of Appeal in a suit involving Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan, senator representing Kogi central.
The appeal arises from the judgement of the appellate court, Abuja division, delivered on November 28, in appeal number CA/ABJ/CV/1107/2025.
The dispute stems from the suspension of Akpoti-Uduaghan by the Akpabio-led senate, which was later quashed by the court of appeal.
Akpabio is challenging the appellate court’s refusal to grant him leave to rely on his brief of argument, which exceeded the 35-page limit prescribed by the court of appeal rules.
He is also contesting the court’s refusal to allow him to file a replacement brief within the page limit.
In the notice of appeal, Akpabio, through his lawyers, led by Kehinde Ogunwumiju, a senior advocate of Nigeria, said the decision breached his constitutional right to a fair hearing.
He argued that section 36(1) of the 1999 constitution guarantees fair hearing in the determination of civil rights and obligations.
Akpabio said he discovered that Akpoti-Uduaghan’s brief of argument failed to comply with the formatting requirements of the court of appeal rules.
He said the rules mandate font size 14 and 1.5 line spacing, but the respondent allegedly used font size 12 with single spacing.
According to the appeal, the respondent’s brief only met the 35-page limit because of the formatting violation.
Akpabio said the respondent did not seek the leave of the court to depart from the rules.
He also said the respondent’s notice of appeal was fundamentally defective, prompting him to file a notice of preliminary objection.
Akpabio said order 10 rule 1 of the court of appeal rules requires a preliminary objection to be argued within the brief of argument.
He said this necessitated the filing of a longer brief to address both the preliminary objection and substantive appeal.
Akpabio said he filed a motion on notice on November 6, seeking leave to rely on a brief exceeding 35 pages.
He argued that the issues raised were substantial and complex and could not be adequately addressed within the page limit.
According to the appeal, order 19 rule 6(a) of the court of appeal rules empowers the court to permit a longer brief where necessary.
Advertisement
Akpabio said the court of appeal refused his application and proceeded to hear the appeal.
He said the refusal amounted to unequal treatment, noting that the court allowed the respondent’s non-compliant brief.
“The court below sacrificed justice on the altar of speed,” the appeal stated.
“The lower court erred in law and breached the Appellant’s right to a fair hearing when it refused to grant the Appellant the opportunity to file another brief of argument within the 25-page limit.”
Akpabio said there was no urgency justifying the refusal to allow him to re-file his brief.
He said the decision occasioned a miscarriage of justice.
Akpabio asked the supreme court to allow the appeal and set aside the decision of the court of appeal.
He also wants the apex court to nullify the proceedings of November 28, 2025, conducted after the refusal to grant leave.
Akpabio further urged the supreme court to set aside the final judgment arising from those proceedings.
