The Court of Appeal in Abuja has overturned crucial portions of a Federal High Court judgment that recognised a factional caretaker committee within the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), ruling that the lower court granted declarations that were neither requested nor canvassed by any of the parties involved in the dispute.
The appellate court, in a judgment delivered by Justice Uchechukwu Onyemenam on Wednesday, held that the Federal High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by making pronouncements on issues that were not placed before it for determination.
The certified true copy of the judgment, obtained on Friday, arose from the lingering leadership crisis within the PDP, which has continued to generate legal battles and competing claims to the party’s leadership structure.
Justice Uche Agomoh of the Federal High Court in Ibadan had, in a judgment delivered on January 30, recognised the caretaker committee led by Abdurahman Mohammed and Samuel Anyanwu as the legitimate leadership faction of the opposition party.
However, the Court of Appeal faulted that decision, stressing that none of the litigants before the lower court sought any relief requesting the recognition or validation of the caretaker committee.
According to Justice Onyemenam, courts are bound by the reliefs specifically sought by parties and cannot lawfully grant remedies that fall outside the claims presented for adjudication.
“In the instant case, there is clearly a live issue where the trial court went outside the reliefs sought to recognise and uphold a factional caretaker committee,” the appellate court stated.
The judgment further noted that the Federal High Court’s decision was based on a legal foundation that no longer existed following an earlier ruling of the Supreme Court concerning the PDP’s controversial Ibadan Convention held on November 15 and 16, 2025.
The Court of Appeal observed that the apex court had already declared the convention null, void and of no legal effect, thereby invalidating any structures, committees or leadership organs that emerged from the gathering.
According to the appellate court, any authority or legitimacy purportedly derived from the convention automatically collapsed once the Supreme Court invalidated the exercise.
“Once the Convention itself has been pronounced null, void and of no effect by the Supreme Court, any superstructure erected upon it is necessarily without legal foundation,” the judgment held.
The court explained that the nullification of the convention by the country’s highest court effectively removed the basis upon which the caretaker committee sought legitimacy.
Justice Onyemenam stated that, under normal circumstances, the appellate court might have considered returning certain aspects of the dispute to the lower court for a fresh hearing.
However, the court held that such a step would amount to a waste of judicial time because the fundamental issues had already been conclusively settled by superior courts.
The judgment emphasised that ordering a retrial would serve no practical legal purpose, given that the Supreme Court had already made definitive pronouncements on the validity of the convention and its consequences.
Part of the judgment read: “This Court would be driven to the conclusion that the offending portions of the judgment, and indeed the judgment as a whole insofar as the excess permeates the decision, are a nullity and liable to be set aside ex debito justitiae.”
The court further stated: “A direction to the trial court to retry an issue that has been settled at the apex level would, in effect, invite it either to repeat what has already been decided or to purport to sit in judgment over the Supreme Court, both of which the law forbids.”
In reaching its decision, the appellate court concluded that there was no longer any subsisting controversy requiring judicial determination because previous judgments of both the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court had already resolved the substantive issues at the heart of the dispute.
The court maintained that lower courts are bound by decisions of superior courts and cannot issue rulings that contradict or undermine existing judgments delivered by higher judicial authorities.
Justice Onyemenam’s ruling received unanimous support from the other members of the three-member panel, Justices Mohammed Mustapha and Okon Abang, who agreed with the reasoning and conclusions reached in the lead judgment.
The decision represents another major judicial development in the prolonged PDP leadership tussle, which has witnessed a series of court battles involving rival factions laying claim to the party’s leadership structure.
With the latest judgment, the legal basis upon which the Federal High Court recognised the caretaker committee linked to the Abdurahman Mohammed faction has been effectively nullified, further reshaping the dynamics of the internal dispute.
Political observers believe the ruling could have significant implications for ongoing reconciliation efforts within the PDP, as stakeholders continue to seek clarity on the party’s leadership structure ahead of future political activities and elections.
The judgment also reinforces the principle that courts must confine themselves strictly to issues submitted by litigants and refrain from granting reliefs not specifically sought, a doctrine widely regarded as fundamental to the administration of justice.
As the PDP continues to navigate its internal leadership challenges, the latest appellate court decision is expected to influence subsequent legal and political developments surrounding the party’s organisational structure and leadership legitimacy.
