Abuja High Court Orders Hearing Notice on APC Over ₦10 Million Refund Lawsuit A High Court in Maitama, Abuja, has mandated that the All Progressives Congress (APC) be formally served a hearing notice after failing to appear for proceedings in a ₦10 million refund lawsuit filed by one of its former aspirants. The case, registered
Abuja High Court Orders Hearing Notice on APC Over ₦10 Million Refund Lawsuit
A High Court in Maitama, Abuja, has mandated that the All Progressives Congress (APC) be formally served a hearing notice after failing to appear for proceedings in a ₦10 million refund lawsuit filed by one of its former aspirants. The case, registered as FCT/HC/CV/2434/2024, was brought by Sunny Moniedafe, a former contender for the position of Deputy National Chairman (North) during the APC’s 2022 national convention.
Moniedafe is seeking the reimbursement of ₦10 million, which he claims he paid to obtain a nomination form. According to his account, the party leadership under then-President Muhammadu Buhari enforced a consensus arrangement that effectively disqualified other aspirants, promising that those who complied with the withdrawal directive would be refunded.
Consensus, Compliance, But No Refund
The controversy dates back to the APC’s March 26, 2022 national convention, where Moniedafe had hoped to contest for a top party position. However, shortly before the event, the APC reportedly moved to adopt a consensus approach, which allocated the Deputy National Chairman (North) seat to a candidate from Borno State.
Moniedafe, aligning with the party’s decision, says he withdrew from the race as directed and in good faith, based on assurances that all stepping-down aspirants would be compensated. Unfortunately, he alleges that this promise was not honoured.
“Disappointingly, the leadership of the defendant reneged on its promise and blatantly refused, failed, and neglected to refund the said ₦10 million from March 2022 to the time of filing this case, despite repeated demands by me,” Moniedafe stated in his legal filings.
APC Absent from Court Session
At the court session held on Monday, both Moniedafe and his legal counsel, prominent lawyer Okoi Obono-Obla, were present. However, there was no appearance from the APC—neither by representatives nor legal counsel.
Justice Yusuf Halilu, presiding over the matter, raised concern about the party’s failure to engage with the legal process. Noting that a defence submission was already on file, the judge questioned why there was still no proof of service on record. “The defendant is not in court and not represented,” he said. “I can see no proof of service here.”
Justice Halilu directed the court registrar to ensure the APC’s legal representatives are officially notified and furnished with all necessary court documents to guarantee proper communication and continuation of the case.
Motion for Extension Granted
Despite the APC’s non-appearance, the judge addressed a motion filed by the party requesting more time to respond to the suit. “The application filed by the defendant seeking an extension of time is hereby moved and granted,” Justice Halilu ruled.
This decision gives the APC additional time to prepare and submit a formal response, as long as proper service is confirmed.
Obono-Obla, representing the plaintiff, assured the court of their preparedness and commitment to the legal process. “My lord, we are very diligent. If we are served, we will respond immediately,” he remarked.
Case Adjourned Until July 2025
Following the court’s directive on proper notification and granting of the motion for an extension, Justice Halilu adjourned the matter to July 15, 2025. The next hearing will determine whether the APC has been properly served and whether the party will present its defence in response to Moniedafe’s claims.
A Test for Party Accountability
This case raises broader questions about the internal financial processes of Nigeria’s political parties and their treatment of aspirants who invest in the party’s electoral mechanisms. Many observers argue that such refund promises must be backed by written agreements to avoid disputes and legal complications.
As it stands, the High Court’s insistence on due process and proper notification represents a step toward ensuring transparency and accountability in the conduct of party affairs, especially when it involves financial commitments made by loyal members and aspirants.
The outcome of this case could set a precedent for how political parties handle nomination fees and aspirants’ rights moving forward. For now, all eyes will be on the APC’s next move and whether the party will honour its alleged promise to one of its own.
Leave a Comment
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked with *