Borno Senatorial Seat: Court Dismisses Suit Challenging Kumaila’s Nomination as PDP’s Candidate 


Justice Emeka Nwite of the Abuja Division of the Federal High Court, on Tuesday dismissed a suit challenging the nomination of Mr Muhammed kumaila as candidate of the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) in the forthcoming Borno Central Senatorial District election.

Justice Nwite dismissed the suit brought by Mr Jubrin Tatabe for being incompetent and lacking in merit.

Tatabe had dragged his party, the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), Mr Muhammed kumaila and three others to court alleging unlawful substitution of his candidacy in the February 25 senatorial election for the Borno Central Senatorial seat.


New mag

For more details about Newswire Law&Events Magazine, kindly reach out to us on 08039218044, 09070309355. Email: You will be glad you did

The plaintiff had emerged winner of the May 23, 2022, primary election of the PDP for the selection of candidate for the Borno Central Senatorial seat.

He however, vied a letter dated July 14, 2022 voluntarily witdrew as candidate of the PDP in the forthcoming senatorial election in Borno State.

Following, his withdrawal, the party then conducted a fresh primary on July 15, 2022 which then produced kumaila as candidate of the PDP in the said senatorial election.

The PDP accordingly submitted the name of Muhammed kumaila to INEC, which the electoral umpire in turn published as candidate of the PDP for the Borno Central Senatorial election. 

But in his suit marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/1240/2022, plaintiff alleged that contrary to the position of the defendants he did not witdraw from the senatorial poll, adding that the letter of withdrawal including his signature was forged.

He therefore asked the court to set aside the said letter of withdrawal, sack kumaila as candidate of the PDP and declare him the authentic candidate of the party in the said poll. 

Delivering judgment in the matter on Tuesday, Justice Nwite agreed with the PDP and kumaila that the case of the plaintiff was defective haven been commenced through an Originating Summons instead of a Writ of Summons.

The judge held that the allegation of forgery is criminal in nature and must be proved beyond reasonable doubt.

While in an Originating Summons a case is determined by only documentary evidence, witnesses must be called to give oral and documentary evidence in a case initiated through a Writ of Summons. 

In a criminal case such as this, failure of the plaintiff to call witnesses to prove his allegations is said to be fatal to the case and the judge accordingly dismissed it.

Do you want to be heard, your events covered, your articles published, or need to advertise your products and services on our Blog and Magazine, reach out to us at Newswire Law and Events, you will be glad you did. For more details about our services, please call: 08039218044, 09070309355. Email:


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here