The Court of Appeal in Abuja has vacated the judgment of the Federal High Court, Abuja, that directed the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC to deregister the African Democratic Congress, ADC, and four other political parties accused of failing to meet constitutional requirements.

The appellate court, in a unanimous decision by a three-member panel of Justices, held that the order which the Federal High Court issued to the electoral body on June 15 amounted to a nullity.

The Appeal Court held that the Federal High Court wrongly assumed jurisdiction and made the order on an incompetent suit that was filed by a non-juristic entity.

According to the appellate court, there was no valid suit that could have warranted the consequential order that directed INEC to derecognize the political parties.

It noted that the trial court failed to properly evaluate evidence placed before it, stressing that proof that the parties won various seats in previous elections was ignored.

It also held that the high court acted in defiance of an order that directed it to stay proceedings in the case.

It held that the high court ought to have dismissed the substantive case for want of jurisdiction and merit.

Consequently, the appellate court, in its lead judgment delivered by Justice Abba Mohammed, held that all the affected political parties remained duly registered.

It allowed separate appeals filed by the political parties and awarded monetary costs against the National Forum of Former Legislators, NFFL, which had filed the case against them.

Aside from the ADC, the other parties whose registration the appellate court restored include the Action Peoples Party, APP; Action Alliance, AA; Accord Party, AP; and the Zenith Labour Party, ZLP.

The appellate court had, on June 16, ordered a stay of execution of the Federal High Court judgment, even as it slammed the trial judge for disregarding the judicial hierarchy.

The panel berated Justice Peter Lifu of the Federal High Court, Abuja, for disobeying an order it had made on May 22 directing him to stay proceedings in the case pending the outcome of an appeal by the parties.

It noted that even though the trial judge's attention had been drawn to the order for a stay of proceedings, he intentionally flouted it and went ahead to deliver judgment.