The Governor of Ebonyi State, David Umahi and his deputy, Kelechi Igwe, have asked the Federal High Court in Abuja to stay execution of the judgment ordering their removal from office.
This development comes after the governor and his deputy on Wednesday appealed the court ruling that sacked them from office.
Umahi and Igwe disagreed with the ruling of the court in suit no: FHC/ABJ/CS/920/2021 filed at the Abuja Judicial Division of the Appellate Court.
Recall that the Abuja Federal High Court on Tuesday ordered their sack for dumping the Peoples Democratic Party for the All Progressive Congress.
The court also ordered the PDP to present another candidate or the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) should conduct a fresh election within 90 days.
In a motion on notice filed by their lead counsel, Chukwuma-Ma-Chukwu Ume, Umahi and Igwe prayed the court to stay the execution of the judgment against them, pending the hearing and determination of their appeal.
The governor and his deputy also asked the court to suspend the alternative order that directed INEC to conduct a fresh poll in the state within the next three months.
Umahi and Igwe also prayed to the court to stay execution of the order that mandated INEC to receive names of PDP candidates to replace them, as well as the order that restrained the electoral body from further recognising them as the governor and deputy governor of Ebonyi, respectively.
The duo applied for an order to restrain the PDP from submitting any names to the INEC and if already submitted and accepted, to issue an order of injunction, restraining INEC from issuing certificate of return or putting same into effect, pending the conclusion of the appeal.
Their application premised on order 26 rules 1 and 2(1) and order 32 rules 1 and 4(1) of the Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2019, was predicated on eight grounds.
Umahi and his deputy informed the court that being unsatisfied with the judgment, they have filed an appeal to challenge it.
The duo claimed that the notice of appeal had been properly served on all parties and that they had already started the process of compiling and transmitting the appeal’s data.
They claimed that allowing the court’s ruling to be carried out before the outcome of the ongoing appeal would compromise their rights.
