Olu of Warri
- Award N4m cost against appeallant
Sponsored
The Court of Appeal, Abuja Judicial Division, has dismissed an appeal filed by Itsekiri representatives seeking to stop the enforcement of the Supreme Court-ordered delineation of electoral wards and polling units in the Warri Federal Constituency of Delta State.
The appeal filed by Appearance Afejuku, who is the Youth President of Itsekiri Ethnic Nationality and three others and marked CA/ABJ/CV/1457/2025: HON. APPEARANCE AFEJUKU & ORS V. INEC & ORS, was dismissed by a three member panel of the Court presided over by Justice Uchechukwu Onyemenam.
It would be recalled that Justice Omotosho has in July 1, 2025 dismissed the suit which seeks to stop the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) from enforcing the December 2, 2022 judgment of the Supreme Court in SC/413/2016: HON. George U. Timinimi & 9 Ors v. INEC on the basis that the case was a gross abuse of court processes and lacked merit as argued by Counsel to INEC, the Ijaws and Urhobos of Warri.
The court also awarded a cost of N4m with interest. However, the Itsekiris felt aggrieved and appealed to the court of appeal.
The Court of Appeal in its judgment delivered on Friday, May 15, 2026 dismissed the appeal for lacking merit and upheld the award of 4million cost against the Itsekiris on the basis that the issue of delineation of Warri has been finally resolved by the apex court and thereby paving the way for the final implementation of the apex court’s directive on fresh delineation before the conduct of future elections.
Similarly, the Federal High Court sitting in Warri dismissed another suit filed by the Itsekiris to set aside the interim report of INEC on the fresh delineation of Warri.
The suit with number: FHC/WR/CS/37/2025: EJEYI PHILIP & ORS V. INEC, was filed by Itsekiri Plaintiffs seeking to set aside the interim report of the fresh delineation exercise released by INEC in May 3, 2025.
The Itsekiris had complained that they were not consulted before the delineation was done.
However, the court held that there is no requirement in the Supreme Court judgment for the Itsekiris to be consulted before the implementation of the judgment.
The Court described Itsekiris suit as premature because the interim report is only a proposal.
