admin
A Federal High Court sitting in Abuja, on Tuesday, dismissed the fresh suit filed by a factional National Secretary of the Peoples Democratic Party, Senator Samuel Anyanwu, after he applied to withdraw the matter.
At the resumed hearing, Anyanwu’s lawyer, U. C. Njemanze-Aku, told the court that the suit had been overtaken by events.
“We don’t think it is proper for a matter that has been overtaken by events to continue. In the interest of justice, I apply to withdraw this matter to save the court’s time,” he said.
The dispute over the office of the PDP National Secretary began when Anyanwu vacated the office to contest the 2023 Imo State governorship election, which he lost.
Did you know that one of the most mind-blowing cities on earth is in China?0:00 / 0:00
His bid to reclaim the position thereafter sparked internal crises within the party, with Sunday Udeh-Okoye emerging as a rival claimant to be the party’s scribe.
On December 20th 2024, the Court of Appeal in Enugu upheld an earlier judgment of the Federal High Court, which removed Anyanwu and affirmed Udeh-Okoye as the authentic National Secretary of the PDP.
Anyanwu subsequently filed for a stay of execution and appealed to the Supreme Court.
In March 2025, the Supreme Court overturned the decisions of both the Court of Appeal and the Federal High Court that had sacked Anyanwu. Despite the ruling of the apex court, the leadership tussle lingered, with different factions laying claim to authority at the PDP national secretariat.
In an effort to resolve the legal uncertainty, Anyanwu later filed a fresh suit at the Federal High Court in Abuja, seeking enforcement of his position and related reliefs.
In November 2025, the court granted his application to amend the originating summons, but awarded a cost of N30,000 against him in favour of each of the defendants and adjourned the matter until January 20th for hearing.
However, when the case was called for a hearing, Anyanwu, through his lawyer, opted to withdraw the suit, bringing the prolonged legal battle to an end.
Responding, counsel for the second defendant, Akintayo Balogun, argued that “the suit ought not to have been instituted in the first place,” urging the court to dismiss it with costs.
He added that the application for costs was still subsisting, requesting one million naira.
Counsel for the third defendant, M. O. Akpan, said he had no objection and aligned his argument with that of the second defendant, while asking for N1.5m as costs.
Ugochukwu Okanu, who appeared for the fourth defendant, also aligned with the submissions of the second defendant and requested one million naira as costs.
J. A. Musa, counsel for the sixth defendant, said he did not object and similarly asked for one million naira.
In his reply, Njemanze-Aku said the withdrawal was not a voluntary discontinuation but was due to circumstances beyond the plaintiff’s control.
“We owe a duty to the court… it is not fair to penalise the plaintiff,” he said, urging the court to allow the parties to bear their own costs.
Delivering his ruling, the presiding judge dismissed the suit.
“Since you have joined issues, I am going to dismiss this matter. The matter is hereby dismissed,” the judge said.
On the issue of costs, the judge declined all the requests, stating, “The delay is not on any of the parties. The situation made it so. For this reason, I award no cost.”
