Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan, the Kogi Central Senator, has filed a counter-affidavit at the Supreme Court, urging the court to dismiss an appeal filed by Senate President Godswill Akpabio over proceedings at the Court of Appeal.
Court documents obtained in Abuja revealed that the counter-affidavit was deposed to by a senior legislative aide to Akpoti-Uduaghan and filed in response to Akpabio’s Motion on Notice dated January 21, 2026.
The respondents are asking the apex court to strike out the application in its entirety, describing it as lacking merit and constituting an abuse of court process.
According to the counter-affidavit, the Court of Appeal had already concluded hearing in the substantive appeal on November 28, 2025, and reserved judgment.
The respondents argued that approaching the Supreme Court at this stage amounts to an attempt to interfere with an appellate process that has reached an advanced stage and is awaiting final determination.
They maintained that Akpabio was given sufficient opportunity to present his case before the Court of Appeal in line with the Rules of Court.
Central to the dispute is an alleged violation of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2021, which limit briefs of argument to a maximum of 35 pages.
The respondents alleged that while the legal teams representing Akpoti-Uduaghan, the Clerk of the National Assembly, and another respondent complied with the prescribed limit, the Senate President filed a brief that exceeded the allowable pages.
2027: Why I Won’t Quit PDP, By Gov Lawal
They further claimed that the appellant failed to regularise the defect within the time permitted by the rules, prompting the Court of Appeal to reject the over-length brief and proceed with the appeal using only valid processes before it.
On the substantive legal issues, the respondents contended that the grounds of appeal relied upon by Akpabio raised issues of mixed law and fact.
Every Individual Must File Tax Returns By March 31 – Oyedele
They argued that prior leave of court was required before such grounds could be competently filed, adding that no such leave was sought or obtained, thereby rendering the appeal incompetent from the outset.
Addressing complaints relating to adjournment and fair hearing, the respondents submitted that the grant or refusal of an adjournment lies within the discretionary powers of the court, which they said was exercised judicially and judiciously.
The respondents urged the Supreme Court to dismiss the application, describing it as a move aimed at stalling or frustrating the delivery of judgment by the Court of Appeal.
🔗 Join Our WhatsApp Channel for Latest News
https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029Va9qtzXHwXbIyBGtjk2o
🔗 Join Our Telegram Channel
https://t.me/+WrSL9_-P-kBlZDM8
