Senate President Godswill Akpabio has filed a notice of appeal at the Supreme Court, challenging a judgment of the Court of Appeal, Abuja Division, in a case involving Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan, senator representing Kogi Central.
Gatekeepers News reports that the appeal follows the appellate court’s November 28 judgment in suit CA/ABJ/CV/1107/2025, which nullified the suspension of Akpoti-Uduaghan by the Akpabio-led Senate.
Akpabio is contesting the Court of Appeal’s refusal to grant him leave to rely on his brief of argument exceeding the 35-page limit stipulated by the court’s rules. He is also challenging the court’s decision not to allow him to file a replacement brief within the prescribed page limit.
In the notice of appeal, Akpabio, through his legal team led by Kehinde Ogunwumiju, SAN, argued that the ruling violated his constitutional right to a fair hearing, as guaranteed under Section 36(1) of the 1999 Constitution.
He alleged that Akpoti-Uduaghan’s brief of argument failed to comply with the formatting requirements of the Court of Appeal Rules, which mandate font size 14 and 1.5 line spacing. According to him, the respondent used font size 12 with single spacing, enabling her to meet the 35-page limit.
Akpabio further claimed that the respondent neither sought nor obtained the court’s permission to depart from the rules and that her notice of appeal was fundamentally defective, prompting him to file a preliminary objection.
He explained that Order 10 Rule 1 of the Court of Appeal Rules requires a preliminary objection to be argued within the brief of argument, making it necessary for him to file a longer brief addressing both the objection and the substantive appeal.
According to the appeal, Akpabio filed a motion on November 6 seeking leave to exceed the page limit, arguing that the issues raised were substantial and complex and could not be adequately addressed within 35 pages. He cited Order 19 Rule 6(a), which empowers the court to permit longer briefs where necessary.
However, he said the Court of Appeal refused his application and proceeded to hear the matter, a decision he described as unequal treatment, noting that the court accepted the respondent’s allegedly non-compliant brief.
“The court below sacrificed justice on the altar of speed,” the appeal stated.
“The lower court erred in law and breached the Appellant’s right to a fair hearing when it refused to grant the Appellant the opportunity to file another brief of argument within the 25-page limit.”
Akpabio argued that there was no urgency warranting the refusal and that the decision resulted in a miscarriage of justice.
He urged the Supreme Court to allow the appeal, set aside the decision of the Court of Appeal, nullify the proceedings of November 28, 2025, and overturn the final judgment arising from those proceedings.
