About six separate appeals emanated from Court of Appeal Port Harcourt Division and Court of Appeal Abuja Division over the leadership tussle with conflicting decisions which have been the object of appeal at the Supreme Court .
The Court of Appeal, Port Harcourt division had in its judgment validated the Sheriff faction as the authentic and recognized faction.
However, not satisfied, Makarfi faction approached the Supreme Court seeking to upturn the judgment of the Court of Appeal.
A five-man panel of Justices of the apex court headed by the Chief Justice of Nigeria, CJN, Justice Walter Onnoghen had reserved judgment after striking out an application that sought to abort hearing on the appeal that was lodged by the Markafi-led faction of the party.
The appeal is challenging the February 7 verdict of the Port Harcourt Division of the Court of Appeal which declared Senate Ali Modu Sheriff as the authentic National Chairman of the party.
The appellants are praying the apex court to set-aside the judgment and handover the leadership of the party to the Markafi-led National Caretaker Committee.
Meanwhile, Sheriff and his group failed to persuade the apex court not to hear the appeal. The panel, in a ruling that was delivered by the CJN, granted the Markafi-led faction leave to challenge the appeal court verdict that recognized Sheriff as leader of the party.
The court ruled that under section 27 of Supreme Court Rules, the appellants had a period of three months to appeal against the judgment.
In their submissions the appellants’ counsel, Chief Wole Olanipekun, SAN, prayed the apex court to allow the appeal and set-aside the appellate court judgment.
While , Sheriff lead counsel Chief Akin Olujinmi SAN) prayed the court to uphold the judgment of the court of appeal. He also challenged the competence of the appeal which they said deserved to be struck out with substantial cost.
Likewise, the PDP under Sheriff, through its counsel, Prince Lateef Fagbemi (SAN), urged the apex court to dismiss or strike out the appeal on the premise that the appellants did not obtain the necessary authorization of the party to file an appeal in its name.