A High Court sitting in Benin City, on Friday sacked the executive chairman of Esan South-East local government area,Victor Emuankhagbon, from office on Friday.
The court, presided over by Justice Daniel Okungbowa, also ordered the sacked council chairman to refund all monies paid to him for the two years he was in office.
The judgement was sequel to a petition filed by Peter Aguele, against the declaration of the ousted chairman as winner of the local government primary election conducted by the All Progressives Congress (APC), on 24 January, 2018.
The local government council elections were conducted on 3 March, 2018, by the Edo State Independent Electoral Commission ( EDSIEC).
But, Aguele, in his petition, averred that he was duly elected as the party’s candidate through direct primary while the ousted chairman argued that he emerged the candidate on consensus.
Delivering his judgement, Justice Daniel Okungbowa, held that the petitioner is the rightful candidate of the party for the election, having emerged through direct primary.
He ordered that the respondent should stop parading himself as the chairman of the council, and that he should refund all monies so far paid to him while in office as chairman of the council in the last two years to the treasury of the council.
Justice Okungbowa also ordered that the petitioner should be paid all the monies and entitlements due to him since 2018 as the rightful candidate and the elected chairman of the council.
In his response to the judgement, Peter Aguele, the now declared chairman of the council, commended the judiciary and described it as the last hope of the common man.
Aguele who dedicated the victory to the people of Esan South-East local government area and members of APC in the state and the local government.
Responding to the judgement, counsel to the ousted chairman, Charity Aiguobarueghian Esq, described the judgement as a miscarriage of justice.
Although he commended the court for the judgement, Aiguobarueghian said his client will challenge the judgement at the Court of Appeal, because, according to him, the petitioner was unable to prove his case beyond reasonable doubt.