From Chuks Onuoha, Umuahia

One out of the three governorship contestants in Abia state, Mr Friday Nwanozie Nwosu has filed a notice of appeal over the judgment of the Federal High Court, Owerri, and sought an order of Court for Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to accept his nominee for the position of deputy governor.
Nwosu, who was not deterred by the recent judgment of the Federal High Court in Owerri had in a notice of appeal on Suit no. FHC/OW/CS/191/2015, FHC/UM/CS/64/2015, FHC/CS/184/2015, filed at the Federal High Court, Owerri, between him as the (appellant),  PDP, INEC, Dr. Okezie Ikpeazu and Dr. Uchechukwu Ogah, as respondents.
He  sought seven reliefs namely: “An order setting aside the judgment and decision of the court delivered on July 8, 2016; an order granting the appellant necessary consequential order including an order for the plaintiff to be returned as the duly elected governor of Abia State and an order granting the reliefs sought by the appellant in the originating summons.”  He  accused Ikpeazu of submitting a forged tax certificate and declaring false information to the PDP and INEC. However, the Federal High Court, Owerri, presided over by Justice Lewis Allagoa, on July 8, ruled that Nwosu failed to prove a tax forgery case against Ikpeazu and dismissed the suit.
Others reliefs he is asking from the court include; an order directing INEC to withdraw the Certificate of Return issued the third respondent (Dr. Okezie Ikpeazu) as the elected Governor of Abia State by virtue of the April 2015 governorship election held in Abia State, an order directing the second respondent (INEC) to issue a fresh Certificate of Return to plaintiff as the elected governor of Abia State and an order directing the INEC to issue a certificate of return to any person nominated and whose name is forwarded to INEC in writing under the hand and signature of the appellant.”
He also outlined 26 grounds of appeal and particulars of error on which the court occasioned a miscarriage of justice.
According to him: “The trial judge erred in law when he held that the plaintiff did not prove a tax forgery case against the third defendant, even when information on the face of the document speaks for themselves.
“The trial court failed to take into consideration that the offence of forgery is not limited to the maker of a document in question when he held that forgery was not proved because the third respondent was not the maker of the documents.
“Plaintiff’s case was based on two main flanks which were submission of documents that have false information and submission of forged documents to INEC, but the trial judge based his evaluation on only one plank.
“The court erred in law when he failed to resolve the issue of falsehood which the appellant serially raised,” Nwosu stated.