Legalpedia Citation: (2023-03) Legalpedia 34722 (SC)

In the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Fri Mar 17, 2023

Suit Number: SC.CV/127/2023

CORAM

John Inyang Okoro SCN

Uwani Musa Abba Aji SCVN

Helen Moronkeji Ogunwumiju SCN

Adamu Jauro SCN

Tijjani Abubakar SCN

PARTIES

MRS. ADANMA ODE

APPELLANTS

F.S.A UZOR 2. PEOPLES DEMOCRATIC PARTY 3. INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION (INEC)

RESPONDENTS

AREA(S) OF LAW

APPEAL, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, ELECTION, JUDGMENT, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

SUMMARY OF FACTS

Appellant and the 1st Respondent are members of the 2nd Respondent (People’s Democratic Party), a political party registered in Nigeria. The 1st Respondent was the Chief of Staff to the Governor of Enugu State, and therefore a political office holder. Both the Appellant and the 1st Respondent alongside with others contested the primary election of the 2nd Respondent for the nomination of its candidate to contest for the Udi/Ezeagu Federal Constituency in the general election of 2023.

The 1st Respondent won the primary election with 99 votes while the Appellant came second with 8 votes. It was the Appellant’s contention that the 1st Respondent, a political appointee, did not resign his position before purchasing the Expression of Interest and Nomination Form as required by the second limb of Part VII of the Peoples’ Democratic Party Electoral Guideline and that the Electoral Act, 2022 forbids a political appointee from voting or being voted for in the convention or congress of any political party for the purpose of nomination of candidates for any election. It was also her case that as at the time of the primary election, the 1st Respondent was still in office as the Chief of Staff to the Governor of Enugu State having not complied with the resignation protocol specified in the party guideline.

The Appellant commenced the action at the trial Court by way of a Writ of Summons filed on the 3rd June, 2022 seeking several reliefs. The process was, with the leave of Court, turned into an Originating Summons which was filed on the 28th September, 2022.

The trial Court in its judgment held that the action was statute barred and that the Court lacked jurisdiction to hear and determine the matter. The Appellant being dissatisfied with the decision of the trial Court filed her notice of appeal to the Court of Appeal (appealing against the part of the judgment of the trial that the suit is statute- barred without recourse to whether the substantive issues had been resolved by the trial court). The Court of Appeal set aside the decision of the trial Court that the suit of the appellant is statue-barred but proceeded to strike out the suit of the appellant and the cross-appeal.

The Court of Appeal however disagreed with the Appellant on the issue of whether the trial Court had resolved the substantive issues in the Originating Summons, contrary to the Appellant’s contention, and therefore refused to grant any of the reliefs sought in the Originating Summons on the ground that it could not invoke Section 15 of the Court of Appeal Act to resolve substantive issues and grant reliefs, the 180 days allowed by Section 285 (10) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as altered), for the trial Court to resolve substantive issues having lapsed. Aggrieved by the decision, the Appellant filed the instant appeal.

HELD

Appeal dismissed

Cross appeal dismissed

ISSUES

Ø Whether the Court of Appeal was right when it held that the trial Court did not pronounce on or determine the substantive matter and therefore refused to make any consequential order as urged by the Appellant?

Ø Whether the Court of Appeal was correct in holding that the cause of action in the suit crystallized on the 22nd of May, 2023 when the primary election was conducted? (Cross appeal)

 

RATIONES DECIDENDI

GROUND OF APPEAL – CONDUCT OF COURTS WHERE PARTICULARS ARE NOT ELEGANTLY PRESENTED

The quarrel is about the drafting of the particulars attached to the ground of appeal. This Court has held that where the particulars are not elegantly presented, that would not be invoked to punish a litigant to declare the ground of appeal invalid. See OGBORU v. OKOWA (2016) 11 NWLR (Pt.1522) 84, 146, OMISORE v. AREGBESOLA (2015) 15 NWLR (Pt.1482) 205, DAKOLO v. DAKOLO (2011) 16 NWLR (Pt.1272) 22.  – Per H. M. Ogunwumiju, JSC

JUDGMENT – WHEN WRITING JUDGMENTS

…it is important that a judgment must be written in a way that the decision can be followed in logical sequence. – Per H. M. Ogunwumiju, JSC

JURISDICTION – THE IMPORTANCE OF JURISDICTION

“Jurisdiction is the bedrock of any action and the ability of any Court to determine the complaint of any party. See ODUKO v. GOVERNOR, EBONYI STATE (2009) 9 NWLR Pt. 1147 Pg. 441 at 452, NDIC V. CBN & ANOR (2002) LPELR-2000(SC).

It is important that the issue be settled first. See A.G. ABIA STATE & ORS V. A.G. OF THE FEDERATION (2022) LPELR-57010(SC), EZE v. UMAHI & ORS (2022) LPELR-59157(SC), MADUKOLU v. NKEMDILIM (1962) 2 SCNLR, CUSTOMARY COURT OF APPEAL, EDO STATE v. AGUELE & ORS (2017) LPELR-44632 (SC) AND AG. FEDERATION v. AG. ANAMBRA STATE (2017) LPELR-43491. – Per H. M. Ogunwumiju, JSC”

JURISDICTION – WHERE A PRELIMINARY OBJECTION CHALLENGING THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT HAS BEEN RAISED

“This Court in GARBA v. MOHAMMED (2016) 16 NWLR Pt. 1537 Pg. 114 held that:

Where a preliminary objection challenging the jurisdiction of the Court has been raised, the Court must rule on the objection before proceeding to determine the substantive suit.

See also U.B.N. PLC v. UMEODUAGU (2004) 13 NWLR Pt. 890 Pg. 352, ADEYEMI WORKS CONSTRUCTION LTD. v. OMOLEHIN (2004) 6 NWLR Pt. 870 Pg. 650.

As always admonished in most cases and particularly in election petition cases, the trial Court must after it determines the issue of jurisdiction, determine also the substantive issues brought before it. This helps to oil the wheels of justice and reduces delays occasioned by appeals decided by the penultimate Court being sent back for retrial on the merits. – Per H. M. Ogunwumiju, JSC”

COURT OF APPEAL ACT – CONDITIONS FOR SECTION 15 OF THE COURT OF APPEAL ACT TO BE INVOKED

“Section 15 of the Court of Appeal Act provides that-

“The Court of Appeal may, from time to time, make any order necessary for determining the real question in controversy in the appeal, and may direct the Court below to enquire into and certify its findings on any question which the Court of Appeal thinks fit to determine before final judgment in the appeal, and may make an interim order or grant any injunction which the Court below is authorized to make or grant and may direct any necessary inquiries or accounts to be made or taken, and, generally shall have full jurisdiction over the whole proceedings as if the proceedings had been instituted in the Court of Appeal as Court of first instance and may rehear the case in whole or in part or may remit it to the Court below for the purposes of such rehearing or may give such other directions as to the manner in which the Court below shall deal with the case in accordance with the powers of that Court, or, in the case of an appeal from the Court below, in that Court’s appellate jurisdiction, order the case to be reheard by a Court of competent jurisdiction.”

For Section 15 of the Court of Appeal Act to be invoked, the following conditions must exist:

1. The lower Court or trial Court must have the legal power to adjudicate in the matter before the appellate Court can entertain it.

1. The real issue raised by the claim of the appellant at the lower Court or trial Court must be seen to be capable of being distilled from the grounds of appeal.

III. All the necessary materials must be available to the Court for consideration.

1. The need for expeditious disposal of the case or suit to meet the ends of justice must be apparent on the face of the materials presented

1. The injustice or the hardship that will follow if the case is remitted to the Court below must be clearly manifest.

In WAKILI v. CHAIRMAN APC NATIONAL PRIMARY ELECTORAL COMMITTEE NIGER STATE (2019) LPELR-48475 (CA) the Court of Appeal held that:

“A condition precedent to the exercise of the power under Section 15 of the Court of Appeal Act is that the lower Court from which the appeal arose has or still has jurisdiction to deal with the matter.”

Thus where the lower Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain or to continue to entertain the matter, the Court of Appeal is also without jurisdiction to hear and determine the merit of the matter pursuant to its power under Section 15 of the Court of Appeal Act. See IZEZE v. INEC & ORS (2018) LPELR-44284 (SC)…

Therefore neither the Supreme Court, nor the Court of Appeal can under the provisions of Section 22 of the Supreme Court Act or Section 15 of the Court of Appeal Act proceed to do something which the trial Court had no jurisdiction to do. HASSAN v. ALIYU & ORS LPELR -1357 (SC), WASSAH & ORS V. KARA & ORS (2014) LPELR -24212 (SC), IHEDIOHA & ANOR v. OKOROCHA & ORS (2015) LPELR- 40837 (SC). – Per H. M. Ogunwumiju, JSC”

APPEAL – CONDUCT OF COURTS WHEN APPEAL HAS NOT BEEN HEARD ON THE MERIT

This Court cannot grant consequential orders when it has not heard the appeal on the merit. – Per H. M. Ogunwumiju, JSC

CAUSE OF ACTION – MEANING OF CAUSE OF ACTION – WHEN A CAUSE OF ACTION ACCRUES

“In KARSHI v. GWAGWA (2022) LPELR (57544) 1 at 56 or (2022) 9 NWLR Pt. 1834 Pg. 139 at 182, this Court held that:

“A cause of action cannot arise until all that needs to take place to complete the complaint has happened and the aggrieved person is aware that his right has been infringed upon.”

In JULIUS BERGER NIGERIA PLC v. R.I OMOGUI (2001) Pt. 736 P. 417-419 H-A, (2001) LPELR-1638 (SC) 19-22 F-A, this Court also held that:

“There may be more than one good and effective cause of action arising out of the same transaction and the cause of action accrues on the happening of the latest of such facts. See also WOHEREM v. EMEREUWA (2004) 13 NWLR (PT.890) 398 415 G.”

A cause of action accrues when the cause of action becomes complete so that an aggrieved party can begin and maintain an action. A cause of action consists of every fact which would be necessary for a claimant to prove, if traversed, in order to support his right to judgment. It is the bundle or aggregate of facts which the law recognizes as giving the claimant a substantive right to make a claim for the relief or remedy being sought. It is every fact which is material to be proved to entitle the claimant to succeed or all those things necessary to give a right to relief in law or equity. See ATIBA IYALAMU SAVINGS & LOANS LTD v. SUBERU (2018) LPELR 44069(SC). – Per H. M. Ogunwumiju, JSC”

CONSTITUTION – WHEN THE CONSTITUTION FIXES A TIME FOR DOING ANYTHING

“This Court has held in a plethora of decided cases that when it comes to the time fixed by the Constitution for doing anything, such time cannot be extended. It is immutable, fixed like the rock of Gibraltar. It cannot be extended, elongated, expanded or stretched beyond what it states. See Marwa & Ors. Vs. Nyako & Ors. (2012) LPELR-7837 (SC), Eze Vs. Umahi & Ors. (2022) LPELR-59157 (SC), Nyako Vs. Adamawa State House of Assembly & Ors (2016) LPELR-41822 (SC), Useni Vs. Atta & Ors. (2023) LPELR-59880(SC), Besong Vs. Ochinke & Ors. (2022) LPELR-59622(SC).

In view of the above immutable position of the law, it follows that even though the Court below had correctly found that the Appellant’s suit was not statute-barred pursuant to Section 285(9) of the Constitution, it was too late in the day to assume the jurisdiction of the trial Court to decide the suit on the merit, the period of 180 days allowed by Section 285 (10) of the Constitution having expired. This Court cannot also do anything to change the situation. – Per J. I. Okoro, JSC”

CASES CITED

STATUTES REFERRED TO

1. Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended)
2. Peoples’ Democratic Party Electoral Guideline
3. Electoral Act, 2022
4. Court of Appeal Act
5. Supreme Court Act

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT