PEOPLES DEMOCRATIC PARTY V. HON. (DR.) HARRY N. ORANEZI.& 5 OTHERS

CORAM

JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

MUSA DATTIJO MUHAMMAD, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT

KUDIRAT MOTONMORI OLATOKUNBO KEKERE-EKUN, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT

JOHN INYANG OKORO JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

CHIMA CENTUS NWEZE JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

EJEMBI EKO JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

PARTIES

PEOPLES DEMOCRATIC PARTY APPELLANTS

1. HON. (DR.) HARRY N. ORANEZI

2. ALHAJI ADAMU MUA’ZU (NATIONAL CHAIRMAN OF PEOPLES DEMOCRATIC PARTY AND CHAIRMAN OF NATIONAL EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE AND NATIONAL WORKING COMMITTEE OF PEOPLES DEMOCRATIC PARTY)

3. PROF. WALE OLADIPO (NATIONAL SECRETARY OF PEOPLES DEMOCRATIC PARTY)

4. HON. CHRIS AZUBUOGU

5. HON. JULIUS OFFORMAH

6. INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION (INEC)

RESPONDENTS

AREA(S) OF LAW

ELECTION, CIVIL LAW AND PROCEDURE, CONSTRUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The 1st Respondent as Plaintiff at the Federal High Court sitting at Awka initiated suit No. FHC/AWK/CS/24/2015 against the Appellant herein and the Appellant in appeal No. SC. 279/2016, now the 4th respondent and the remaining Respondents. He contends by his writ that having scored the highest votes in Appellant’s primary election of 7th December 2014 for the party’s candidate in the 14th February 2015 general election in respect of the Nnewi North/South/Ekwusigo Federal House of Representatives Constituency, it is unlawful for the party to substitute him with and submit the 4th Respondent’s name as that of its candidate in the general election. The substitution he further contends is in breach of the Constitution and the Electoral Guidelines of the Appellant. The Plaintiff pursuant to Section 87(4)(c) and (9) of the Electoral Act (as amended) sought declaratory and injunctive reliefs from the trial court to restore him to being the Appellant’s rightful candidate in the 14th February 2015 general election for the Nnewi North/Sought/Ekwusigo Federal Constituency.

The Defendants to the action challenged the competence of the1st Respondent’s suit and urged the trial court to dismiss it in limine. In its ruling of 19th March 2015, the court sustained the objection of the Defendants, declined jurisdiction and struck out the 1st Respondent’s suit.

Dissatisfied with the decision of the trial Court, the 1st Respondent appealed to the lower court which, in upholding the appeal and setting aside the trial court’s ruling, remitted the suit to the trial court for same to be heard and determined by a judge other than M.L Abubakar J.

Similarly aggrieved by the decision of the Court of Appeal, the Appellant has appealed to this Court. The Notice of Appeal filed on 3rd May 2016 contains two grounds of appeal.

HELD

Appeal dismissed.

ISSUES

Whether the Court of Appeal was right to have held that the Federal High Court was seized jurisdiction to entertain the suit filed by the 1st respondent as Plaintiff.

RATIONES DECIDENDI

DOCTRINE OF STARE DECISIS- WHETHER A COURT IS BOUND BY IT’S PREVIOUS DECISION OR DECISION OF A SUPERIOR COURT

“My lords, in resolving the lone issue the appeal raises and determining whether or not the lower court’s judgment being appealed against should persist, there is the need for the court to be guided by an overriding and trite principle. In this regard the fact that we have not been urged by any of the parties in the appeal to depart from our decision in appeal No. SC. 279/2016 is significant. Abiding by the precedent this Court outlined in its decision in the earlier appeal in this subsequent matter that dwells on the same facts and seeks the application of the same law to the facts becomes an imperative. In the same vein, the lower court’s decision herein, the very decision considered by this Court in the determination of the earlier appeal abides if, like in the earlier appeal, is that court’s application of the doctrine of stare – decisis or precedent.

In NEPA V. Onah (1997) LPELR-1959 (SC) this Court has I stated as follows:-

“It is a cardinal principle of law under the doctrine of stare decisis that an inferior court is bound by a decision of a superior court, however sure it may be that it has been wrongly decided”.

See also Usman V. Umaru (1992) 7 SCNJ 388, Ngwo & ors V. Monye & ors (1970) LPELR-1991 (SC) and CBN & ors V. Okojie (2015) LPELR-24740 (SC).”-Per MUHAMMAD, J.S.C.

JURISDICTION-BASIS FOR DETERMINING WHETHER A COURT HAS JURISDICTION TO HEAR A CASE

“It is a trite principle of law that the plaintiff’s claim alone provides the basis of determining whether a court has jurisdiction to proceed where, as in the instant case, the competence of the claim is challenged. The facts on the basis of which the suit is filed and the reliefs sought of the court as pleaded are scrutinized against the background of the statute that confers on the court the jurisdiction it is approached to exercise. See Dr. Taiwo Oloruntoba-Oju & ors V. Prof. P.A. Dopamu & ors (2008) NWLR (Pt 1085) 1 at 22-23, and P.D.P V. Timpre Sylva & ors (2012) 12 NWLR (part 1316) 85.”-Per MUHAMMAD, J.S.C.

CANON OF INTERPRETATION-NEED TO CONSTRUE A CLAUSE IN STATUTES, INSTRUMENTS AND PLEADINGS AS A WHOLE WITH OTHER CLAUSES

“Now, a cardinal principle of interpretation we must not forget, which learned appellant’s counsel however seems to ignore, is that provisions of a statute, an instrument or indeed pleadings should not be read in isolation of the other parts of the statute, instrument or pleadings. In order to determine the intent of the makers of the statute, instrument or pleadings, the same should be read as a whole. Thus a clause in any of these must be construed together and with reference to the context and other clauses in the statute, instrument or pleadings in ensuring the discovery of a consistent meaning of the whole, here, the pleading being considered. See Oyeyemi V. Commissioner for Local Government (Kwara State) (1992) 2 SCNJ 266 at 280 and Astra Industry Limited V. NBC I (1998) 3 SCNJ 97 at 115.”-Per MUHAMMAD, J.S.C.

NOMINATION OF CANDIDATES-WHETHER SUBMISSION OF NAMES OF CANDIDATES OTHER THAN THOSE WHO PARTICIPATED IN A PARTY’S PRIMARY ELECTION IS IN BREACH OF SECTION 87(4) (c ) AND (9) OF THE ELECTORAL ACT

As a whole, and this is the finding of the lower court, 1st respondent’s case is that having participated in the appellant’s primary election conducted by the National Executive Committee of the appellant, the submission of various names other than his to the 6th respondent, INEC, as the appellant’s candidate in the 2015 general election stands in breach of Section 87 (4) (c) and (9) of the Electoral Act (2010) as amended. And the breach, this Court has held in so many of its decisions, which decisions the lower court applied to arrive at its decision being challenged in this appeal, entitles the 1st respondent to the reliefs the trial court declined jurisdiction to enquire into let alone grant. See Akpamgbo-Okadigbo Vs. Chidi (No. 1) (2015) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1466) Page 171, Ugwu Vs. P.D.P (2015) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1459) Page 478, Jev. Vs. lyortam (2014) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1428) Page 575, Ukachukwu Vs. P.D.P. (2014) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1435) Page 134 and C.P.C. Vs. Ombugadu (2013) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1385) Page 66.”-Per MUHAMMAD, J.S.C.

JURISDICTION-COURT WITH JURISDICTION TO HEAR AND DETERMINE CASES ON SELECTION AND NOMINATION OF CANDIDATES BY POLITICAL PARTIES

“This court has, tolerably, settled the question of the imperious and overbearing attitude of political parties in matters concerning the nomination of their candidates. What crystalizes from several decisions of this court is that, where a political party breaches the constitutional and party guidelines in the nomination of its candidates, an aggrieved candidate has the right to interrogate the said process; and seek for redress in either of these courts – the Federal High Court, High Court of a State or the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, CPC v Ombugadu [2013] 18 NWLR (pt. 1385) 66; Ukachukwu v PDP [2014] 17 NWLR (pt. 1435) 134; Jev v Artyom [2014] 14 NWLR (pt. 1428) 575; Akpamgbo-Okadigbo v Chidi (No 1) [2015] 10 NWLR (pt. 1466) 171.

This development, which derives from its potency from Section 87 (9) of the Electoral Act, 2010, has been consecrated in several decisions of this court. Only one, or two of such, decisions may be cited here to illustrate this point, Uzodinma v. Izunaso (No.2) (2011) 17 NWLR (Pt.1275) 30.The above courts, in such a situation, would be, duly, seised of jurisdiction to scrutinise all the pertinent processes and construe the extant legislation with a view to determining due compliance therewith on the issue of nomination .”-Per NWEZE, J.S.C.

CONDUCT OF POLITICAL PARTIES- COURT’S ATTITUDE TO ARBITRARY CONDUCT OF POLITICAL PARTIES IN THE SELECTION OR NOMINATION OF CANDIDATES

The stark position today, therefore, is that courts would brook no arbitrary or capricious conduct of political parties in such questions like the selection or nomination of candidates in clear indifference to the constitutive Act, namely, the Electoral Act, and their prevailing Guidelines. I need not repeat what is obvious: the observance of, and diligent adherence to, the prescriptions in the Electoral Act and Constitutions of political parties, is the only sure way to the attainment of political maturity in our democratic experiment in Nigeria, Ukachukwu v. PDP and Ors (supra).”-Per NWEZE, J.S.C.

CASES CITED

NONE

STATUTES REFERRED TO

Electoral Act 2010 (as amended).

Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999(as amended)

Peoples Democratic Party Electoral Guidelines

PEOPLES DEMOCRATIC PARTY V. HON. (DR.) HARRY N. ORANEZI.& 5 OTHERS

OSUADE ADEYINKA AKINBADE & ANOR v. AYOADE BABATUNDE & ORS

REV. PHILIP MICAH DOPAH & OTHERS vs. REGISTERED TRUSTEES OF THE (UMCN)

OSUADE ADEYINKA AKINBADE & ANOR v. AYOADE BABATUNDE & ORS

REV. PHILIP MICAH DOPAH & OTHERS vs. REGISTERED TRUSTEES OF THE (UMCN)

PEOPLES DEMOCRATIC PARTY V. HON. (DR.) HARRY N. ORANEZI.& 5 OTHERS

Legalpedia Citation: (2022-06) Legalpedia 06745 (SC)

In the Supreme Court of Nigeria

HOLDEN AT ABUJA

Fri Dec 15, 2017

Suit Number: SC. 581/2016

CORAM

PARTIES

AREA(S) OF LAW

SUMMARY OF FACTS

HELD

ISSUES

RATIONES DECIDENDI

DOCTRINE OF STARE DECISIS- WHETHER A COURT IS BOUND BY IT’S PREVIOUS DECISION OR DECISION OF A SUPERIOR COURT

JURISDICTION-BASIS FOR DETERMINING WHETHER A COURT HAS JURISDICTION TO HEAR A CASE

CANON OF INTERPRETATION-NEED TO CONSTRUE A CLAUSE IN STATUTES, INSTRUMENTS AND PLEADINGS AS A WHOLE WITH OTHER CLAUSES

NOMINATION OF CANDIDATES-WHETHER SUBMISSION OF NAMES OF CANDIDATES OTHER THAN THOSE WHO PARTICIPATED IN A PARTY’S PRIMARY ELECTION IS IN BREACH OF SECTION 87(4) (c ) AND (9) OF THE ELECTORAL ACT

JURISDICTION-COURT WITH JURISDICTION TO HEAR AND DETERMINE CASES ON SELECTION AND NOMINATION OF CANDIDATES BY POLITICAL PARTIES

CONDUCT OF POLITICAL PARTIES- COURT’S ATTITUDE TO ARBITRARY CONDUCT OF POLITICAL PARTIES IN THE SELECTION OR NOMINATION OF CANDIDATES

CASES CITED

STATUTES REFERRED TO

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT

Esther ORIAH

PEOPLES DEMOCRATIC PARTY V. HON. (DR.) HARRY N. ORANEZI.& 5 OTHERS

OSUADE ADEYINKA AKINBADE & ANOR v. AYOADE BABATUNDE & ORS

REV. PHILIP MICAH DOPAH & OTHERS vs. REGISTERED TRUSTEES OF THE (UMCN)

OSUADE ADEYINKA AKINBADE & ANOR v. AYOADE BABATUNDE & ORS

REV. PHILIP MICAH DOPAH & OTHERS vs. REGISTERED TRUSTEES OF THE (UMCN)

Legalpedia Citation: (2022-06) Legalpedia 06745 (SC)

In the Supreme Court of Nigeria

HOLDEN AT ABUJA

Fri Dec 15, 2017

Suit Number: SC. 581/2016

CORAM

PARTIES

AREA(S) OF LAW

SUMMARY OF FACTS

HELD

ISSUES

RATIONES DECIDENDI

DOCTRINE OF STARE DECISIS- WHETHER A COURT IS BOUND BY IT’S PREVIOUS DECISION OR DECISION OF A SUPERIOR COURT

JURISDICTION-BASIS FOR DETERMINING WHETHER A COURT HAS JURISDICTION TO HEAR A CASE

CANON OF INTERPRETATION-NEED TO CONSTRUE A CLAUSE IN STATUTES, INSTRUMENTS AND PLEADINGS AS A WHOLE WITH OTHER CLAUSES

NOMINATION OF CANDIDATES-WHETHER SUBMISSION OF NAMES OF CANDIDATES OTHER THAN THOSE WHO PARTICIPATED IN A PARTY’S PRIMARY ELECTION IS IN BREACH OF SECTION 87(4) (c ) AND (9) OF THE ELECTORAL ACT

JURISDICTION-COURT WITH JURISDICTION TO HEAR AND DETERMINE CASES ON SELECTION AND NOMINATION OF CANDIDATES BY POLITICAL PARTIES

CONDUCT OF POLITICAL PARTIES- COURT’S ATTITUDE TO ARBITRARY CONDUCT OF POLITICAL PARTIES IN THE SELECTION OR NOMINATION OF CANDIDATES

CASES CITED

STATUTES REFERRED TO

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT

Esther ORIAH

Related posts

RENCO NIGERIA LIMITED V Q OIL & GAS SERVICES LIMITED & ANOR