CORAM

---

CHIDI NWAOMA UWA

MOHAMMED BABA IDRIS

MUSLIM SULE HASSAN

---

PARTIES

---

ABBAH TUKUR

APPELLANTS 

---

1. ISMAILA DALHA KUSADA

2. PEOPLES DEMOCRATIC PARTY

3. INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION (INEC)

RESPONDENTS 

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

APPEAL, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, ELECTION PETITION, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, EVIDENCE

 

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

“The 1st Respondent was initially a member of the PDP, but he left and joined the All Progressives Congress (APC). The 1st Respondent had not applied to rejoin the PDP to the secretary of Kusada ward as required by the PDP Election Guidelines, but the 1st Respondent participated in the primary election conducted by the party for Kankiya, Ingawa, Kusada House of Representatives Constituency and he was declared winner when he is not a member of the party (having not followed established procedures). As such, his victory was contested at the Federal High Court Katsina by the Appellant.

The first and second respondents, however, claim that the first respondent was cleared and is a card-carrying member of the party. The trial court ruled in favor of the respondents.

Dissatisfied by the decision of the trial court, the Appellant appealed to this court (Court of Appeal).”

 

---

HELD

---

Appeal Dismissed

 

---

ISSUES

---

1.Whether the lower court was right when it held that the Appellant’s case, which is questioning the membership status of the 1st respondent, is a domestic affair of the 2nd respondent and therefore non-justiciable?

2.Whether the failure of the total number of votes aggregated at the election to the respective contestants to tally with the accredited votes, even where there was not a single invalidated vote, ought to warrant the nullification of the primary election purported to have been won by the 1st respondent.

 

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

EVIDENCE – CONDUCT OF THE COURT WHERE NO COUNTER AFFIDAVIT IS FILED

---

First, it is settled law and leaves no doubt that where no counter affidavit filed, the affidavit evidence is to be accepted and used by the court. – Per M. S. Hassan, JCA

 

---

EVIDENCE – CONDUCT OF THE COURT WHERE NO COUNTER AFFIDAVIT IS FILED

---

Bearing this in mind, and given that the 1st and 2nd Respondents no longer have a valid counter affidavit before the trial court, it did not mean that the trial court would just stamp the case of the Appellant and grant same… the court would have to look at the case of the Appellant whether he has establish his case. – Per M. S. Hassan, JCA

 

---

POLITICAL PARTIES – MEMBERSHIP AND SPONSORSHIP

---

Secondly, indeed, the issue of membership of a political party and who the party chooses to sponsor had long been determined by the Apex Court as non-justiciable. The courts do not have jurisdiction to delve into the same to tell the party who should be her member or who the party should sponsor. The court may only intervene if it is shown that injustice was done by not complying with the Constitution, Electoral Act, the Party’s Constitution, and its guidelines.

See the authority of Ardo v. Nyako (2014) All FWLR (Pt. 744) 130 where the Apex court, per Aka’ahs JSC at 149, paras F – G, stated the standing position of the law as follows: “The Courts have consistently declined to exercise Jurisdiction in inter-party disputes concerning the candidate a political party chooses to sponsor for an election. The Courts cannot, therefore, compel a political party to sponsor one candidate in preference for another candidate of the self-same party. The reason being that no court can manage the political party for the members thereof. The issue of who should be a candidate of a given political party at any election is clearly a political one to be determined by the rules and constitution of the said party. It is thus a domestic issue and not such as would be justiciable in a court of law… in the instant case, where the action filed by the appellant challenged the nomination of an electoral candidate, the trial Court rightly dismissed the action.

See PDP v. SYLVA (2012) All FWLR (Pt. 637) 606, (2012) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1316) 85” – Per M. S. Hassan, JCA

 

---

JURISDICTION – A COURT CAN SUO MOTO RAISE AN ISSUE OF JURISDICTION

---

More so, let me say this: where an issue borders on the jurisdiction of the court, aside from the fact that the 3rd Respondent canvassed the same before the trial court, which gave the trial court the authority to consider it, it is settled that a court of law can sua sponte raise an issue of jurisdiction, as jurisdiction is the bedrock of all adjudication.– Per M. S. Hassan, JCA

 

---

JUDGMENT – THE CONDUCT OF THE COURT IN GRANTING RELIEFS

---

A court of law does not just dish out reliefs for sake of asking, the party seeking same must establish same with cogent and veritable evidence. – Per M. S.Hassan, JCA

 

---

POLITICAL PARTIES – THE RIGHT TO BELONG AND TO BE ACCEPTED

---

It is a natural choice and right for a person to belong to a party and for the party to accept him. – Per M. S. Hassan, JCA

 

---

CASES CITED

---

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

1. Electoral Act,2022

2. The constitution of the federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended)

3. Peoples Democratic Party Electoral Constitution/Guidelines

 

---

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT