CHIEF E.W.J. WOHEREM JP V JOEL EMEREUWA
June 11, 2025M. S. C. EZEMBA VS S. O. IBENEME
June 11, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (2004) Legalpedia (SC) 24517
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Fri Jul 2, 2004
Suit Number: SC. 199/2003
CORAM
MUHAMMADU LAWAL UWAIS, CHIEF JUSTICE, NIGERIA
TASLIM O. ELIAS, CHIEF JUSTICE OF NIGRIA
AUGUSTINE NNAMANI, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
CHIEF CHUKWUEMEKA ODUMEGWU OJUKWU APPELLANTS
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The 1st Respondent, Chief Olusegun Obasanjo, an erstwhile Head of the Federal Military Government in 1976, won the presidential election in 1999 under the platform of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and was sworn in as the President of Nigeria. In 2003, the 1st Respondent was re-elected as the president of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. The Appellant, who contested the above election in 2003 under the platform of the All Progressive Grand Alliance (A.P.G.A) but lost the said election, instituted an action against the Respondents jointly and severally at the Court of Appeal (Presidential Election Tribunal) challenging the return of the 1st Respondent as the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria on the ground that he was not qualified to contest the presidential election in 2004 because he was previously elected President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria on two occasions contrary to section 137(1)(b) of the 1999 Constitution of the Nigeria and the Electoral Act, 2002. The Appellant further sought for an order of the trial Court invalidating the return of the 1st Respondent as the President of Nigeria and the ordering the 3rd Respondent to conduct a fresh presidential election. The trial Tribunal dismissed the Appellant’s appeal. Dissatisfied with the judgment of the Court of Appeal (trial Tribunal), the Appellant appealed to the Supreme Court.
HELD
Appeal Dismissed.
ISSUES
Whether the 1st respondent, Chief Olusegun Obasanjo, had been elected to the office of President of Nigeria in any election as envisaged by the 1999 Constitution, previous to the Presidential Election of 1999 which he contested” and won.?
RATIONES DECIDENDI
INTERPRETING STATUTORY OR CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS – STATUTORY OR CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS SHOULD NOT BE READ IN ISOLATION OF THE OTHER PARTS OF THE STATUTE OR CONSTITUTION.
“In interpreting statutory or constitutional provisions, such provisions should not be read in isolation of the other parts of the statute or Constitution. In other words, the statute or Constitution should be read as a whole in order to determine the intendment of the makers of the statute or Constitution. Every clause of a statute should be construed with reference to the context and other clauses of the Act so as, as far as possible, to make a consistent enactment of the whole statute or series of statutes relating to the subject matter. See Nafiu Rabiu V. State (1981) 2 NCLR 293; Egolum V. Obasanjo (1999) 7 NWLR (Part 611) 355”. PER S.U ONU, J.S.C.
‘APPOINT’ AND ‘ELECT’- DISTINCTION BETWEEN ‘APPOINT’ AND ‘ELECT’
“The word “appoint” is defined in Black’s Law Dictionary (Sixth edition) at page 99, as follows:
“To designate, choose, select, assign, ordain, prescribe, constitute or nominate. To allot or set apart. To assign authority to a particular use, task, position or office.
Term is used where exclusive power and authority is given to one person, officer, or ‘body to name persons to hold certain offices. It is usually distinguished from ‘elect’ meaning to choose by a vote of the qualified voters of the city; though this distinction is not invariably observed.” PER N. TOBI, J.S.C.
ELECTION TO THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT OF NIGERIA – PROCEDURE FOR ELECTION TO THE OFFICE OF PRESIDENT OF NIGERIA – SECTION 132 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA, 1999
“132 – (1) An election to the office of President shall be held on a date to be appointed by the Independent National Electoral Commission.
(2) An election to the said office shall be held on a date not earlier than sixty days and not later than thirty days before the expiration of the term of office of the last holder of that office.
(3) Where in an election to the office of President one of the two or more candidates nominated for the election is the only candidate after the close of nomination, by reason of the disqualification, withdrawal, incapacitation, disappearance or death of the other candidates, the Independent National Electoral Commission shall extend the time for nomination.
(4) For the purpose of an election to the office of President, the whole of the Federation shall be regarded as one constituency.
(5) Every person who is registered to vote at an election of a member of a legislative house shall be entitled to vote at an election to the office of President.”
This is the only method prescribed by the Constitution for the election to the office of President of Nigeria. If any person is to be elected to the office of the President of Nigeria he must go through the process laid down above. There is no other way that the President of Nigeria is elected. The Constitution is very clear on the procedure. Equating such election with elections in clubs and town unions is not, with respect, an argument based on the interpretation of the Constitution of 1999.” PER U. MOHAMMED, J.S.C.
GENERAL ELECTION – DEFINITION OF GENERAL ELECTION
“The Constitution did not define the word ‘election’; but the Electoral, Act 2003, which governs the election into various political offices defines, the term ‘General election’ as-
‘an election held in the Federation at large and at all levels, a regularly recurring election to select officers to serve after the expiration of the full terms of their predecessors.” PER N. TOBI, J.S.C.
‘‘OFFICE’’ – MEANING OF THE ‘’OFFICE’’ UNDER SECTION 137(1(B) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA, 1999
“It has been provided under section 137(1) (b) of 1999 Constitution that “A person shall not be qualified for election to the “office” of President if he has been elected to such “office” at any two previous elections”, it means the “office” of President whose appointment is made by election under 1999 Constitution”. PER U. MOHAMMED, J.S.C.
LITERAL INTERPRETATION OF WORDS USED IN AN ENACTMENT -DUTY OF THE COURT TO CONSIDER THE ENACTMENT AS A WHOLE WHERE THE LITERAL INTERPRETATION OF A WORD OR WORDS USED IN ANY ENACTMENT WILL RESULT IN ABSURDITY OR INJUSTICE
“Where literal interpretation of a word or words used in any enactment will result in an absurdity or injustice, it will be the duty of the court to consider the enactment as a whole with a view to ascertain whether the language of the enactment is capable of any other fair interpretation, or, whether it may not be desirable to put a secondary meaning on such a language or even to adopt a construction which is not quite strictly grammatical”. PER S.U ONU, J.S.C.
PURPOSE OF A REPLY BRIEF- A REPLY BRIEF MUST REPLY TO NEW ISSUES OR POINTS RAISED IN THE RESPONDENT’S BRIEF BUT NOT TO RE-OPEN AN ARGUMENT IN AN APPELLANT’S BRIE
“A reply brief is not expected to be a repetition of the appellant’s brief. A reply brief must reply to new issues or points raised in the respondent’s brief. A mere repetition of the arguments in an appellant’s brief with one or two new authorities does not qualify as a reply brief.” PER N. TOBI, J.S.C.
INTERFERENCE WITH THE JUDGMENT OF A COURT – INSTANCES WHEN AN APPELLATE COURT WILL INTERFERE WITH THE JUDGMENT OF A COURT
“It is settled law that an appellate Court would not intervene and or interfere with the judgment of the Court below except it is shown that the Court fell into error in its evaluation of the facts or applied the law erroneously to finding of facts which were properly made. See Victor Woluchem & Ors V. Chief Simon Gudi & Ors 1981 5 S.C. 319 at 326; Obisayan V. Nwoko 1974 6 S.C. 69 at 80; Lawal V. Dawodu 1972 1 ALL NLR (pt.2) 270 at 286; Mogaji V. Odofin 1978 4 S.C. 91; Ebba V. Ogodo 1984 1 S.C.NLR 372- 381; Omoregie V. Idugienwanye 1985 2 N.W.L.R. (pt.5) 41; Kate Enterprises V. Daewoo Nig. Ltd 1985 2 N. W.L.R. 116.” PER A. O.EJIWUNMI. J.S.C.
INTERPRETING THE PROVISIONS OF A STATUTE – IN INTERPRETING THE PROVISIONS OF A STATUTE, NOTHING IS TO BE ADDED TO OR TAKEN FROM IT
“Indeed, it is a corollary to the general rule of literal construction that nothing is to be added to or taken from a statute unless there are adequate grounds to justify the inference that the legislature intended something which it omitted to express. See Thompson V. Goold & Co. (1910) A.C 409 at 420.” PER S.U ONU, J.S.C.
OUSTER OF JURISDICTION – LAWS ON OUSTER OF JURISDICTION OF COURTS MUST BE EXPRESSLY CLEAR.
“While a person’s access to the Courts to have his civil rights adjudicated upon may be restricted or ousted by a Statute or Act, it must be construed rather strictly. Ouster of jurisdiction, it is also emphasized, needs express words vide Shodehinde V. Registered Trustees, Ahmadiyya Movement-in- Islam (2001) FWLR (Part 58) 1065.” PER S.U.ONU, J.S.C.
INTERPRETATION OF A WORD, CLAUSE OR SECTION OF A STATUTE – A COURT OF LAW SHOULD NOT IMPORT INTO THE MEANING OF A WORD, CLAUSE OR SECTION OF A STATUTE SOMETHING THAT IT DOES NOT SAY
“A court of law is without power to import into the meaning of a word, clause or section of a statute something that it does not say. See Bronik Motors Ltd & others V. Wema Bank Ltd (1983) 6 S.C 158”. PER S.U.ONU, J.S.C.
INTERPRETING THE PROVISION OF THE CONSTITUTION – UNAMBIGIOUS PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION SHOULD BE GIVEN ITS PLAIN EVIDENT MEANING
“In interpreting the provision of the Constitution the language of the Constitution where clear and unambiguous must be given its plain evident meaning.” PER U. MOHAMMED, J.S.C.
OBJECT OF INTERPRETATION – THE OBJECT OF INTERPRETATION IS TO DISCOVER THE INTENTION OF THE LAW MAKER
“The object of all interpretations is to discover the intention of the law – makers which is deducible from the language used. Once the meaning is clear the courts are to give effect to it. See Bradlaugh V. Clarke (1883) 3 App Cases 354”. PER U. MOHAMMED, J.S.C.
EJUSDEM GENERIS RULE – APPLICABILITY OF EJUSDEM GENERIS RULE
“The ejusdem generis rule is an interpretative rule which the court applies in an appropriate case to confine the scope of general words which follow special words as used in a statutory provision or document within the genus of those special words. In the construction of statutes, therefore” general terms following particular ones apply only to such person or thing as are ejusdem generis with those understood from the language of the statute to be confined to the particular terms. In other words, the general words or terms are to be read as comprehending only things of the same kind as that designated by the preceding particular expression unless there is something to show that a wider sense was intended. See Maxwell on the Interpretation of Statutes, 12th Edition p.287; Fawehinmi V. Inspector General of Police (2002) SCM; (2002) 7 N. W.L.R. (Pt.767) 606 at 688.”PER N. TOBI, J.S.C.
DISQUALIFICATION FROM CONTESTING ELECTION INTO THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA – CONDITIONS FOR DISQUALIFICATION FROM CONTESTING ELECTION INTO THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA
“From the wordings of the section, it is plain that for a person to be disqualified to contest a particular election into the office of the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, it must be shown:-
(1) That the person was elected to the office of President on two previous occasions prior to the particular Presidential election in question.
(2) That he was appointed into that office on two previous occasions by the process of an election and additionally,
(3) That the provisions of section 137(1)(b) of the 1999 Constitution applied to the elections of the two previous occasions.
These three conditions must co-exist before a person is disqualified to contest a presidential election.” PER N.TOBI, J.S.C
OFFICE OF THE “HEAD OF THE FEDERAL MILITARY GOVERNMENT” AND THE “OFFICE OF PRESIDENT”- THE OFFICE OF THE “HEAD OF THE FEDERAL MILITARY GOVERNMENT” AND THE “OFFICE OF PRESIDENT AS ENVISAGED BY SECTION 8(D) OF THE REPEALED DECREE NO. 32 OF 1975 AND SECTION
“And that takes me to section 137(1) (b) of the 1999 Constitution. It provides thus:
“A person shall not be qualified for election to the office of President if… he has been elected to such office at any two previous elections.”
Section 8(d) of the repealed Decree No. 32 of 1975 and section 137(1)(b) of the 1999 Constitution talk of different offices. While section 8(d) provided for the office of Head of the Federal Military Government, section 137(1)(b) of the 1999 Constitution provides for the office of President. It is my view that the two offices do not mean the same as their functions are different.” PER N. TOBI, J.S.C.
“OFFICE” AND “PRESIDENT” – DEFINITION OF “OFFICE” AND “PRESIDENT” – ELECTION TO THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT AS ENVISAGED BY SECTION 137(1)(B) OF THE 1999 CONSTITUTION RELATES TO THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA TO WHICH ONE I
“I will expatiate by reference to section 318 of the 1999 Constitution where the following words used in section 137(1)(b)’ of the constitution are defined thus:-
“office” means ‘any office the appointment to which is by election under the Constitution’.
“President” means ‘the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
By implication, therefore, election to the office of the President as used in section 137(1)(b) of the 1999 Constitution relates to the office of the President of Federal Republic of Nigeria to which one is appointed by the process of an election under the 1999 Constitution.” PER N. TOBI, J.S.C.
OPERATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION – A CONSTITUTION LIKE OTHER STATUTES OPERATES PROSPECTIVELY AND NOT RETROSPECTIVELY UNLESS IT IS EXPRESSLY PROVIDED TO BE OTHERWISE
“It is a cardinal rule of English law that no statute shall be construed to have retrospective operation unless such a construction appears very clearly in the terms of the Act, or arises by necessary and distinct implications: In Re_Athlumney (1998) 2 QB at p.551, Maxwell on Interpretation of Statutes supra at p.2 15.
The position is the same in this country, for, in the case of Olaniyi V. Aroyehun (1991) 5 N. W.L.R. (Pt.194) 652, this court held:-
“A constitution like other statutes operates prospectively and not retrospectively unless it is expressly provided to be otherwise. Such legislation affects only rights which came into existence after it has been passed. See also the case of Afolabi & ors V. Governor of Oyo State (1985) 2 N.W.L.R. (Pt.9) 734; Ojokolobo V. Alamu (1987) 2 N.S.C.C. 1277”. PER N. TOBI, J.S.C.
FUNDAMENTAL PROPOSITIONS TO OUR LAW/JUDICIAL SYSTEM – FUNDAMENTAL PROPOSITIONS TO OUR LAW/JUDICIAL SYSTEM INCLUDES HEARING A PARTY WHOSE INTEREST IS TO BE AFFECTED BY A DECISION
“It is trite law that certain propositions are fundamental to law and our system of justice. One is that a person whose right and interest are likely to be affected by a decision must be heard before the decision is taken against him. Another is that statutes should not be lightly presumed to have taken away a legal right upholding and preserving a right in the absence of express provisions to that effect. See P.D.P V. INEC (2001) FWLR (Part 31) 2735, (per Uwais, CJN)”. PER S.U.ONU, J.S.C.
ELECTION TO THE “OFFICE” OF PRESIDENT” – AN ELECTION TO THE “OFFICE” OF PRESIDENT WHICH WAS NOT CONDUCTED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF 1999 CONSTITUTION IS NOT A PREVIOUS ELECTION TO THE “OFFICE” OF PRESIDENT AS ENVISAGED BY THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 137 (I) (
“Any election to the “office” of President which was not conducted under the provisions of 1999 Constitution is not a previous election to the “office” of President as envisaged by the provisions of section 137 (I) (b) of 1999 Constitution.” PER U. MOHAMMED, J.S.C.
ELECTION – MEANING OF ELECTION
“The word ‘election’ in the context in which it is used in section 137(1)(b) of “the Constitution means the process of choosing by popular votes a candidate for a political office in a democratic system of, government.” PER N. TOBI, J.S.C.
INTERPRETING THE PROVISIONS OF A STATUTE OR CONSTITUTION – THE DUTY OF THE COURT IN INTERPRETING THE PROVISIONS OF A CONSTITUTION OR STATUTE IS TO LOOK AT THE STATUTE OR CONSTITUTION AS A WHOLE IN ORDER NOT TO VEER AWAY FROM THE INTENDMENT OF ITS FRA
“Those who have the duty to interpret the provisions of a statute or constitution must look at the statute or constitution as a whole in order not to veer away from the intendment of its framers. In P.D.P. V. INEC (1999) II NWLR (Pt 626) 200 at page 242, Chief Justice Uwais pointed to what is required to be done in interpreting the provision of a statute or constitution in the following words:
“It is settled that in interpreting the provisions or section of a statute or indeed the constitution, such provisions or section should not be read in isolation of the other parts of the statute or constitution. In other words, the statute or constitution should be read as a whole in order to determine the intendment of the makers of the statute or constitution.”
PER U. MOHAMMED, J.S.C.
CASES CITED
1. P .D.P. V. INEC (1999) II NWLR (Pt 626) 200 at page 2422. Attorney – General Bendel State V. Attorney – General of the Federation (1981) S.C.l133. Bronik Motors Ltd & others V. Wema Bank Ltd (1983) 6 S.C 1584. Ebba V. Qgodo 1984 1 S.C.NLR 372- 3815. Egolum V. Obasanjo (1999) 7 NWLR (Part 611) 355 ?
STATUTES REFERRED TO
Constitution (Basic Provisions) Decree No.32 of 1975Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria,1999. Electoral Act, 2002Interpretation Act 1964
