CORAM

---

---

PARTIES

---

1, CHIEF MAXI OKWU

2. CHIEF DICKSON OGU (Suing for themselves and all the other National Officers elected at the National Convention Of A PGA held at the Women Development Centre, Awka on the 8th day of April, 2013)

APPELLANTS 

---

RESPONDENTS

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The 1st  and 2nd Respondents were the National Chairman and National Secretary of the All Progressives Grand Alliance (APGA). At the meeting of the  National Executives Committee members of the Party, it was therein agreed that the tenure of the Executive Committee be renewed for another four years. On the 10th of February 2011, the tenure of the Respondents were extended by a motion for another four years at the convention of APGA. As at the 10th of February 2011, the 1st Appellant was not a member of APGA having been expelled from  the party in 2005. Upon the 1st Appellant’s return in February 2013 to the party, he was issued a new membership card, and subsequently elected as a member of the National Working Committee of APGA. The  Appellants who were not satisfied with the election of the 1st and 2nd  Respondents on the  10th of February whilst their suspension subsisted, instituted an action at the Federal High Court.  The 1st and 2nd Respondents filed a notice of preliminary objection challenging the jurisdiction of the trial court to entertain the suit. The trial Court granted the reliefs sought by the Appellants and overruled the preliminary objection raised by the Respondents. Dissatisfied with the decision of the trial Court, the Respondents appealed to the lower court, which allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment of the trial judge. Being dissatisfied with the judgment of the lower court, the Appellants have appealed to this court.

---

HELD

---

Appeal Dismissed.

---

ISSUES

---

1. Whether the Court of Appeal was right when it overruled the preliminary objection of the Appellants challenging in effect the validity of the appeal of the 1st & 2nd Respondents to the Court of Appeal. (Culled from Grounds 1 & 2.)?

2. What is the effect of non-joinder of a party to an action particularly when the party not joined has not complained against such non joinder?

3. Whether the Court of Appeal was right when it held that the 1st appellant did not have the locus standi to bring the action when;(a)He had enough interest in the suit since he was claiming to be the duly elected National Chairman of the party as against the 1st Respondent.(b) The action was brought in a representative capacity and was not his personal action?

4. Whether the judgment of the Court of Appeal in the Suit No. OW84/2013 Umeh V Ejike decided any other thing apart from deciding that the plaintiff in that suit did not have locus standi to present the action and when none of the issues presented to the court of trial and the Court of Appeal in this suit were decided in that appeal by the Court of Appeal Enugu Division-?

5. Whether the Court of Appeal properly appreciated the case of the parties as presented to it before arriving at its decision, grounds 6, 7, 8, 9,13,14,15 & 16?

 

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

PARTIES TO AN ACTION – EFFECT OF THE ABSENCE OF A PROPER PARTY OR NECESSARY PARTY BEFORE THE COURT

---

“However, while it is the law that no cause or matter shall be defeated by reason of the mis-joinder or non-joinder of any party, yet, in the absence of a proper party or necessary party before the court, it appears an exercise in futility for the court to make an order or decision which will affect a stranger to the suit who was never heard or given an opportunity to defend himself. This will certainly be against the tenets and tenor of Section 36 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended).” PER J. I. OKORO, J.S.C

---

REPLY BRIEF – ESSENCE OF A REPLY BRIEF

---

“Reply brief is not an opportunity to reargue an appeal of the appellant. Rather, it is an avenue to reply to new issues raised by the respondent in the appeal”. PER J. I. OKORO, J.S.C

---

PARTIES TO AN ACTION- DUTY OF THE PLAINTIFF TO INCLUDE AS PARTY ALL PERSONS WHO WILL BE AFFECTED BY THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

---

“A plaintiff is not bound to sue a particular party. However, where the outcome of the suit will affect that party one way or the other, it will be fool hardy not to join him in the suit In fact, it would amount to an exercise in futility as the said party will not be bound by the outcome of the case.” PER J. I. OKORO, J.S.C

---

LACK OF LOCUS STANDI – PROPER ORDER TO MAKE WHERE A PLAINTIFF FAILS TO SHOW HE HAS LOCUS STANDI

---

“Where a plaintiff by his pleading, fails to show that he has a locus to institute an action, no issue in the case can be gone into, not even the question whether or not the statement of claim discloses a cause of action. As was held in Nigeria Airways Ltd V, F. A. Lapite (1990) LPELR – 1988 (SC), (1990) 11 – 12 SC, 60, the only and proper order to make in such circumstance is that striking out the suit. See also Iwuaba V, Nwaosigwelem (1989) 5 NWLR (pt 123) 623.” PER J. I. OKORO, J.S.C

---

LACK OF LOCUS STANDI – EFFECT OF LACK OF LOCUS STANDI

---

“It is trite that when a plaintiff has been found not to have the standing to sue or locus standi as in the instant case, the question whether other issues in the case had been properly decided or not does not arise. This is because the trial court has no jurisdiction to entertain the claim. The correct position of the law therefore is that where a plaintiff is held to lack the locus standi to maintain his action, the finding goes to the jurisdiction of the court and denies it jurisdiction to determine the action. The proper order, in such a situation therefore, is to strike out the claim. See Herbert Ohuabunwa Emezi V. Akujobi David Osuagwu & Ors (2005) 12 NWLR (pt. 939) 340, Thomas V. Olufusoye (1986) 1 NWLR (pt 18) 669. PER J. I. OKORO, J.S.C

---

LOCUS STANDI – LOCUS STANDI IS A CONDITION PRECEDENT TO A DETERMINATION IN THE MERITS OF A CASE

---

“In other words, the locus standi to sue does not depend on the success or merits of claim. That is, it is a condition precedent to a determination in the merits consequently if a plaintiff has no locus standi to sue, it is not necessary to consider whether or not there is a genuine case on the, merits. His case ought to be struck out as being incompetent. Adesanya v. President (supra) A. G Akwa Ibom State v. Essien (2004) 7 NWLR (pt,872) 288.” PER S.GALADIMA, J.S.C

---

CASES CITED

---

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

1. Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended)

2. Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2009

 

---

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT