CORAM

---

Olabode Rhodes-Vivour Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Clara Bata Ogunbiyi Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Chima Centus Nweze Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Amiru Sanusi Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Paul Adamu Galinje Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria

---

PARTIES

---

CHIEF REAGAN UFOMBA

APPELLANTS 

---

1. INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION (INEC)

2. ALL PROGRESSIVE GRAND ALLIANCE (APGA)

3. DR. ALEX OTI

4. XHIWD VICTOR UMEH

RESPONDENTS 

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, ELECTORAL LAW, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, JURISDICTION, POLITICAL PARTY AFFAIRS, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, PRE-ELECTION MATTERS

 

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Appellant, Chief Reagan Ufomba, commenced this action by originating summons at the Federal High Court, Umuahia, Abia State on January 27, 2015. He sought determination of questions relating to the 2015 Governorship Primaries Election in Abia State conducted on December 8, 2014, at Colping Centre, Umuahia. The Appellant claimed he won the primaries conducted under the supervision of Chief Chris Uche, the Deputy National Chairman (South) of the All Progressive Grand Alliance (APGA), the 2nd Respondent. He contended that the 1st Respondent (INEC) was wrong to recognize and publish the name of the 3rd Respondent (Dr. Alex Oti) as the 2nd Respondent’s Governorship candidate for Abia State.

The Appellant’s case centered on allegations that the National Chairman of APGA (the 4th Respondent) had been restrained by a court order and that his second term had expired on December 1, 2014. The Appellant also alleged that the 3rd Respondent had made false declarations on oath to the 1st Respondent regarding his place of origin and party affiliation, and had not properly regularized his membership of APGA.

The 2nd and 4th Respondents filed a notice of preliminary objection disputing the jurisdiction of the trial Court, arguing that the reliefs sought were non-justiciable as they encroached on the domestic jurisdiction of the party. The 3rd Respondent also filed a similar preliminary objection. The trial Court upheld these objections and struck out the suit. The Appellant’s appeal to the Court of Appeal was dismissed, and the Appellant subsequently appealed to the Supreme Court.

 

---

HELD

---

1. The appeal was dismissed.

2. The Supreme Court affirmed the concurrent decisions of the lower courts, holding that the Appellant’s claims were not justiciable as they pertained to internal party affairs.

3. The Court held that the Appellant’s case did not fall within the purview of Section 87(9) of the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended), which grants jurisdiction to courts in specific pre-election matters.

4. The Court noted that even if the Appellant’s claims were granted, they would be of no practical benefit since APGA did not win the governorship election in Abia State.

5. No order was made as to costs.

 

---

ISSUES

---

1. Whether the Court of Appeal was correct in its conclusion that the Appellant’s relief against the 1st Respondent was ancillary and that the trial Court had no jurisdiction over it?

2. Whether the Court of Appeal was right in affirming the decision of the Trial Court that it had no jurisdiction to entertain the Appellant’s main claims which were deemed non-justiciable?

3. Whether the Court of Appeal was right in holding that the trial Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the Appellant’s relief against the 3rd Respondent for allegedly making false declarations to the 1st Respondent?

 

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

JURISDICTION IN PRE-ELECTION MATTERS – SCOPE OF SECTION 87(9) OF THE ELECTORAL ACT

---

From the foregoing provision, it is now a settled principle of law clearly that, where a political party conducts its primary and a dissatisfied contestant at the primary election complains about its conduct, (of the primaries), the Courts have jurisdiction by virtue of Section 87(9) of the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended), to entertain the complaints, if the conduct of the primary was in accordance with the party’s Constitution and Guidelines. — Per CLARA BATA OGUNBIYI, JSC

 

---

JUSTICIABILITY OF INTRA-PARTY DISPUTES – LIMITATION OF COURTS’ JURISDICTION

---

As rightly pointed out by the respondents, the 1st and 2nd reliefs sought by the appellant were predicated on the leadership of the respondent and or orders of a Court. Similarly, the affidavits of the parties reveal that membership of the 3rd Respondent was in issue, leadership of the 2nd respondent was at that time pending before this Court. — Per CLARA BATA OGUNBIYI, JSC

 

---

SCOPE OF SECTION 87(9) – REQUIREMENTS FOR JUSTICIABILITY UNDER THE ELECTORAL ACT

---

The interpretation of Section 87 of the Electoral Act is not meant to operate at large, so as to open a flood gate for litigations by political party members, who are dissatisfied with the conduct of the primaries elections. The jurisdiction of the Courts, under this Section, is limited to examining, if the conduct of the primaries elections were strictly in accordance with the Party’s Constitution and Guidelines.– Per CLARA BATA OGUNBIYI, JSC

 

---

INTERNAL PARTY AFFAIRS – NON-JUSTICIABILITY OF PARTY LEADERSHIP DISPUTES

---

In the case before us, from questions 1 and 2 as reflected on the face of the Originating Summons (at page 47 Vol. 1 of the record of Appeal), I did state earlier in this conducted judgment that the appellant was not questioning the conduct of primaries. He cannot therefore be operating within the ambit of Section 87(9) of the Electoral Act so as to clothe the Court with jurisdiction. — Per CLARA BATA OGUNBIYI, JSC

 

---

DEFINITION OF INTRA-PARTY AFFAIRS – SCOPE OF NON-JUSTICIABLE DISPUTES

---

The matter at hand is ‘an intra-party affair.’ The concept of the phrase was defined by this Court in PDP V. K.S.I.E.C. (2006) 3 NWLR (Pt. 968) 565 at 577 as- ‘A dispute between members of the party inter se, or between a member on the one hand and the party on the other. — Per CLARA BATA OGUNBIYI, JSC

 

---

LIMITS OF FEDERAL HIGH COURT’S PRE-ELECTION JURISDICTION

---

With reference made to the case of Lokpobiri V. Ogola (supra), Onnoghen, JSC (as he then was) at p.365 held and said: ‘It is therefore my considered opinion when the Federal High Court’s pre-election jurisdiction is invoked, the parties claim(s) and relief(s) must be in conformity with the provisions of the Electoral Act (as amended).– Per CLARA BATA OGUNBIYI, JSC

 

---

CRITERIA FOR INVOKING SECTION 87(9) – PROPER FOUNDATION FOR JURISDICTION

---

Furthermore, in the case of Anyanwu V. Ogunewe supra this Court, held that a complainant in such a case (that is under Section 87(9) must bring himself squarely within the confines of the provisions of Section 87(9) of the Electoral Act so as to say that: ‘He must be an aspirant who participated in the primary and his complaint must relate to non-compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act or the guidelines of a political party. — Per CLARA BATA OGUNBIYI, JSC

 

---

PRINCIPAL CLAIMS AND JURISDICTION – EFFECT OF LACK OF JURISDICTION OVER MAIN CLAIMS

---

The law is well settled that where a Court does not have jurisdiction over the principal claims, it cannot adjudicate over the suit. See Tukur V. Govt. of Gongola State (1989) 4 NWLR (Pt. 117) p.517. — Per CLARA BATA OGUNBIYI, JSC

 

---

PARTY PRIMARIES – GROUNDS FOR COURT INTERVENTION UNDER SECTION 87(9)

---

In other words, even if taken for granted, the appellant was declared to be the 2nd respondent’s candidate in the said election, it is an established fact that the 2nd respondent lost the said election. Certainly the appellant could not have prayed properly that the election of a stranger should be set aside in the circumstance. –– Per CLARA BATA OGUNBIYI, JSC

 

---

JURISDICTION IN ELECTORAL DISPUTES – DETERMINATION OF JUSTICIABILITY

---

By the nature of the claims put forward by the appellant, there is a clear invitation to the trial Court to determine leadership disputes in the 2nd respondent. This, clearly and as rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the 2nd and 4th respondents, is not an exception to Onuoha V. Okafor (1983) 2 SCNLR 244. — Per CLARA BATA OGUNBIYI, JSC

 

---

PARTY AUTONOMY – COURTS’ LACK OF POWER TO CONTROL PARTY NOMINATIONS

---

The Courts have no power to compel a political party to sponsor a candidate outside the thin and limited powers conferred under Section 87 of the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended). The jurisdiction of the Court relates to whether complaints in respect of primary election for nomination of a candidate were conducted in line with the provisions of the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended), the Constitution and the Party guidelines — Per FABIYI, JSC (as cited by CLARA BATA OGUNBIYI, JSC)

 

---

LIMITS OF JURISDICTION UNDER SECTION 87(9) – PROPER BASIS FOR CLAIMS

---

In the case under consideration, it is obvious that the appellant’s case was not premised on ‘non-compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act or the guidelines of a polity party.’ Rather, it is predicated on non-compliance with the orders of a Court and or leadership tussle. — Per CLARA BATA OGUNBIYI, JSC

 

---

ACADEMIC EXERCISE – PRACTICAL UTILITY OF JUDICIAL DECISIONS

---

However, and in view of the decision of this Court in Ugwu V. PDP. I have nevertheless determined the merit of the appeal. In that case, this Court per Aka’ahs, JSC had this to say at page 496 in a similar situation: ‘I agree with the learned counsel for the appellant that since the learned trial judge held that the action was non-justiciable and consequently declined jurisdiction which was endorsed by the lower Courts, an appeal to this Court to test the correctness of the two lower Courts’ decision cannot be said to be academic. — Per CLARA BATA OGUNBIYI, JSC

 

---

CASES CITED

---

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

1. Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), Section 251

2. Electoral Act 2010 (as amended), particularly Section 87(9)

3. African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act (Cap A9) LFN 2004

 

---

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT

---