CORAM

---

WALTER SAMUEL NKANU ONNOGHEN CHIEF JUSTICE OF NIGERIA

IBRAHIM TANKO MUHAMMAD, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT

OLABODE RHODES-VIVOUR JUSTICE SUPREME COURT

OLUKAYODE ARIWOOLA JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

MUSA PATTUO MUHAMMAD JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

---

PARTIES

---

HON. CHRIS AZUBUOGU

APPELLANTS 

---

1. HON. (DR) HARRY N. ORANEZI

2. PEOPLES DEMOCRATIC PARTY

3. ALHAJI A. ADAMU MUAZU (National Chairman of Peoples Democratic Party and Chairman of National Executive Committee and National Working Committee of Peoples Democratic Party)

4. PROF WALE OLADIPO (National Secretary of Peoples Democratic Party)

5. HON. JULIUS OFFORMAH

6. INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION

RESPONDENTS 

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

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

 

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The 1st Respondent as Plaintiff at the Federal High Court sitting at Awka instituted suit No. FHC/AWK/CS/24/2015 against the Appellant and five others as Defendants seeking(on the basis of votes he avers in his writ to have scored in the 2nd Respondent’s primary election conducted on the 7th December, 2014) declaratory and injunctive reliefs to the effect that he is the party’s candidate for the Nwewi North/South/Ekwusigo Federal House of Representatives Constituency in the Federal House of Representative election scheduled for 14th February 2015. He is entitled to the reliefs, he further asserted, by virtue of Section 87(4) (c) of the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended) as well as 2nd respondent’s Electoral Guidelines for Primary Elections 2014.

The Defendants challenged the jurisdiction of the trial Court to hear the suit. In its ruling delivered on 19th March 2015, the trial court sustained the objections of the Defendants to the competence of the suit, declined jurisdiction and struck out 1st Respondent’s suit.

Aggrieved by 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, the suit was remitted to the trial court for same to be heard and determined by a Judge other than M. L. Abubakar J.

Dissatisfied with the judgment of the Court of Appeal, the Appellant lodged the instant appeal vide a notice of appeal containing six grounds filed on the 23rd February 2016.

 

---

HELD

---

Appeal dismissed.

 

---

ISSUES

---

Whether the Court of Appeal was right in holding that the 1st Respondent’s case can be founded within Section 87(4 c)and 9 of the Electoral Act 2010 as amended (Grounds THREE, FOUR, FIVE AND SIX OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL)

 

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

PRELIMINARY OBJECTION- NEED TO DETERMINE A PRELIMINARY OBJECTION FIRST

---

“The objection shall be determined first in order to ensure that this Court has the necessary jurisdiction to proceed to hear and determine the appeal on its merits. To do otherwise, by proceeding without necessarily determining whether or not it indeed has the jurisdiction to, is for the court to embark on a time wasting and fruitless venture. On the authorities, the court’s eventual decision will be a nullity. See Madukolu V. Nkemdilim (1962) 2 SCNLR 341, Usman Dan Fodio University V. Kraus Thompson Organisation Ltd (2001) 15 NWLR (Pt 736) 305 and Or Kemdi & anor V. Hon. Bethel Amadi & a nor (2013) LPELR-20747 (SC).”-Per MUHAMMAD, J.S.C

 

---

FINDING OF A LOWER COURT-WHEN THE FINDINGS OF A LOWER COURT MAYBE SET ASIDE

---

“The foregoing finding of the lower court is unassailable. Learned appellant’s counsel must be reminded that a court’s finding on appeal is only set aside where same is found to be perverse. An appellate court, learned counsel is to further appreciate, adjudges a decision appealed against perverse if it neither draws from the evidence on record nor upon correct application of some principle. See Adimora V. Ajugo (19880 3 NWLR (Pt 80) 1, Ciifford Osuji V. Nkemjika Ekeocha (2009) LPELR-2816 (SC) and Raphael Ude V. State LPELR-40441 (SC).”-Per MUHAMMAD, J.S.C.

 

---

JURISDICTION- SOURCE OF A COURT’S JURISDICTION

---

“In justifying this position, three trite principles of law need to be restated at this point. Firstly, jurisdiction of a court is generally provided by a statute and or the Constitution. Any challenge to a court’s jurisdiction, therefore, is resolved within the purview of the legislation that donates the jurisdiction to the court. See Okocha Samuel Osi V. Accord Party & ors (2016) LPELR-41388 (SC) and Galadima V. Jamba! (2000) 6 SC (Pt 1) 196.”-Per MUHAMMAD, J.S.C.

 

---

JURISDICTION- HOW AN OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION MAYBE RESOLVED

---

“Secondly, whenever the jurisdiction of a court is challenged, in an action fought on pleadings, the objection is resolved by examining the plaintiffs claim alone within the context of the source of the court’s jurisdiction. See: Ibori V. Agabi (2004) 6 NWLR (Pt 868) 78 and Vivian Clems Akpangbo-Okadigbo & ors V. Egbe Theo Chidi <& ors (2) (2015) LPELR-24565 (SC) .”-Per MUHAMMAD, J.S.C.

 

---

STARE DECISIS- WHETHER COURTS ARE BOUND BY EARLIER AUTHORITATIVE PRONOUNCEMENTS OF SUPERIOR COURTS ON SIMILAR ISSUES

---

“Thirdly, courts are bound by the earlier authoritative pronouncements of superior courts on same or similar issues they are subsequently asked to determine. See Olu of Warri V. Kparegbayi (1994) 4 NWLR (Pt 339) 414, Osagie II V. Offor (1998) 3 NWLR (Pt 541) 205 and Dalhatu V. Turaki (2003) 15 NWLR (Pt 843) 310 at 350.”- Per MUHAMMAD, J.S.C.

 

---

PLEADINGS- WHETHER THE AVERMENTS IN PLEADINGS MUST BE CONSTRUED AS A WHOLE

---

“It is settled that in construing pleadings, as it is with statues, the averments should be considered as a whole to gather the collective import of the pleaded facts. The trial court’s reading of paragraph 31 of the statement of claim in isolation, without relating the paragraph to the preceding paragraphs, not surprisingly, pushed the court into an avoidable error. The preceding paragraphs are not only complementary to the paragraph the court singled out and relied on in determining the objections to its jurisdiction over the suit they also explain the meaning and scope of the subsequent paragraph. See The Minister of Housing and Local Government V. Lawbert (1969) 2 NWLR 447 and Mobil Oil (Nig) Plc V. IAL 36 Inc (2000) 4 SC (Pt 1) 85, Yesuf& anor V. Ojo & ors (1958) vol. 1 NSCC 99 and Krans Thompson Org V. NIPSS (2004) 17 NWLR (Pt 901) 44.”- Per MUHAMMAD, J.S.C.

 

---

POLITICAL PARTY PRIMARIES –DUTY OF THE COURT TO RESOLVE ISSUES BORDERING ON WHICH PRIMARIES CONDUCTED BY A POLITICAL PARTY IS AUTHENTIC

---

“In Ugwu V. P.D.P. (supra) this Court per Akaahs JSC at page 478 of the law report has enthused as follows:-

“I am of the considered view that the trial court will be abdicating its responsibility if it declares that the suit is not justiciable. It has a duty to say which of the two primaries is the authentic one. This is the reason while Section 87(4) (i), 4(c), (i), (ii) and (9) has been put in place and to avoid arbitrariness by some officials of the political party who may want to impose their preferred candidates who probably did not take part in primaries because of the conflicting claims by the parties. It is only the court that could resolve the issue. This is the dimension which the decision in C. C Vs. Ombugadu supra introduced.”- Per MUHAMMAD, J.S.C.

 

---

CAPACITY TO SUE- WHO MAY SUE IN AN ACTION RELATING TO SELECTION AND NOMINATION OF CANDIDATES OF A POLITICAL PARTY TO CONTEST ELECTION

---

“The 1st respondent having participated in the 2nd respondent’s primary election is the aspirant the Electoral Act in Section 87(4) (b) and (9) provides a platform for to seek the reliefs he circumscribes in his claim. The section has already been interpreted and applied by this Court in a seemingly endless number of its decisions a great deal of which have been cited by both sides to the appeal.  In Garba V. Mohammed (2016) 16 NWLR (Pt 1537) 114 this Court per Mohammed CJN (as he then was) at pages 164 – 165 paragraphs H – C of the law report held as follows:-

“As for the additional jurisdiction conferred on the Federal High Court under Section 87(9) of the Electoral Act, 2010 as (as amended) quoted above, it gives any aspirant member of a registered political party who participated in a primary election conducted by a political party to choose a candidate to contest an election under its platform, who is not satisfied with the outcome of the primary election contested with other members of the same political party, to approach the Federal High Court or High Court of a State or FCT High Court for redress…… In other words, any dispute arising from the conduct of primary elections by political parties to nominate candidates to contest elections, may be bought to the Federal High Court under Section 87(9) of the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended) by an aggrieved aspirant of any political party who participated in the primary election conducted by a political party for resolution by that court” (Underlining supplied for emphasis). See also Lokpobiri V. Ogola (2016) 3 NWLR (Pt 1499) 328.”- Per MUHAMMAD, J.S.C.

 

---

CASES CITED

---

NONE

 

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

Electoral Act, 2010(as amended)

Peoples Democratic Party Electoral Guidelines

 

---

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT