Legalpedia Citation: (2015-04) Legalpedia (SC) 79519

In the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Fri Apr 17, 2015

Suit Number: SC. 643/2014

CORAM

MAHMUD MOHAMMED     JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT.

JOHN AFOLABI FABIYI      JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT.

SULEIMAN GALADIMA    JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT.

OLABODE RHODES-VIVOUR    JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT.

MUSA DATTIJO MUHAMMAD     JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT.

CLARA BATA OGUNBIYI   JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT.

KUDIRAT MOTONMORI OLATOKUNBO KEKERE-EKUN  JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT.

PARTIES

HON. IFEDAYO SUNDAY AGBEGUNDE(Hon. Member, Representing Akure North/South Federal Constituency in the House of Representative) APPELLANTS

THE ONDO STATE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY & 11 ORS

RESPONDENTS 

AREA(S) OF LAW

SUMMARY OF FACTS

By an originating summons filed on the 26 January 2012, the Appellant as Plaintiff commenced a suit against the Respondents /Defendants at the Federal High Court, Akure Ondo State due to his defection from labour party to Action congress of Nigeria, by the Appellant/Plaintiff. The Appellant/Plaintiff is seeking the interpretation of Section 68(1) (a) and (g) of the 1999 Constitution as amended and a declaration thereon that by virtue of the provision to the section he is entitled to remain the elected member for Akure North/South Federal Constituency inspite of his defection from the Labour Party that sponsored him. He also urges that the Respondents/ Defendants be restrained from tampering with his right to the Constituency seat. The 1st -3rd Respondents/Defendants made a counter-claimed that by virtue of the provision in section 68(1)of the 1999 Constitution, the Appellant/plaintiff who came from a division in the Ondo state chapter of the Labour Party before his defection automatically ceases to be the elected member of the constituency and that the Constituency seat be declared vacant. That the Independent National Electoral Commission should conduct a bye election, which was supported with an eleven paragraph counter-affidavit. Appellant’s/Plaintiff’s0 claim as contained in his originating summons and the 1st – 3rd respondents’ counter-claim were taken together. At the end of the trial the trial Judge dismissed Appellant/Plaintiff claim and granted 1- 3rd Respondents/Defendants counter-claim. Dissatisfied with the trial Court’s decision, the Appellant/plaintiff appealed to the Court of Appeal, Akure Division, Ondo State on (10) ten grounds of appeal. In a well-considered judgment the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved with the decision, the Appellant /Plaintiff appealed to the Supreme Court.

HELD

APPEAL AND CROSS APPEAL DISMISSED

ISSUES

“Whether the lower court’s interpretation and application of Sections 68(1) (a) (g) and 222(a) (e) and (f) of the Constitution of Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) is valid, when it affirmed the trial court’s decision, that a dispute at the state level does not warrant the Appellant’s defection and consequently arrived at the conclusion that the National leadership of a political party determine the existence or proof of division in a political party.”

RATIONES DECIDENDI

INTERPRETATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION, MUST BE CONSTRUED TOGETHER AS A WHOLE AND NOT IN PART

“The law is trite that in the interpretation of the provisions of the Constitution, the entire provision must be construed together as a whole and not in parts as stated by this Court in several cases including NAFIU RABIU VS THE STATE (1980)8-11 SC. 130.” PER MAHMUD MOHAMMED JSC

INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES – CANONS OF INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES

“The first canon of interpretation is referred to as the broad interpretation or liberal approach or the global view. See: Rabiu-v. The State (1980) 8-11 SC 130 at 151, 195. The second canon is that related sections of the Constitution ought to be interpreted together so as to produce a harmonious result. See: Senator Abraham Adesanya v. President of the Federal Republic & Am. (1981) 5 SC. 112 at 134, 321. Thirdly, where the words of any section are clear and unambiguous, they must be given their ordinary meaning, unless this would lead to absurdity or be in conflict with other provisions of the Constitution. This is often referred to as the Literal Rule of interpretation. See: I.M.B. v. Tinubu (2001) 1.6NWLR (Pt 740) 690”.PER FABIYI, JSC

DOCTRINE OF STARE DECISIS- CONCURRENT RESORT TO AND CORRECT APPLICATION OF THE PRINCIPLES MUST PERSIST

“By the doctrine of stare decisis or precedent, the two decisions of this Court in Fedeco V. Goni (supra) and AG of the Federation V. Abubakar (supra) on the same facts and legislation as those canvassed in the instant matter bind the lower court and this Court as well. The concurrent resort to and correct application of the principles enunciated in the two cases by the two courts must persist. I so hold. See Adetoun Oladeji (Nig) Ltd V. Nigeria Breweries Pic (2007) 1 SCNJ 375 and Cyril O. Osakue V. Federal College of Education (Technical) Asaba & 2 ors (2010) 2-3 SC (Pt III) 158. PER MUHAMMAD, JSC

INTERPRETATION OF THE CONSTITUTION – MUST BE READ TOGETHER AS A WHOLE IN ENSURING THE ENTHRONEMENT OF THE REAL INTENTION OF ITS FRAMERS.

“it is a trite principle of interpretation of the Constitution that its entire provisions be read together as a whole in ensuring the enthronement of the real intention of its framers. Isolated consideration of a particular section is disallowed. . The lower court must be commended for its consideration of several clauses of the same Constitution and coming out with the harmonious conclusion it has and by so doing enthroning the real intention of the framers of the Constitution. See Odubeko V. Fowler (1993) 9 SCNJ 185, Unilife Dev Co. Ltd V. K. Adeshigbin & ors (2007) 3 SCM 151 and Alegbe V. Oloyo (1983) NSCC 315. PER MUHAMMAD, JSC

DUTY OF THE COURT IS TO EXAMINE THE CONDUCT OF THE APPELLANT COMPLAINED OF – WHETHER THE PROVISION IN QUESTION HAS INDEED BEEN BREACHED OR OTHERWISE

“The duty of the two courts in that regard is to examine the conduct of the appellant complained of within the purview of the provision and determine whether the provision in question has indeed been breached or otherwise. Being a constitutional provision, the courts do not discharge their duty by limiting their scrutiny of the conduct of the appellant by reference only to the particular section of the Constitution. Effective exercise of their interpretative jurisdiction requires examining the Constitution as a whole. See The Governor of Kwara State & 2 ors V. Jerome Oladele Dada (2011) 6-7 SC (Pt 1) 41 and Bernard Amasike V. The Registrar General Corporate Affairs Commission & anor (2010) 5-7 SC (Pt 1).” PER MUHAMMAD, JSC

INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES – WHERE THE WORDS OF A STATUTE ARE PLAIN, CLEAR AND UNAMBIGUOUS, THE COURT SHALL GIVE EFFECT TO THEIR LITERAL MEANING.

“The general rule of interpretation of statutes has also been laid by this Court in several decisions and the rule is that where the words of a statute are plain, clear and unambiguous, the Court shall give effect to their literal meaning. It is only when the literal meaning may result in ambiguity or injustice that the Court may seek internal aid within the body of the statute itself or external aid from statutes in pari-materia in order to resolve the ambiguity or avoid doing injustice. See OGBUNYIYA VS OKUDO (1976)6-9 SC.32 AND OGUNMADE VSFADAYIRO (1972) 8-9 SC.l.” PER MAHMUD MOHAMMED JSC

INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES WHEN THE COURT IS FACED WITH THE STATUTORY PROVISION OF THE INTERPRETATION THE COURT SHALL GIVE EFFECT TO THEIR LITERAL MEANING.”

“The law is trite on the expectation of a judge when faced with the construction, interpretation and application of a statutory
Provision as succinctly spelt out in the case of Victor Adegoke Adewunmi & Anor. V. The Attorney-General of Ekiti State & 6
Ors. (2002) 1 SCNJ 27 at 49. Also the case of Mobil Oil (Nig) Ltd. V. Federal Board of Internal Revenue (1977) 3 SC 35 at 74
Therein it was held that:-
“Where the words of a statute are clear, the court shall give effect to their literal meaning.” PER OGUNBIYI JSC

PERVERSE DECISION- A DECISION OF A COURT IS PERVERSE WHEN IT IGNORES THE FACTS OR EVIDENCE BEFORE IT WHICH LAPSE WHEN CONSIDERED AS A WHOLE, CONSTITUTES A MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE

“In UBN Pic V. Chimaeze (2014) LPELR-SC 204/2006 this Court defined what a perverse decision is and how same is treated on appeal thus:- “. [A] decision of a court is perverse when it ignores the facts or evidence before it which lapse when considered as a whole constitutes a miscarriage of justice. In such a case an appellate court is bound to interfere with such a decision In the case at hand, therefore, the appellant succeeds only if it establishes that in its findings in respect of the special and general damages the lower court has ignored the evidence on record and/or wrongly applied a principle to the evidence. The appellant/cross respondent must establish, too, that the lapse has occasioned a miscarriage of justice.” See also AtolagbeV. Shorun (1985) LPELR-SC 14/1984.” PER MUHAMMAD, JSC

CASES CITED

STATUTES REFERRED TO

1999 Constitution (as amended).

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT