CORAM

---

RAPHAEL CHIKWE AGBO

OYEBISI FOLAYEMI OMOLEYE

BALKISU BELLO ALIYU

---

PARTIES

---

HON INIBEHE OKORI

APPELLANTS 

---

PEOPLES DEMOCRATIC PARTY (PDP)

RESPONDENTS 

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

APPEALS, CIVIL PROCEDURAL LAW, JUDGMENT, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

 

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

This appeal is against the judgment of the Federal High Court, sitting at Uyo, Akwa Ibom State (trial Court). The Appellant as the Plaintiff instituted an action and stated that he is a card-carrying member of the PDP and an aspirant for the Party’s senatorial election of Akwa Ibom North-West Senatorial District, having bought expression of interest and nomination forms. The 3rd Respondent is also a member of the 1st Respondent and an aspirant for the said senatorial primary election. He stated that as at the time of the 1st Respondent (PDP) scheduled its primary election for the said senatorial district, it was aware of the pending suit at the Federal High Court and the Court’s order directing parties to maintain status quo pending the determination of the suit. The 1st Respondent went ahead to conduct the primary election which the Appellant and other aspirants boycotted. The Appellant further stated that the delegates who voted in the 1st Respondent’s purported primary election are not approved for nominating candidates for general election. Hence his reason for instituting an action at the trial Court. The trial court dismissed the Appellant’s suit, consequently he felt aggrieved with the judgment of the trial court and has lodged an appeal at this instant court.

 

 

---

HELD

---

Appeal dismissed; judgment of the trial court affirmed.

 

---

ISSUES

---

Whether the lower court was right in law when it held that the Appellant doesn’t have locus standi to bring this suit having not participated in the 1st Respondent’s primary election?

Considering the provisions of Order 48(1)(b) of the Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2019, whether the trial Court was right when it held that the Appellant filed this suit out of time in contravention of the provisions of Section 285(9) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999?

Whether the lower court was right when it held that the Appellant’s suit at the trial Court is premature having failed to exhaust the internal dispute mechanism before instituting the suit at the trial Court?

Considering Section 15 of the Court of Appeal Act 2004, whether the Appellant has met all the conditions required in order to invite this Honorable Court to determine eh claims in eh substantive suit at the court below?

 

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

LOCUS STANDI – MEANING OF LOCUS STANDI

---

 ‘Locus standi’ is a Latin word which means “a place of standing” according to the Black’s Law Dictionary, Ninth Edition page 1026, and it defines the term as; “The right to bring an action or to be heard in a given forum.”. Per – BALKISU BELLO ALIYU JCA

 

---

PRE- ELECTION MATTERS – NATURE OF PRE- ELECTION MATTERS

---

The suit that gave rise to this appeal is a pre-election suit in which the Appellant questioned the validity of his political party’s primary election. Pre-election suits have been held to be suis generis, not subject to the rules of regular civil proceeding and must be treated differently according to the laws governing them. This is why the legal concept of locus standi is not left at large and tied to interest of a person approaching the court in a suit or where such a litigant “has an interest to protect” as in regular civil claims. In election matter and in particular, pre-election causes relating to political party’s primary elections, the entire members of the political party and even the electorates have very substantial interest in the outcome of a party’s selection of candidate processes. Per – BALKISU BELLO ALIYU JCA

 

---

PRE – ELECTION MATTERS – THE RIGHT TO INSTITUTE AN ACTION IN ELECTION MATTERS

---

It is Section 84(14) of the Electoral Act, 2022 donates the right of action regarding primary elections of political parties and it provides:

Notwithstanding the provisions of this Act or rules of a Political Party, an aspirant who complains that any of the provisions of this Act and the guidelines of a political party have not been complied with in the selection or nomination of a candidate of a political party for election, may apply to the Federal High Court for redress. Per – BALKISU BELLO ALIYU JCA 

 

 

---

ELECTION MATTERS – WHO IS AN ASPIRANT CONFERRED WITH THE LOCUS TO INSTITUTE AN ACTION?

---

For instance, in the case of WAZIRI VS. PDP & ANOR. (2022) LPERL-59174 (SC), the Apex Court, per KEKERE-EKUN, JSC at pages 30-36 of the judgment relied on several of the Court’s earlier decisions and held thus:

…who is an aspirant conferred with the requisite locus to institute an action under Section 84(14) of the 2022 Act? As the provisions of the old and new law are the same, the already settled definition of the word “aspirant” as held by this Court in several cases, would still apply. See Shinkafi Vs Yari (2016) 7 NWLR (Pt, 1511) 340 @ 375 – 376 F – A, where His Lordship, Okoro, JSC stated thus, as regards Section 87(9) of the Electoral Act 2010, as amended:

“The above position which is clear and unambiguous gives only one person the locus standi to challenge the nomination of a person for an election during a primary election. Only an aspirant at the primary election is permitted by Section 87(9) of the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended) to challenge the selection or nomination of a person for an elective office. Apart from an aspirant who took part in the primary election, no other person is authorised to file an action to challenge the selection or nomination of a candidate of a political party for an election.”

Thus, the extant position of the law is that it is only an aspirant who participated in the primary election of his party that is clothed with the locus standi to complain about the outcome of the said primary election….   Per – BALKISU BELLO ALIYU JCA

 

 

---

ELECTION MATTERS – PURCHASE OF EXPRESSION OF INTEREST FORM DOES NOT MAKE ONE AN ASPIRANT

---

 He also argued before us in his brief along this line and added that having purchased the expression of interest form and he was cleared to participate in the primary election, he has become an ‘aspirant’ within the contemplation of Section 84(14) and as defined by Section 29(5) of the Electoral Act.

It is exactly for the type of reasoning of litigants like the appellant proffered in this appeal that the legislature captured the judicial interpretation of an ‘aspirant’ in drafting Section 29(5) of the Electoral Act. The section commenced with the qualifying phrase “An aspirant who participated in the primaries of his political party…” to cure the mischief that all persons interested in the outcome of the primaries election of their political parties, including senior citizens like the Appellant said he is, from rushing to court to institute actions in relation to the primaries of their political parties. In fact, if it is a matter of interest, the electorates made up of all the citizens of this Country will have the right to institute actions against the political parties’ primary elections or other activities. There will be litigation anarchy. Per – BALKISU BELLO ALIYU JCA

 

 

---

PRE-ELECTION MATTERS – ONLY MEMBERS OF A POLITICAL PARTY WHO PARTICIPATED IN THE PRIMARY ELECTION HAVE LOCUS STANDI

---

In this case, based on the evidence on record and the case law which firmly established the law that only members of a political party who actually participated in the primary election have the locus standi to institute an action challenging such primaries, the finding of the trial Court is unassailable. Per – BALKISU BELLO ALIYU JCA

 

---

FINDINGS OF COURT – THERE MUST BE A VALID REASON BEFORE AN APPELLATE COURT CAN INTERFERE WITH THE FINDINGS OF A TRIAL COURT

---

The Appellant has not placed before us any valid reason to interfere with the finding of the trial Court. Therefore, the answer to issue one is in the affirmative and it is resolved against the Appellant. Per – BALKISU BELLO ALIYU JCA

 

---

ISSUES OF DETERMINATION – WHERE AN ISSUE IS RESOLVED TO SHOW THAT THE APPELLANT LACKS LOCUS STANDI, EVERY OTHER ISSUE BECOMES ACADEMIC

---

Having resolved issue one in the affirmative to the effect that the Appellant lacked the locus standi to institute the suit that resulted in this appeal, determination of issue 2, on whether the suit was statute barred, issue 3 on whether the Appellant exhausted the internal mechanisms of the PDP before filing the suit and issue 4 in which the Appellant prayed this Court to determine the suit on its merit vide Section 15 of the Court of Appeal Act have all become academic. No utilitarian purpose will be served in this appeal by determining them. Per – BALKISU BELLO ALIYU JCA

 

---

JUDGMENT OF THE TRIAL COURT – EFFECT OF A FAILED AND DISMISSED APPEAL ON THE JUDGMENT/DECISION OF THE TRIAL COURT

---

In the final analysis, this appeal fails and it is dismissed by me. The Judgment of the Federal High Court, sitting at Uyo, Akwa Ibom State, delivered on the 30th November, 2022 in suit NO: FHC/UY/CS/134/2022 is hereby affirmed. Parties shall bear their respective costs. Per – BALKISU BELLO ALIYU JCA

 

---

CASES CITED

---

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

1. Court of Appeal Act 

2. Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2019

3. Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) 

4. Electoral Act 2022

 

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT