CORAM

---

---

PARTIES

---

HON. MUSA MOHAMMED PALI APPELLANTS

---

HON. DR. MOHAMMED SANI ABDUALL PROGRESSIVES CONGRESS (APC)INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION (INEC) RESPONDENTS

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

APPEAL, COURT, ELECTORAL LAW, EQUITY, LAW OF EVIDENCE, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
SUMMARY OF FACT:
The Plaintiff/Appellant brought an action against the Respondents, by way of Originating Summons, claiming that he won the primary election of the APC conducted at Alkaleri, the headquarters of the said Alkaleri/Kirfi Federal Constituency of Bauchi State, with the majority of lawful votes; that he was issued the Statement of Result, duly signed by the Chairman and Secretary of the 2nd Respondent, APC’s, primary Election Committee. The Appellant further claimed that the 2nd Respondent, APC ignored his victory, and instead submitted to the Independent National Electoral Commission; (INEC), (the 3rd Respondent herein) the name of the 1st Respondent as its candidate for the general election. In their defence, the Defendants/Respondents denied the assertions and alleged that the Appellant before the actual voting at the primary election, had in his possession unlawfully sensitive electoral materials; and that he had violently disrupted the gathering of the delegates for the primary election. That subsequent to the disruptive conduct of the Appellant and declaration of itself as winner, the 2nd Respondent conducted another election with heavy security where the 1st Respondent emerged the winner. At the end of trial, the trial court dismissed the suit for failure to prove its case on the preponderance of evidence. Dissatisfied, the Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal, wherein the trial court’s decision was upheld. Further dissatisfied with the lower court’s decision, the Appellant has filed an appeal before this court.

---

HELD

---

Appeal Dismissed

---

ISSUES

---

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

EQUITABLE MAXIM- HE WHO COMES TO EQUITY MUST COME WITH CLEAN HANDS

---

“In the Court of Justice, equity acting in personam will not allow a party coming to Court to seek justice for himself to come with dirty hands.”

---

UNDISPUTED FACTS- STATUS OF UNDISPUTED FACTS

---

“The law is settled that facts not disputed or challenged are deemed to have been admitted and are, therefore taken as established: Timitimi v. Amabebe (1953) 14 WACA 3784, Odulaja v. Haddad (1973) 11 SC 35; Ogolo v. Fubara (2003) 11NWLR (Pt. 831).”

---

GROUNDS OF FACTS OR MIXED LAW AND FACT- WHETHER APPEALS ON GROUNDS OF FACTS OR MIXED LAW AND FACT CAN LIE AS OF RIGHT TO THE APPELLATE COURT

---

“This appeal argued substantially on facts, appears to me to have been in the insubordination to the injunction in Section 233 (3) of the Constitution, as amended: that appeals on facts, or mixed law and facts shall not lie as of right to this Court from the Court of Appeal.”

---

NOMINATION AND SPONSORSHIP OF A CANDIDATE FOR ELECTION- WHETHER ISSUES OF NOMINATION AND SPONSORSHIP OF A CANDIDATE FOR ELECTION IS JUSTICIABLE

---

“The question therefore raised in answer in the determination of this appeal has in a long line of cases been well settled and the fundamental angle is that the nomination and sponsorship of a candidate for election into a political office is within the realm of a domestic affair of a political party over which the court has no jurisdiction.”

---

NOMINATION OF CANDIDATE FOR ELECTION – CONDITIONS TO BE FULFILED BEFORE A PARTY CAN INVOKE THE PROVISION OF SECTION 87 (9) OF THE ELECTORAL ACT 2010 (AS AMENDED)

---

“It is with that in view that there is a reiteration that Section 87 (9) of the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended) which provides for the selection or nomination of a candidate by a political party has to be properly invoked for it to be of use to the litigant seeking its relieving features in the ventilation of his grievance over the nomination or selection by the relevant political party for which the person seeking redress can hang onto. This is because that statutory provision has some conditions which must be complied with before a valid invocation can be made. See Agi v PDP (2017) 17 NWLR (Pt.1595) 386. I shall for clarity quote the said Electoral Act, Section 87 (9) thereof thus:-
(a) That there must first have been a primary for the selection or nomination of a candidate by a political party;
(b)The exercise for the primary must have been in respect of an election;
(c)The complainant must be an aspirant who ought to have taken part in his political party’s primaries and it must be shown that the political party designate did not comply with a provision of the Electoral Act or its political guidelines for selection done.” –

---

NOMINATION OF CANDIDATES FOR ELECTION- WHETHER COURTS HAVE JURISDICTION TO DETERMINE ISSUES OF NOMINATION OF CANDIDATES FOR ELECTION

---

“In fact the localisation of the nomination and sponsorship of a candidate by his political party within the confines of that party and not outside it and clearly outside the grasp of the courts has been given judicial acknowledgement since the jurisdiction of the court does not exist in respect of such matters or disputes arising therefrom challenging the authority of the political party. The situation is so clear that I shall cite a few authorities to showcase the position of things. See Shinkafi v Yari (2016) 7 NWLR (Pt.1511) 340 at 373 paras E-F wherein the Supreme Court held as follows:-
“A community reading of Sections 85 and 87 of the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended) clearly show that they regulate the nomination of candidates for election through the internal mechanism of each political party, in other words, issue of nomination and sponsorship of candidates by political parties for election fall within the internal affairs of political parties and are therefore not justiceable…”
While per Onnoghen JSC (as he then was) stated as follows in Shinkafi v Yari (supra):
It is settled law that the issue of nomination of a candidate by a political party for any election is within the exclusive preserve of the political parties and that the courts have no jurisdiction to interfere therein as decided in a number of cases including Onuoha v Okafor & Ors (1983) NSCC 494; Dalhatu v Turaki (2003) 15 NWLR (Pt.843) 310″.

---

COURT- WHETHER A PARTY CAN BE ALLOWED TO REAP THE BENEFIT OF HIS WRONG

---

“What the appellant contends is that by the result of 7th December, 2014 the National Executive of his party, the 2nd respondent found him to have committed an unlawful act by being in possession of election materials before the election and that notwithstanding he was the valid candidate that should be submitted by the 2nd respondent as he by that unlawful act had won the primary election. That posture is indeed unsustainable since a man will not be allowed by the court to take benefit from an act or omission of his own making as he cannot take advantage or reap a benefit from his own wrongs. See Abgareh v Mimrah (2008) 2 NWLR (Pt.1071) 378 at 424.”

---

CASES CITED

---

None

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

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

2. Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended)

3. Evidence Act, 2011

 

---

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT

---