CORAM

PARTIES

HON.OFFOR CHUKWUEGBO APPELLANTS

1. MR OJI CHIME AGU2. RETURNING OFFICER, ENUGU NORTH/ENUGU SOUTH FEDERAL CONSTITUENCY (INEC)3. INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION (INEC)4. PEOPLES DEMOCRATIC PARTY (PDP) RESPONDENTS

AREA(S) OF LAW

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Appellant and 1st Respondent were members of the 4th Respondent (i.e People’s Democratic Party)(PDP). Both aspired to be nominated and selected as its candidate for the general elections to the seat of member of House of Representatives representing Enugu North/Enugu South Federal Constituency. Following the 4th Respondent’s primaries to select its said candidate, the 4th Respondent submitted the name of 1st Respondent to the 3rd Respondent as its candidate for said election. The Appellant consequently left the 4th Respondent and enlisted as a member of All Progressives Grand Alliance (APGA) following his protest against the submission of the name of the 1st Respondent by the 4th Respondent. His name was submitted by the All Progressives Grand Alliance (APGA) to the 3rd Respondent as its candidate for the same election and the 3rd Respondent published the list of candidates of each political party for the said election. The name of the Appellant was published as the APGA candidate, while that of the 1st Respondent was published as candidate of the 4th Respondent. At the conclusion of the election, the 1st Respondent secured an overwhelming majority of the lawful votes cast in the election and was declared winner of the election and returned elected by the 2nd Respondent. Dissatisfied, the Appellant presented a petition at the trial Tribunal, challenging the said election of the 1st Respondent that same was an undue election because the 1st Respondent was not qualified to contest the said election, that he did not participate on all stages of the election and that the election was invalid as a result of non compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act 2010(as amended). The 4th Respondent filed a memorandum of conditional appearance to the petition. The 2nd and 3rd Respondents filed the necessary court processes in response to the petition. The 1st Respondent by a motion prayed the Tribunal to strike out/dismiss the petition for being incompetent on the grounds that the Petitioner has no competence, capacity or authority to complain or institute an action on the outcome of the election with regards to the conduct of primaries of a party of which he is not a member; and that the petition bordered on pre-election matter which the Tribunal is not seized of the requisite jurisdiction to adjudicate upon. The petitioner filed a counter affidavit together with other supporting documents in opposition to the motion. The 2nd and 3rd Respondents supported the application of the 1st Respondent to strike out/dismiss the petition. The Tribunal in its ruling upheld the preliminary objection, and dismissed the petition. Dissatisfied with the ruling of the trial Tribunal, the petitioner has appealed to the Court of Appeal.

HELD

Appeal Dismissed

ISSUES

?    Whether the learned Tribunal was right in finding as it did that it lacks jurisdiction to hear the petition for raising pre-election issues of candidature, sponsorship and qualification of the 1st respondent to contest in the election” (Grounds 1 and 3).?    Whether the learned Trial Tribunal was right in going into the merits of the case at the interlocutory stage of proceedings after already finding that it lacks jurisdiction to hear the petition, and in dismissing the petition” (Grounds 2 and 4).

RATIONES DECIDENDI

CASES CITED

STATUTES REFERRED TO

Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999Election Tribunal and Court Practice Directions, 2011Electoral Act, 2010

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT