CORAM

---

IRIKEFE

BELLO

ESO

 UWAIS

ANIAGOLU

OBASEKI

U. MOHAMMED, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT

---

PARTIES

---

HON. PATRICK C. ONUOHA APPELLANTS

---

RESPONDENTS

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Plaintiff/Appellant won the primary election for the Owerri Senatorial seat which was conducted by the state chapter of the Nigerian Peoples’ Party (2nd Respondent) but due to the fact that the 3rd Defendant/Respondent challenged the selection of the Plaintiff/Appellant; the State Working Committee of the 2nd Respondent appointed a panel who looked into the 3rd Defendant/Appellant’s complaint, nullified the selection of the Plaintiff/Appellant and declared the 3rd Defendant/Appellant as the winner of the said election. Piqued by the above development, the Plaintiff/Appellant instituted an action against the Defendants/Respondents jointly and severally at the High Court of Justice of Imo State seeking a declaration that the nullification of the primary election by the State Working Committee of the 2nd Defendant/Respondent was null and void. The Plaintiff/Appellant further sought for an order of injunction restraining the 1st and 2nd Defendants/Respondents from submitting the name of Hon. Isidore Obasi, the 3rd Defendant/Respondent or any name other than the name of the Plaintiff/Appellant to the Federal Electoral Commission as the 2nd Defendant/Respondent’s candidate for Owerri Senatorial District seat in the 1983 general elections. The Defendants/Respondents filed a counter-claim to the Plaintiff/Appellant’s suit but withdrew same with the leave of the Court. The trial Court entered judgment in favour of the Plaintiff/Appellant. Dissatisfied with the decision of the trial Court, the Defendants/Respondents appealed to the Court of Appeal where the judgment of the trial Court was set aside. Aggrieved by the decision of the Court of Appeal, the Plaintiff/Appellant appealed to the Supreme Court.

---

HELD

---

Appeal dismissed

---

ISSUES

---

Whether the court ought to make an order directing the N.P.P. to sponsor the appellant as against the 3rd respondent?

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

JUSTICIABLE CLAIM – DUTY OF A COURT IN DETERMINING WHETHER A CLAIM IS JUSTICIABLE

---

“In deciding whether a claim is justiciable, a court must determine whether the duty asserted can be judicially identified and its breach judicially determined and whether protection for the right asserted can be judicially moulded. Powell v. McCormack 395 US 486, 89 Set. 1944 L Ed 2nd 491)”. PER OBASEKI, J.S.C

---

POLITICAL PARTY – ROLES OF POLITICAL PARTIES – SECTION 201 OF THE 1979 CONSTITUTION

---

“It is indisputable that in the context of the Nigerian situation and having regard to section 201 of the 1979 Constitution, political parties have vital roles to play in the realisation of the ambition of every Nigerian citizen to an elective office under the Constitution. The said section 201 of the 1979 Constitution reads:
“No association other than a political party shall canvass for votes for any candidate, at any election or contribute to the funds of any political party or to the election expenses of any candidate.” See also section 75(1) of the Electoral Act 1982 which is in parimateria.”PER OBASEKI, J.S.C

---

SPONSORSHIP OF CANDIDATE OF A POLITICAL PARTY – WHETHER THE JUDICIARY CAN EXERCISE ITS JUDICIAL POWER IN DETERMINING THE CANDIDATE OF A POLITICAL PARTY

---

“There are no judicial criteria or yardstick to determine which candidate a political party ought to choose and the judiciary is therefore unable to exercise any judicial power in the matter. It is a matter over which it has no jurisdiction. The question of the candidate a political party will sponsor is more in the nature of a political question which the courts are not qualified to deliberate upon and answer. The judiciary has been relieved of the task of answering the question by the Electoral Act when it gave the power to the leader of the political party to answer the question.”PER OBASEKI, J.S.C

---

JURISDICTION OF THE STATE HIGH COURT – A STATE HIGH COURT HAS UNLIMITED JURISDICTION TO HEAR AND DETERMINE ANY CIVIL PROCEEDINGS SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THIS CONSTITUTION OR ANY OTHER LAW

---

“The jurisdiction of the State High Court in the exercise of its judicial powers in civil matters conferred by section 236(1) of the said 1979 Constitution is expansive and more particularly reads:
“Subject to the provisions of this Constitution and in addition to such other jurisdiction as may be conferred upon it by law the High Court of a State shall have unlimited jurisdiction to hear and determine any civil proceedings in which the existence or extent of a legal right, power, duty liability, privilege, interest, obligation or claim is in issue.”PER OBASEKI, J.S.C

---

POLITICAL PARTY – A POLITICAL PARTY OPERATES WITHIN ITS GUIDELINES, POWERS AND DUTIES AS PROVIDED IN THE CONSTITUTION

---

“The party, like any other corporation, operates within the guidelines, the powers and duties set out in its constitution. All its members are bound by its provisions and their rights and obligations created by their constitution can be remedied as provided by the constitution if breached by any of its members.”PER OBASEKI, J.S.C

---

DECLARATORY JUDGMENT – DUTY OF THE HIGH COURT IN EXERCISING ITS DISCRETIONARY POWERS IN DELIVERING A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT

---

“The undoubted power of the High Court to deliver a declaratory judgment is discretionary and must be exercised with care, caution, and judicially: Ewerami v. A.C.B. Ltd. (1978) 4 S.C. 99, Hanson v. Ratcliffe U.D.C. (1922) Ch. 49,Francis v. Municipal Councillors of Kuala Lumpur (1962) 3 All E.R. 633.”PER ANIAGOLU, J.S.C.

---

JUSTICIABLE DISPUTES – MEANING OF JUSTICIABLE DISPUTES

---

“Justiciable disputes are cases and controversies which limit the business of the courts to questions presented in an advisory context and in a form historically viewed as capable of resolution through judicial process and in part those words define the role assigned to the judiciary in a tripartite allocation of power to assure the courts will not intrude into the areas committed to the other branches of government. See section 6(6)(B) Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1979”. PER OBASEKI, J.S.C

---

CANDIDATE OF A POLITICAL PARTY – DETERMINATION OF CANDIDATE OF A POLITICAL PARTY IS NOT JUSTICIABLE IN A COURT OF LAW

---

“The issue of who should be a candidate of a given political party at any election is clearly a political one, to be determined by the rules and constitution of the said party. It is thus a domestic issue and not such as would be justiciable in a court of law”. PER IRIKEFE, J.S.C.

---

SPONSORSHIP OF CANDIDATES IN ELECTION – APPROPRIATE BODY TO RESOLVE DISPUTE BETWEEN TWO PERSONS CLAIMING SPONSORSHIP IN AN ELECTION

---

“The law is therefore certain as to who is to resolve the dispute where two candidates claim sponsorship. It is the Federal Electoral Commission by consulting the leader of the political party concerned. In other words, the Federal Electoral Commission is required to act on the advice of the leader of the political party concerned. The real power to make a choice is, in my view, in the political party through its leader.”PER OBASEKI, J.S.C

---

JUSTICIABILITY – MEANING OF JUSTICIABILITY

---

“Justiciability is a term of art employed to give expression to the dual limitation placed upon the courts by the case and controversy doctrine. (See Flast v. Cohen 392 US 83, 88 Set. 194220 L Ed 2nd 947).”PER OBASEKI, J.S.C

---

CASES CITED

---

Electoral Act 1982Supreme Court Rules

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

Chancery procedure Act 1852Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1979

---

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT