MASSKEN NIGERIA LIMITED & 2 ORS V. MR AMBILE AMAKA & ANOR
April 16, 2025PRINCE IDOWU KAYODE ADEBIYI vs. MRS. AGNES DASILVA & OTHERS
April 16, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (2017) Legalpedia (CA) 95110
In the Court of Appeal
HOLDEN AT ABUJA
Fri Apr 28, 2017
Suit Number: SC.993/2016
CORAM
PARTIES
HON. SUMBO OLUGBEMI
APPELLANTS
HON. OLUJIDE ADEWALE LAWRENCE & ORS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The complaint of the 1st Respondent (as Plaintiff) was that he contested the primaries and secured the highest number of votes cast in the primary election to represent Oluyole Federal Constituency of Oyo State in the February 2015 General Elections conducted by the 2nd Defendant and was declared the winner. Despite being declared the winner, the 2nd Defendant/Respondent submitted the name of the 1st Defendant/Appellant to the 4th Defendant/Respondent as the candidate of the Party to contest the election. Consequently, the 1st Respondent filed an action before the Federal High Court, wherein he sought two declaratory reliefs and five ancillary orders amongst which are; a declaration that the Plaintiff is the duly elected flag bearer of the 2nd Defendant for February 2015, general elections into the House of Representatives to represent Oluyole Federal Constituency Ibadan, Oyo State having polled the majority of lawful votes cast at the primary election conducted by the 2nd Defendant on the 7th day of December, 2014, and was so declared the winner; a declaration that the nomination of the 1st Defendant as the 2nd Defendants candidate or flag bearer for the February, 2015 general election for the seat of the member of House of Representatives to represent Oluyole Federal Constituency is ultra-vires, null and void. The Appellant herein filed an application to challenge the jurisdiction of the trial Court to entertain the claims of the 1st Respondent. The Federal High Court refused the motion to strike out the suit. The Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal, which dismissed the appeal as devoid of merit hence, a further appeal to this Court.
HELD
Appeal Dismissed
ISSUES
Whether the Court below was right in holding that the trial Court had jurisdiction to try the case inspite of the reliefs sought by the 1st respondent.
RATIONES DECIDENDI
PRE-ELECTION MATTER – COURTS WITH JURISDICTION TO DETERMINE PRE-ELECTION MATTERS
“I shall quote the relevant part of Section 251 of the Constitution which is thus: Section 251 (1)(s) “1. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Constitution and in addition to such other jurisdiction as may be conferred upon it by an Act of the National Assembly, the Federal High court shall have and exercise Jurisdiction to the exclusion of any other Court in civil cases and matters.”(Underlining mine).”(S) Such other jurisdiction civil or criminal and whether to the exclusion of any other Court or not as may be conferred upon it by an Act of the National Assembly.” (Underlining mine). Section 87 (9) of the Electoral Act, 2010 as amended states: – “Notwithstanding the provisions of the 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 has 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 or the High Court of a State or FCT, for redress.” In the case of Lokpobiri v Ogola & Ors (2015) 10-11 MJSC Pg. 74 at 93-94, paras G to G, this Court said:- “I want us to also note that both the opening of Section 251 (1) and Paragraph S of the subsection confer authority on the National Assembly, in addition to the general provision of legislative powers in Section 4 of the 1999 Constitution as amended to enact an Act conferring additional Jurisdiction on the Federal High Court either exclusive or concurrently with State and Federal Capital Territory High Courts. It is on the basis of the above constitutional provision particularly Sub-section (1) Paragraph (s) of Section 251 of the 1999 Constitution that the National Assembly enacted the Electoral Act, 2010, as amended and conferred concurrent Jurisdiction in pre-election matters on the Federal High Court and State and Federal Capital Territory High Courts in Section 31 (5) and (6) and 87 (9) therefore which provide, inter alia….Also to be referred is the case of Jev v Iyortom (2014) All FWLR (pt. 747) pg. 749 at 773 Paras F-A, where the Supreme Court held: “However, where the political party decides to conduct primary election to choose its flag bearer, any dissatisfied contestant at the primary is now empowered by Section 87 (9) of the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended) to ventilate his complaint before the Federal High Court or High Court of a State or of the Federal Capital Territory; Peoples Democratic Party v Timipre Sylva. The said Section 87 (9) is clear and unambiguous, the Courts are enjoined to give them their ordinary grammatical meaning: Egbe v. Yusuf (1992) 6 NWLR (Pt. 245) 1. By inserting this new provision into the Electoral Act, the legislation has made its intention very clear as to the reason, and purport, that a member of a political party who contested the primary election is entitled to challenge a breach of the party Constitution or Guidelines or Electoral Act, by filing an action at the Federal High Court or State High Court or the Federal Capital Territory High Court, simpliciter.”
JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL HIGH COURT – WHETHER THE CONCURRENT JURISDICTION CONFERRED ON THE FEDERAL HIGH COURT TO DETERMINE PRE AND POST ELECTION MATTERS IS WITHIN THE EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT UNDER SECTION 251 OF THE 1999 CONSTITUTION AS AMENDED
“Perhaps this Court had in a clairvoyant manner gone to great lengths in dealing with this attempt at creating boundaries of main and ancillary reliefs in relation to jurisdiction of Court in the case of Lokpobiri v Ogola (2016) 3 NWLR (pt. 1499) 328 at 366. The Court said: – “To me, it is erroneous to say that for the Federal High Court to entertain a pre-election matter, the main relief(s) must be shown to fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court because both jurisdictions are different. In a concurrent jurisdiction, if Court A has Jurisdiction to hear all the reliefs claimed, it necessarily follows that Court B must have the same jurisdiction otherwise it means giving something to someone with one hand and taking it away with the other hand. It is settled law that election and election related matters are sui generic (sic) and that the jurisdiction to hear and determine them is statutory just as the rights and obligations connected therewith or arising there from. It is in that respect that the principles of common law may not be appropriate in election and related matters. It is not in dispute that in civil actions, the jurisdiction of a Court to hear and determine the plaintiffs action depends on the claim(s) in the writ of summons and his pleadings. On the other hand, the jurisdiction of a Court to hear and determine an election or election related matter is statutory as provided in the statute establishing the cause of action and conferring Jurisdiction on the appropriate or particular Court(s) to hear and determine same. In terms of election or election related matters, the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court to hear and entertain such matter is rooted in the relevant provisions of the Electoral Act, 2010 as amended earlier reproduced in this judgment. In respect of matters relating to post election jurisdiction of the Court, see Section 251 (4) of the 1999 Constitution as amended also supra. If we insist on the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court on pre- election and/or post-election matters being exercisable only where the main claim(s) is/are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal High Court, it will result in injustice on the litigants, which is clearly not the intention of the legislature. It is therefore very clear that the concurrent jurisdiction conferred on the Federal High Court to hear and determine pre-election and even post-election matters is clearly outside the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court under Section 251 of the 1999 Constitution as amended but in addition to the said exclusive jurisdiction and consequently subject to different consideration. It is therefore my considered opinion when the Federal High Courts pre-election jurisdiction is invoked, the parties claims and relief(s) must be in conformity with the provisions of the Electoral Act, 2010, as amended, not under the provisions of Section 251 of the 1999 Constitution as amended. In fact, INEC may be a nominal party or be liable to an ancillary claim in a pre-election or post elections jurisdiction of the Federal High Court. The position I have taken on this issue is advised by the decision of this Court in Jev v Iyortom (2014) 14 NWLR (pt. 1428) 575 at 611-613; 626- 627; 630 and 631-632.”
JURISDICTION OF COURT – EFFECT OF REMOVING JURISDICTION ON SOME RELIEFS AND ENDOWING SAME FOR OTHER RELIEFS
“It follows therefore that once an aggrieved party comes within the ambit of Section 87 (9) of the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended), the issue of main relief as against an ancillary one does not come into play or arise. Removing jurisdiction for some of the reliefs and endowing for other reliefs to a Court will lead to confusion as one Court will be dealing with a particular relief while the other Court is sorting out the reliefs allotted to it in a severance method that beats the imagination. It would produce a never ending dispute since the facts in the two Courts are the same arising from the same base.”
JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL HIGH COURT IN ELECTION MATTERS -WHETHER THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OR ANY OF ITS AGENCIES MUST BE A PARTY IN SUIT BROUGHT PURSUANT TO SECTION 31 (5) AND 87 (9) OF THE ELECTORAL ACT BEFORE THE FEDERAL HIGH COURT CAN EXERCISE THE JURISDICTION CONFERRED ON IT
“Again I seek refuge in the case of this Court in Lokpobiri v. Ogola supra at at page 106 Paras A-D, The Supreme Court said:- “In Section 251 (1) and (s) of the Constitution (supra) read together with Section 31 (5) and Section 87 (9) of the Electoral Act (supra), it is specious and spurious to argue, as the respondent did, that the Federal High Court has no Jurisdiction, if the claim brought pursuant to Section 87 (9) of the Act (supra) does not involve the Federal Government or any of its agencies is a party the claim against it must be a principal relief and not a mere subsidiary thereof. This is a fallacy created by skewed construction of the provisions of the Constitution (supra) and the Electoral Act (supra) (Underlining mine). In my humble view, the Federal Government or any of its agencies does not have to be a party in suit brought pursuant to Section 31 (5) and 87 (9) of the Electoral Act (supra) before the Federal High Court can exercise the jurisdiction conferred on it. To hold the contrary view is to render inoperative and unnecessary the underlined portions of Section 251 (1) and (S) of the Constitution (supra). Clearly, appellant had cited Kakih v PDP (2014) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1430) 374 out of context for the facts therein are not on all fours with what we are here faced with.”
JURISDICTION OF A COURT – DETERMINATION OF THE JURISDICTION OF A COURT
“It is settled that jurisdiction of a Court is determined by the Plaintiffs claims rather than a Defendants Statement of Defence. In other words, it is the claim before the Court that is examined to see whether it comes within the jurisdiction conferred on it- see Ohakim v. Agbaso (2010) 19 NWLR (Pt. 1226) 172 SC and Elelu-Habeeb v. A.G. Fed. (20012) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1318) 423 SC.”
NOMINATION OF A CANDIDATE TO CONTEST AN ELECTION – WHETHER COURTS HAVE JURISDICTION TO DECIDE WHOM ANY POLITICAL PARTY SHOULD SPONSOR AS ITS CANDIDATE IN AN ELECTION
“The latest decision of this Court on the issue of the Federal High Court jurisdiction on pre-election matters are the ones delivered in the case of Lokpobiri v. Ogola & Ors (2015) 10-11 MJSC 74; Jev v. Iyortyom (2014) ALL FWLR. These decisions seem to have overruled some aspects of the decisions in PDP v. Sylva (2012) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1316) 85 and Kakih v. PDP (2014) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1430) 374 . Sections 87(4) of the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended) provide as follows:- “A political party that adopts the system of indirect primaries for the choice of its candidates shall adopt the procedure outlined below:- (a) In the case of nomination to the position of a candidate to the senate, House of Representative and State House of Assembly, a political party shall, where it intends to sponsor candidates: (i) Hold special congresses in the Senatorial District, Federal Constituency and the State Assembly Constituency, respectively, with delegates voting for each of the aspirant in designated centre on specified dates; and (ii) The aspirant with the highest number of votes at the end of voting shall be declared the winner of the primaries of the party and the aspirant’s name shall be forwarded to the commission as the candidate of the party.” The provision of Section 87 of the Electoral Act 2010 as reproduced hereinabove are very clear and holds no ambiguity that will require any interpretation. It is mandatory for political parties to forward only names of the candidates who win their primaries. This is clearly a provision of Electoral Act which is justiciable under Section 87(9) of the Electoral Act. In Uzodinma v lzunaso (No. 2) (2011) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1275) 30 at 60 Paragraph B.E, this Court, per Rhodes-Vivour. JSC said:- “The nomination of a candidate to contest an election is the sole responsibility of the political party concerned. The Courts do not have jurisdiction to decide who should be sponsored by any political party as its candidate in an election. But where the political party nominates a candidate for an election contrary to its own Constitution and guidelines a dissatisfied candidate has every right to approach the Court for redress. In such a situation, the Courts have jurisdiction to examine and interpret relevant legislations to see if the political party complied fully with the legislation on the issue of nomination. The Courts will never allow a political party to act arbitrarily or as it likes. Political party must obey their own Constitution and once this is done, there would be orderliness, and this would be good for politics and the country. The only instance where the name of a candidate other than the candidate that won the primary election will be forwarded to INEC, is where the candidate that won the election withdraws his candidature by notice in writing signed by him and delivered by himself to the political party that nominated him for the election, or where he dies before his name is submitted to INEC or after the name has been submitted and before the elections. See Section 35 and 36 of the Electoral Act 2010. These substitutions must follow due process.”
CASES CITED
Not Available
STATUTES REFERRED TO
Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria
Electoral Act 2010 (as amended)
