AREAS OF LAW- CUSTOMARY TENANCY; GROUND OF APPEAL; REVERSAL OF JUDGMENT; EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE

The Appellants as Plaintiffs at the High Court sued the Respondent/Defendant through an amended statement of claim seeking for the following relief, a declaration of title to land, damages and an injunction restraining the Respondent/ Defendant from trespass to the said land. The Respondent/ Defendant also filed a counter claim for a declaration of title, damages, perpetual injunction in respect of the disputed land which the Appellants/ Plaintiffs laid claim on. At the hearing, witnesses testified with documents and exhibits tendered in Court. At the end of the trial, the High Court judge dismissed the suit brought by the Appellants /Plaintiffs.  Not satisfied, the Appellants/ Plaintiffs appealed to the Court of Appeal which affirmed the decision of the High Court. Further dissatisfied, the Appellants /Plaintiffs further appealed to the Supreme Court.

Appeal Dismissed

Whether the Justices of the Court of Appeal were not wrong or committed misdirection of law when they confirmed the granting of the Respondent’s counter-claim based on two contradictory roots of his title to the land in dispute

Whether the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal were not wrong in confirming the judgment of the trial court based on acts of possession as opposed to the unproved root of title as pleaded.

Whether the Justices of Appeal (sic) were not wrong in their holding that although the learned trial judge directed the visitation to the locus-in-quo, the failure to eventually visit the locus in quo before judgment did not occasion miscarriage of justice

“It is settled principle of Law that a ground of appeal must arise, flow from or relate to the judgment of the court appealed from. Any complaint that does not flow from the decision appealed against cannot legitimately be entertained by this Court.” PER MUHAMMAD JSC.

“It is a trite principle that it is not every error of law that is committed by a trial or appellate court that justifies the reversal of the particular court’s judgment on appeal. For an appellant to secure the reversal of the judgment he appeals against, beyond establishing the error he hinges his complaint upon, he must go the extra mile of establishing that the error complained of andestablished has substantially affected the result of the decision and/or occasioned miscarriage of Justice. Thus where inspite of the error made out by the appellant the decision appealed against would not be any different the appeal would fail. In such an instance the judgment appealed against would not be disturbed.” PER  MUHAMMAD JSC.

 “Evaluation of relevant and material evidence and the ascription of probative value to such evidence are the primary functions of the trial court which saw, heard and assessed the witnesses as they testified. Where the trial court unquestionably evaluates the evidence and justifiably appraises the facts, as it has been manifestly shown to have been done in the instant case, it is not the business of the lower court, an appellate court, to substitute its own views for the views of the trial court. The application of this trite principle by the lower court cannot, certainly, be a basis for the reversal of the court’s decision.” PER  DATTIJO MUHAMMAD JSC.

“It is not the practice of this court to disturb the concurrent findings of fact by the two lower courts. This is because it is presumed that the conclusions reached by the trial court, which had the unique opportunity of seeing and hearing the witnesses testify on issues of fact, are presumed to be correct.

AREAS OF LAW – PRE-ELECTION MATTER; INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES; JUDICIAL PRECEDENT

The Appellant herein indicated interest in the gubernatorial primary election in Adamawa State which was held on 21st October, 2011. Although he purchased, completed and submitted the Expression of interest form, he however did not take part in the primary election. After the primary, which the 1st Respondent won, the Appellant (as Plaintiff) filed a suit at the Federal High Court challenging the outcome of the exercise as invalid and void. The 1st Respondent filed a preliminary objection challenging the locus of the Appellant and the jurisdiction of the trial court that the suit is incompetent. The learned trial judge, after hearing argument on the issue, held that the Appellant was not an aspirant at the primary election and that the court lacked the jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Not satisfied with the judgment of the learned trial judge, the Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal agreed with the trial court that the Appellant was not an aspirant and affirmed the decision of the learned trial judge. The Appellant has again appealed to this court.

Appeal dismissed.

Whether having regard to the definition of who is an “Aspirant” in Section 156 of the Electoral Act (as amended) the decision of the Supreme Court in:

(a)  Lado VS. CPC (2012) ALL FWLR at page 263 pars G – H to 624 para. A.

(b)   Uzodinma Vs. Izunaso (No. 2) (2011) 17 NWLR (pt 1275) 30 at 59 paragraphs H to page 60 paragraph A – E.

© Ikechi Eminike V. Peoples Democratic Party & Ors (2012) 12 NWLR (pt. 1315) page 556.

(d)   Peoples Democratic Party V. Timipre Sylva & 2 Ors/Timipre Sylva V. PDP & 2 Ors (2012) 13 NWLR (pt. 1316) 85 at 126 paras. A – B and 147.

(e)   Emeka V. Okadigbo & 4 Ors (2012) 18 NWLR (pt. 1331)55 at 83.

Is ( sic)  not contrary to statutory definition of the word which has occasioned hardship and miscarriage of justice against the Appellant as a person aspiring or striving or seeking to contest election to hold political office and so should be revisited or reversed?

Whether having regard to Section 87 (9) of the Electoral Act, the learned Justices of the Lower Courts were not in error when they held that complaints arising from the selection of Ward Delegates or any of the complaints which formed the basis of the Appellant’s claim at the trial court are not justiciable?

“The courts have consistently declined to entertain jurisdiction in inter party disputes concerning the candidate a political party chooses to sponsor for an election. The courts cannot therefore compel a political party to sponsor one candidate in preference for another candidate of the self – same party. The reason being, that no court can manage the political party for the members thereof.” PER AKA’AHS, JSC

“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 AKA’AHS, JSC

“The power donated to the National Assembly in Section 228 (a) of the Constitution is to make laws which provides guidelines and rules to ensure internal democracy within political parties and this includes making laws for the conduct of party primaries, party congresses and party conventions.

The power to nominate candidates for election still resides with the political parties but the procedure for the nomination is not left to the whims and caprices of party officials. The parties must hold either direct or indirect primaries for the aspirants to all elective positions.” PER AKA’AHS, JSC

POLITICAL PARTY- REQUIREMENT OF LENGTH OF NOTICE GIVEN BY A POLITICAL PARTY TO THE INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION

 “Furthermore a registered political party is required to give the Independent National Electoral Commission at least 21 days notice of any convention, congress, conference or meeting convened for the purpose of electing members of its executive committees, other governing bodies or nominating candidates for any of the elective offices specified under the Electoral Act and the commission may, with or without prior notice to the political party, monitor and attend any convention, congress, conference or meeting which is convened by a political party for the purpose of-

(a)  electing members of its executive committees or other governing bodies;

(b)  nominating candidates for an election at any level; and approving a merger with any other registered political party.” PER K.B. AKA’AHS, JSC

 “An aspirant is not a person who merely declared an intention to participate in the primary election but somebody who fully participated in the said party primary.” PER OKORO, JSC

 “By the doctrine of judicial precedents and stare decisis, whenever the Apex court has taken a position on an issue, all lower courts are bound to follow that decision. The only window open to lower courts or parties and their counsel is to distinguish the facts of their case from the one already decided. But where the facts are similar, no party is allowed to refuse to follow a decided case merely because it is not in his favour.” PER OKORO, JSC

“For a person to have locus to sue in a court of law to challenge the nomination of a candidate of a political party, the party must have conducted a primary election in the first place and the complainant must have participated in the nomination exercise and lost. It is only then that he can have the locus to challenge the result of the primary election. It is also then that the court by Section 87 (9) of the Electoral Act can have jurisdiction to entertain the matter.” PER OKORO, JSC

“Where a party did not conduct a primary election in its nomination process, no court will have jurisdiction to entertain a complain on nomination of candidate.” PER OKORO, JSC

“The principle of judicial precedent or stare decisis is designed to ensure orderliness, certainty and discipline in the judicial process. The principle holds inferior courts to the Supreme Court of Nigeria bound by the previous decision(s) of the court on similar facts inthe consideration and determination of matters before them. Where the lower courts are encouraged not to follow the previous decision(s) of this court on similar facts such an encouragement is designed to promote anarchy, chaos and Judicial rascality, which is not the design or purpose of the principles of the Rules of Law.” PER ONNOGHEN, JSC

“It is settled that the way opened to the courts to avoid the doctrine/principle of judicial precedent/stare decisis is by distinguishing the previous decision(s) from the facts and/or circumstances of the case under consideration.” PER ONNOGHEN, JSC

“The procedure for inviting this Court to review/revisit, for the purpose of setting same aside, its previous decision(s) have been clearly stated in Order 6 Rule 5(4) of the Supreme Court Rules, as amended as follows:- “(4) if the parties intend to invite the Court to depart from one of its own decisions, this shall be clearly stated in a separate paragraph of the brief, to which special attention shall also be restated as one of the reasons.” PER ONNOGHEN, JSC

“It is settled law that in interpretation of statutes, the words used, in as much as they are clear and unambiguous, must be given their ordinary meaning, unless this would lead to absurdity or be in conflict with other provisions of the statute.” PER ONNOGHEN, JSC

“Also settled is the principle that where a word has been defined in a statute, the meaning given to it in the definition must be adhered to in the construction of the provisions of the statute unless the contrary intention appears from the particular section or the meaning is repugnant in the context in which the definition is used.” PER ONNOGHEN, JSC

“It is the law that in considering situations where general and special provisions are seen to apply to a subject matter, the law takes the course which does not permit a general provision to derogate from a special provision, It follows that where a subject matter is covered by both general and special provisions, the special provision apply to it in such a way that one general provision does not derogate from its effect. The Latin Maxim is generalia specialibus non derogant. In short, a special provision is interpreted as taking away the effect of a general provision.” PER ONNOGHEN, JSC

“Under the said section 87(9) an aspirant who can invoke the jurisdiction of the court, and, as has been held in a long line of cases from this court, is the one who complains that any of the provisions of the Electoral 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.”PER ONNOGHEN, JSC

“This court in a plethora of cases has said that pre-primary matters are within the domestic and internal affairs of the PDP which no court has jurisdiction to entertain. The jurisdiction of the court in party affairs is limited to where the complaint is about the conduct of the primaries for the selection/nomination of a candidate.” PER RHODES-VIVOUR, JSC

Adesokan vs. Adetunji (1994) 5 NWLR (Pt. 346) 540 at 562

Apamoa V. State (1982) 6 S.C. 47

Attorney-General of the Federation V. Guardian Newspaper Ltd. (1999) 9 NWLR (Ft. 618) 187 at 222

Dalhatu v. Rurald 2002 15 NWLR pt.845 p.310

 Eioh V. Inspector-General of Police (1963) 1 All NLR 230;

Emeka vs. Okadigbo (2012) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1331) 55 at 83

Emenike vs. P.D.P. (2012) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1315) 556:

Lado vs. C.P.C. (2012) All FWLR 263:

Onuoha v. Okafor 1983 2SCNLR p.244

Peoples Democratic Party V. Timipre Sylva (2012) 13 NWLR (pt. 1316) 85

Schroder V. Major (1989) 2 NWLR (Pt. 101) 1 at 13

Uzodimma vs. Izunaso (No. 2) (2011) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1275) 30 at 59 – SO:

Electoral Act, 2010

Evidence Act, 2012

Supreme Court Rules

Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 as amended