CORAM

---

---

PARTIES

---

MR. AUGUSTINE OMINI IWARA   APPELLANTS

---

MR. UBI ETTAH ITAM (Alias Bombay) & ANOR RESPONDENTS

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Plaintiff (now Appellant) claimed against the Defendants (now Respondents), a declaration as to election into the office of the local government chairman and an injunction restraining the 2nd Defendant from clearing the 1st Defendant and putting him forward to contest the election. The Defendants entered conditional appearance after service of summons, and raised preliminary objection on points of law challenging the competence of the suit and the jurisdiction of the trial court to entertain the suit. The learned trial judge after entertaining arguments on the objections from all the parties delivered its ruling and upholding the Defendant’s objection and dismissed the suit. Dissatisfied, the Plaintiff filed this appeal.

---

HELD

---

Appeal allowed in part

---

ISSUES

---

Whether the learned trial Judge’s refusal to entertain the Appellant’s suit on the ground that it falls within the internal affairs of a political party to nominate its candidate and that the issues therein should await the setting up of the Local Government Election Tribunal are not contrary to the position of the Supreme Court in Ugwu vs. Ararume (2007) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1048) 367 and that of this court in Obi-Odu vs. Duke (2006) 21 WRN 113, (2006) ALL FWLR (Pt. 337)537. Whether taking into consideration the facts before him and the applicable law, the learned trial Judge was right when he held that the Appellant has no locus standi to institute the action before him and that the claim before him disclosed no cause of action. Whether the learned trial Judge was right in refusing to accede to the request of the Plaintiff to join the Peoples Democratic Party as a party in the suit Whether the learned trial Judge was right in deciding all the live issues at the interlocutory stage and in dismissing the Appellant’s suit after holding that he has no jurisdiction to entertain the matter

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

JURISDICTION OF COURT – THE DUTY OF COURT WHEN IT LACKS JURISDICTION IS TO STRIKE OUT THE MATTER

---

“The law is; where a Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain a claim, the proper order such a Court should make is one striking out the matter.” PER ORJI-ABADUA JCA

---

INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATIONS – A COURT SHOULD NOT DECIDE SUBSTATIVE ISSUES AT THE INTERLOCUTORY STAGE

---

“It is an established principle of law that a Court should not unwittingly decide a substantive case at the interlocutory stage. In other words, a Court must refrain from making an order which has the effect of deciding the substantive issues or reliefs in a case, while hearing an interlocutory application.” PER ORJI-ABADUA JCA

---

CAUSE OF ACTION – DETERMINATION OF WHETHER A CAUSE OF ACTION IS DISCLOSED IN AN ACTION

---

“In order to determine whether a cause of action is disclosed in an action, reference is made to the writ of summons and statement of claim or counterclaim. Recourse is never had to the statement of defence to the affidavit deposed to support an application raising objection to the competence of the suit.” PER ORJI-ABADUA JCA

---

INTERLOCUTORY MATTERS – WHEN CONSIDERING INTERLOCUTORY MATTERS THE COURT SHOULD NOT MAKE STATEMENTS INDICATING ITS STAND ON THE SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES

---

“It is the duty of a trial Court, or all Courts for that matter, when dealing with interlocutory matters, to avoid making statements giving impression that it has made up its mind on the substantive issue before it. Courts should desist from making positive pronouncements on substantive matters pending before them while dealing with interlocutory applications as the practice prejudges the real matter in controversy between the parties.” PER ORJI-ABADUA

---

LOCUS STANDI – FOR A PLAINTIFF TO ESTABLISH LOCUS STANDI HE MUST STATE FACTS SHOWING THE INJURY THAT WOULD OCCASION TO HIM OVER ABOVE THE PUBLIC INTEREST

---

“For a Plaintiff to rise above the status of meddlesome interloper and a busy body to one with a standing to institute an action, he must state facts in his statement of claim that would show his locus by specifying the injury that would occasion to him, that his legal right is affected or is in danger of being extinguished and his interest is over and above public interest.” PER OWOADE JCA

---

PRELIMINARY OBJECTION – MEANING OF PRELIMINARY OBJECTION

---

“It is settled that a preliminary objection is a preliminary question that has to be settled before the Court goes into other things.” PER ORJI-ABADUA JCA

---

JURISDICTION – A COURT HAS POWER TO DETERMINE IF IT HAS JURISDICTION

---

“A court has jurisdiction to determine whether or not it has jurisdiction to entertain a matter before it and once the court determines that it has no jurisdiction to hear a matter the only appropriate order it can make is an order striking it out. A court cannot dismiss matter over which it has no jurisdiction.” PER NGWUTA JCA

---

CANDIDATE OF A POLITICAL PARTY – THE COURT HAS NO INTEREST IN DETERMINING THE CANDIDATE OF A POLITICAL PARTY BUT TO INTERPRET THE LAW.

---

“The Courts have no interest in who should be a candidate for any political party but are very much duty bound to interpret the law as made by the legislature so as to determine whether or not in the exercise of its rights of sponsorship or nomination, the political party has complied with the relevant provisions of the law laid out to regulate proper conduct so as to guarantee orderliness, peace and equity in the political area. The judiciary cannot be said to dabble into the internal affairs of the political parties when it performs its constitutionally assigned role of interpretation of the laws particularly as it concerns provisions made by the legislature for nomination and sponsorship of candidates for any election by political parties.” PER ORJI-ABADUA JCA

---

CASES CITED

---

Adesanya vs. President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (1981) 2 NWLR 358, (2001) FWLR (Pt. 46) 859 at 889 – 890.Amah vs. Nwankwo (2007) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1049) 552 at 575 – 576.Ehunwa VS. Ondo State INEC (2006) 15 NWLR Part 1012 p. 544.Elabanjo vs. Dawodu (2006) 15 NWLRPart 1001 p. 76.Ilorin vs. Benson (2005) FWLR (Pt. 26) 1846 at 1859, Ita vs. Bekonson (2001) FWLR (Pt. 62) 1877 Lexington International Insurance Co. Ltd vs. Sola Holdings Ltd (2006) 7 NWLR Part 980 p. 465Obiegbu vs. University of Abuja (2005) 9 NWLR (Pt. 930) 310Obi-Odu vs. Duke (2006) 21 WRN 113, (2006) ALL FWLR (Pt. 337)537.Odutola Holdings Ltd vs. Ladejobi (2006) 12 NWLR Part 994 p. 321 – S.C.Oghenokolwo Queen vs. Odemekpise Adaroh (1999) 1 NWLR (Pt. 586) 330 at 337Onwuegbu vs. Ibrahim (1997) 3 NWLR (Pt. 491) 110, Ugwu vs. Ararume (2007) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1048) 367

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

Cross River State INEC LawElectoral Law of Cross River StateEvidence Act

---

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT