Obasi Uba Ekagbara & Anor V. Chief Dr. Okezie Ikpeazu & Ors

Supreme Court – January, 2016
APPEAL NO: SC.504/2015

Areas of Law
APPEAL, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, ELECTORAL LAW, JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

Summary of Facts
The Appellants who were the Plaintiffs at Federal High Court prayed the court for the following reliefs: that the 3rd Defendant’s INEC Form CF001, Tax Payment Receipts and Tax Clearance Certificate attached to the Form submitted to the 2nd Defendant(INEC) by the 1st Defendant be declared false, that the 3rd Defendant is not qualified to contest for the Abia State Governorship election and for an order of the Court banning the 2nd Defendant from accepting the 3rd Defendant as a candidate to contest the said election amongst others. The 1st Defendant/Respondent upon receipt of the Plaintiffs/Appellants’ claim filed before the court a Motion on Notice and sought the for an order of the court transferring the matter from the honourable court to the Chief Judge of Abia State for assignment to a Judge of that Court for the purpose of hearing and determination of the issues raised in this matter since the court has no jurisdiction. After hearing parties’ submissions, the Federal High Court sitting in Abuja dismissed the application. Dissatisfied, the Defendants/Respondents appealed to the Court of Appeal where their appeal was allowed and the decision of the trial Court was reversed. Aggrieved with the decision of the Court of Appeal, the Plaintiffs/Appellants have appealed to the apex Court.

Held
Appeal Allowed

Issues for Determination

• Whether the learned justices of the Court of Appeal were right in their interpretation, application and reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Kakih v. P.D.P(2014) 15 NWLR (pt. 1430) 374 at 413 having regards to the state of pleadings, the reliefs sought by the appellants as well as the separate provisions of the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended) and the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended). Distilled from grounds 1 and 4 of the Notice of Appeal,
• Whether having regards to the state of pleadings and the reliefs sought by the appellants against the 3rd respondent (the INEC) the Court of Appeal was right in holding that the trial court lacked jurisdiction (distilled from grounds 2, 3, and 5 of the Notice of Appeal):
• Whether the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal rightly appreciated the case of the appellants against the 3rd respondent, (distilled from ground 6 of the Notice of Appeal).

Rationes
JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL HIGH COURT- EXTENT OF THE JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL HIGH COURT
“I want to, with respect, correct a misconception that the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court is only limited to items listed in Section 251 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria as amended. Section 251 (1) of the Constitution provides as follows;-
“Notwithstanding anything to the contrary 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 courts in Civil causes and matters”. (Underlinings mine)
By this provision, the National Assembly may extend, expand or enlarge the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court to adjudicate over any matter not listed in Section 251 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria as amended. Hence to limit the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court to matters listed in Section 251 of the Constitution alone is erroneous. The National Assembly may by its Act confer additional jurisdiction on the Federal High Court to adjudicate on matters not listed in Section 251 of the Constitution. This power is derived from the Constitution itself (Italics mine)” PER. M. S. MUNTAKA-COOMASSIE, J.S.C

JURISDICTION OF THE STATE AND FEDERAL HIGH COURT- CONCURRENT JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL HIGH COURT AND STATE HIGH COURT ON ELECTORAL MATTERS
“The electoral Act 2010 (as amended ) is an Act passed by the National Assembly, and it expended and enlarged the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court, where it provides in Section 31 (5) thus:-“Any person who has reasonable ground to believe that any information given by a candidate in an affidavit or any document submitted by that candidate is false may file a suit at the High Court of a State or Federal High Court against such person seeking a declaration that the information contained in the affidavit is false”.
To my understanding my noble lords, by this provision, both the State High Court or the Federal High Court have concurrent jurisdiction to hear and determine whether the information provided to INEC in FORM CF001 is false or not.” PER. M. S. MUNTAKA-COOMASSIE, J.S.C

INDEPENDENT ELECTORAL COMMISSION – INSTANCE WHERE THE INDEPENDENT ELECTORAL COMMISSION WOULD BE A NECESSARY PARTY IN A PRE-ELECTION MATTER
“Where a candidate is alleged to provide false information in FORM CF001 submitted to INEC, and which is being challenged, INEC has definitely become a necessary party, and the burden or onus is on the candidate to prove that his information was genuine and not false.” PER. M. S. MUNTAKA-COOMASSIE, J.S.C

JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL HIGH COURT- THE FEDERAL HIGH COURT HAS JURISDICTION TO HEAR AND DETERMINE A CASE WHERE THE INDEPENDENT ELECTORAL COMMISSION IS A PARTY
“My lord, it is clear that all the parties agreed that where a Federal Government agency is a party to a case, the Federal High Court is possessed with the jurisdiction to hear and determined the case, I, with respect also agreed with them. It goes without saying that INEC is a Federal Government’s agency who is statutorily empowered to conduct the election in issue.” PER. M. S. MUNTAKA-COOMASSIE, J.S.C

RELIEF- MODE OF SIEVING ANCILLARY FROM PRINCIPAL RELIEF
“When it becomes necessary to sieve ancillary relief from principal as demands by circumstance, it is done roughly to give mathematical answer to effect a purpose. The law allows it. See: Cotecna Int’l Ltd. v. Ivory Merchant Bank Ltd.(2006) ALL FWLR (Pt, 315) 26 at 38: Tukur v, Government of Gongola State (No. 2) 1989(4 NWLR) (pt. 117) 517.” PER S. GALADIMA, J.S.C

JURISDICTION OF COURT – INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 31(5) OF THE ELECTORAL ACT 2010 WITH RESPECT TO JURISDICTION
“Section 31(5} of the Electoral Act (supra) did not envisage the nature of claim to determine the jurisdiction of the Court” PER. S. GALADIMA, J.S.C

JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL HIGH COURT – SECTION 31(5) OF THE ELECTORAL ACT, 2010 CONFERS ADDITIONAL JURISDICTION ON THE FEDERAL HIGH COURT.
“Section 31(5) of the Act confers additional jurisdiction on the Federal High Court (as amended) to entertain matters brought by any person who has reasonable grounds to believe that any information given by a candidate in the affidavit or any document submitted by that candidate is false.” PER S. GALADIMA, J.S.C

INDEPENDENT ELECTORAL COMMISSION – EXECUTIVE AND ADMINISTRATIVE FUNCTION OF THE INDEPENDENT ELECTORAL COMMISSION
‘The function or duty of the 3rd Respondent (INEC) in accepting and acting on documents from candidates or rejecting such documents that may not have been properly filed can be classified as function falling within the executive or administrative action or decision. This administrative function which the appellant have sought an injunctive relief to redress or cure, clearly brings this matter under the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court.” PER S.GALADIMA, J.S.C

SUBMISSION OF FALSE INFORMATION TO INDEPENDENT ELECTORAL COMMISSION – COURTS WITH JURISDICTION TO DETERMINE WHETHER INFORMATION PRESENTED TO THE INDEPENDENT ELECTORAL COMMISSION ARE FALSE
“But, by the provision of section 31 (5) of the Electoral Act (supra) it is crystal clear that three courts are mentioned therein to writ: Federal High Court, High Court of a State or High Court of the Federal Capital Territory to which a person can approach to ventilate his grievance arising from the said section. In other words, the three courts mentioned above, have concurrent jurisdiction to hear any application seeking to determine whether a person has submitted false information to INEC in the documents submitted by him as provided in section 31 (5) of the Electoral Act (supra) I made this point very clear in an earlier case of Jev v Iyortom (2014),14 NWLR (pt 1428) 575 at 611 – 613.” PER. J. I.OKORO, J.S.C

Statutes Referred To:
Constitution of the Federal republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended)
Electoral Act, 2010(as amended)