CORAM

---

M.E. OGUNDARE. – JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

---

PARTIES

---

OZONMA (BARR.) CHIDI NOBIS- ELENDU   APPELLANTS

---

INEC & ORS

RESPONDENTS 

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Appellant, the 3rd Respondent along with others contested in the 2nd Respondent’s (Peoples Democratic Party) primary election for the nomination of candidate for the Aguta Federal Constituency seat in the House of Representatives in Anambra state.  The Appellant claimed to have won the primary election but the 2nd Respondent submitted the name of the 3rd Respondent to the 1st Respondent (INEC) as the elected candidate for the party. The Appellant instituted an action at the Federal High Court Awka Division seeking amongst others, a declaration against the Respondents that he is the lawful candidate of the 2nd Respondent in the election for the Aguata Federal Constituency Seat. Having entered a conditional appearance, the 2nd and 3rd Respondents contested the Appellant’s claim by filing a joint statement of defence and challenged the trial court’s jurisdiction to entertain the Appellant’s suit on the grounds that the Appellant’s action was not brought timeously and his failure to join necessary parties to the suit disentitles the Appellant from invoking section251 (1)(p),(q),(r) and (s) of the 1999 Constitution as amended. The trial court upheld the 2nd and 3rd Respondent’s objection and struck out the Appellant’s action .Dissatisfied, with the trial court’s decision, the Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal, Enugu Division where in affirming the trial court’s decision, it held that the prosecution of the Appellant’s suit which was not commenced timeously is a worthless academic exercise which the trial court lacked jurisdiction to entertain, hence, a further appeal to the Supreme Court.

---

HELD

---

Appeal Allowed.

---

ISSUES

---

1. Whether the Justices of the Court of Appeal were right in their decision that the Federal High Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit on the ground that the election having been held that the pre-election matter had become academic or hypothetical?

2. Whether the lower court was right to raise the issue that the election having been held that the   action   has   become   academic or hypothetical suo moto (sic) and resolve same without giving the parties, especially the appellant the opportunity to address them on the issue?

3. Whether the court below in any way occasioned (sic) a miscarriage of justice by suo moto raising the issue of the applicability or otherwise of section 141 of the electoral act 2010 as amended and resolving same against the appellant after hearing both parties on the issue?

4. Whether the decision of the court below reached after the court below suo moto (sic) raised the issue of section 141 of the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended), invited the parties to the appeal to address the court on section 141 of the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended) and its effect on the Appellant’s appeal could be said to be a decision reached in breach of the Appellant’s right of fair hearing, after the court had heard the parties including the Appellant on section 141 of the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended) and its effect of rendering the Appellant’s appeal academic and hypothetical?

 

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

RECORDS OF COURTS – RECORDS OF COURTS ARE PRESUMED TO BE CORRECT UNTIL THEY ARE SUCCESSFULLY IMPUGNED

---

“It is trite that records of courts are presumed to be correct until they are successfully impugned. The maxim is Omma Praesumuntur rite esse acta. See Kossen (Nig) Ltd v. Savannah Bank (Nig) Ltd (1995) LPELR-SC 209/89 and Chief Adebisi Adegbuyi v. All Progressive Congress (APC) & Ors (2014) LPELR-SC 257/2015.”PER. M. D. MUHAMMAD, J.S.C

---

INTERPRETATION OF STATUTE – DUTY OF THE COURT TO READ THE STATUTE AS A WHOLE IN DETERMINING THE OBJECT OF A PARTICULAR PROVISION

---

“Whenever a court is faced with the interpretation of statutory provisions, the statute must be read as a whole in determining the object of a particular provision. Thus, all provisions of the statute must be read and construed together unless there is a very clear reason why a particular provision of the statute should be read independently. To achieve a harmonicons result, a section must be read against the background of another to which it relates. This principle is indispensable in giving effect to the true intentions of the makers of the statute. SeeRabiu v. Kano State (1980) 8 -11 SC 130 and Attorney-General Lagos State v. Attorney-General Federation (2014) All FWLR (pt. 740) 1296 at 1331.” PER. M. D. MUHAMMAD, J.S.C

---

INTERPRETATION OF STATUTE – THE COURT IS TO DESIST FROM SEEKING THE MEANING OF A STATUTE OUTSIDE THE CLEAR WORDS EMPLOYED BY THE LEGISLATORS

---

“Courts must interpret the law within the context of its constitutive words and refrain from seeking the meaning of the statute outside the clear words employed by the legislators. See Senator Dahiru Bako Gassol v. Alhaji Abubakar Umar Turari & Others (2013) 3 S.C.N.J. 6 and Mr. Ugochukwu Duru v. Federal Republic of Nigeria (2013) 2 SCNJ 377.” PER. M. D. MUHAMMAD, J.S.C

---

ELECTION – AN ACTION FILED PURSUANT TO SECTION 87(9) BEFORE THE CONDUCT OF AN ELECTION IS COMPETENT

---

“Once an action pursuant to section 87(9) has been filed before the conduct of the election in relation to which the action has arisen, on the authorities, it remains competent”. PER. M. D. MUHAMMAD, J.S.C

---

PERVERSE DECISION – WHEN CAN A DECISION BE SAID TO BE PERVERSE

---

“A decision is said to be perverse if it does not draw from the evidence on record and/or where the court wrongly apply legal principles to correctly ascertained that and by so doing occasion injustice. See Queen V. Ogodo (1961) 2 SC 366, Mogaji V. Odofin (1978) 4 SC 91 and Ebba V. Ogodo (1984) 1 S.C.N.LR 372.” PER. M. D. MUHAMMAD, J.S.C

---

JURISDICTION OF COURT- DUTY OF THE COURT TO PROTECT THEIR JURISDICTION

---

“There is also the similarly overriding principle which enables courts to jealously guard their jurisdiction in protecting statutorily vested rights if a provision of the same statute appears to derogate from such rights by construing the latter provision very strictly. See Wilson v. Attorney General of Bendel State (1985) 1 NWLR (pt 4) 572 and Oyo v. Governor of Oyo State (1989).” PER. M. D. MUHAMMAD, J.S.C

---

PRE-ELECTION MATTER – THE HIGH COURT MAINTAINS JURISDICTION IN PRE-ELECTION MATTERS COMMENCED BEFORE THE CONDUCT OF ELECTION

---

“It is settled law that a pre-election matter instituted prior to the conduct of an election subsists and the High Court in which it was instituted continues to have jurisdiction to hear and determine the suit even after the conduct of the election. See Gwede Vs INEC (2014)118 NWLR Pt. 14381 56: Amaechi Vs INEC (20081 ALL FWLR Pt 4071 1; Odedo Vs INEC (20081 17 NWLR (Pt. 11171 554 ® 622-623.” PER. K.M.O KEKERE-EKUN, J.S.C.

---

DOCTRINE OF STARE DECISIS – THE DOCTRINE OF STARE DECISIS DOES NOT ALLOW FOR THE EXERCISE OF DISCRETION IN AN ISSUE THE COURT PREVIOUSLY DECIDED.

---

“In Chukuma Ogwe & Anor v. Inspector General of Police &ors (2015) LPELR-SC 214/2013, this court restated what the failure of a subordinate court in applying its previous valid and subsisting decisions or the decisions of a higher court results in thus:¬
“The lower court by its decision instantly appealed against failed to appreciate the place of the doctrine of stare decisis or precedent in the adjudication process. By the doctrine, judges are enjoined to stand by their decisions and the decisions of their predecessors. The doctrine does not allow for the exercise of discretion in an issue the court previously decided when that same issue subsequently surfaces before the court for determination. It is this age old rule of practice that gives law its certainty and equilibrium in the society.”PER M. D. MUHAMMAD, J.S.C

---

PRE-ELECTION MATTER – THE FACT THAT AN ELECTION HAD TAKEN PLACE BEFORE THE COMMENCEMENT OF TRIAL IN ELECTION MATTER IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO RENDER IT ACADEMIC

---

“The fact that the election had taken place before the trial commenced is not sufficient to render it academic. See the position of this court as held in Gbileve Vs Addinai (20141 16 NWLR (14331 394: Gwede Vs INEC (20141 18 NWLR (14381 56; Barr. Orkere Jev & Anr.Vs Sekav Dzua Iyortom & Ors; SC, 164/2012 delivered on 27/2/15 wherein this court ordered the Appellant/or Applicant to assume their seats in the National Assembly even though the election had long since taken place and another person had been sworn in”. PER K.M.O KEKERE-EKUN, J.S.C.

---

CASES CITED

---

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 as amendedCourt of Appeal Act 2004Court of Appeal Rules 2011

Electoral Act 2010 (as amended)

 

---

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT