PEOPLES DEMOCRATIC PARTY & ANOR VS TIMIPRE SYLVA & ORS

CORAM

MUHAMMAD SUIFULLAH JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

MUNTAKA-COOMASSIE JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

BODE RHODES-VIVOUR JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

PARTIES

1. PEOPLES DEMOCRATIC PARTY APPELLANTS

TIMIPRE SYLVA & ORS

RESPONDENTS

AREA(S) OF LAW

SUMMARY OF FACTS

Sometime in 2010, INEC fixed gubernatorial election for Balyelsa State. At the time, the 1st respondent was the Governor of Bayelsa State. He protested saying his term of office started to run from the date when he took a second oath of office. The 2nd respondent, INEC did not agree with the position taken by the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent filed a suit asking for an injunction to restrain the appellant from conducting primary election. He succeeded in his suit and the court of appeal affirmed that judgment.

When the next election was about to take place, the PDP being the 1st respondent party fixed its primaries. The 1st respondent went to court because PDP refused to allow him contest the primary election. All his claims were granted by the court. Dissatisfied with these orders, PDP filed an appeal to the court of appeal. The plaintiff also cross appealed.

HELD

The appeal was allowed. The pending suit before the Federal High Court was struck out.

ISSUES

1.Whether after the 1st respondent won the primaries conducted in January 2011 and his name sent to INEC as the PDP’s candidate for gubernatorial elections fixed for April, 2011, he is still the PDP candidate for the gubernatorial elections which was held on 12/2/12.?

2.Whether the PDP can stop or prevent the 1st respondent from contesting its primaries conducted on 19/11/11 to choose its candidate for the gubernatorial elections which was held on 12/2/12.?

3.Whether the Federal High Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine the 1st respondent’s claims. ?

RATIONES DECIDENDI

COURTS IN NIGERIA DO NOT HAVE JURISDICTION TO QUESTION THE NOMINATION AND SPONSORSHIP OF A CANDIDATE

“Courts in Nigeria do not have jurisdiction to question the nomination and sponsorship of a candidate for election any attempt by the courts to change the well laid down position of the law would be a futile exercise.” Per Bode Rhodes-Vivour, JSC

A COURT CANNOT HEAR ANCILLARY CLAIMS IF IT HAS NO JURISDICTION.

“A court cannot hear and determine ancillary claims if it has no jurisdiction to entertain the main claims and if the ancillary claims will clearly involve substantial discussion of the main claims.” Per Bode Rhodes-Vivour, JSC

THE JURISDICTION OF A COURT TO ENTERTAIN A SUIT.

“Jurisdiction of a court to entertain a suit is resolved by a scrupulous examination of the writ of summons, the statement of claim and the reliefs claimed. No other document should be examined. Where the originating process is an originating summons the affidavit filed in support of the originating summons serves as the plaintiffs pleadings, (statement of claim) Jurisdiction would be resolved by examining only the originating summons, the reliefs contained therein and the affidavit filed in support.” Per Bode Rhodes-Vivour, JSC

INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 22 OF THE SUPREME COURT ACT.

“In the absence of jurisdiction to adjudicate, invoking the provisions of Section 22 of the Supreme Court Act would be most inappropriate as such an exercise would amount to a nullity.” Per Bode Rhodes-Vivour, JSC

THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT CONCERNING PRIMARY ELECTION AFFAIR.

“Nomination or sponsorship of a candidate for election is a political matter solely within the discretion of the party, and this is so because the sponsorship or nomination of a candidate is a pre primary election affair of the party. But where the political party conducts its primary and a dissatisfied contestant at the primary complains about the conduct of the primaries the courts have jurisdiction by virtue of the provisions of section 87 (9) of the Electoral Act to examine if the conduct of the primary elections was conducted in accordance with the parties constitution and Guidelines.” Per Bode Rhodes-Vivour, JSC

THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF INEC

INEC has the sole responsibility to fix dates for elections and to my mind if INEC fixes a date for elections and for whatever reasons, be it logistic, I do not think anyone has a cause of action against INEC for cancelling an election (not held) and rescheduling elections for another day.” Per Bode Rhodes-Vivour, JSC

CASES CITED

Hope Uzodinma v. Senator Osita Izunaso 2011 vol 5 (Pt.l) MJ.S.C.p.27Tukur v. Govt at Gonrtola State 1989 4 NWLR pt.117 p.517

STATUTES REFERRED TO

NONE

Legalpedia Citation: (2012) Legalpedia (SC) 20291

In the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Wed Nov 28, 2012

Suit Number: SC.9/2012