Legalpedia Citation: (2012) Legalpedia (SC) 16963
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Fri Jul 6, 2012
Suit Number: SC. 69/2012
CORAM
MAHMUD MOHAMMED JUSTICE, SUPREME COURTFRANCIS FEDQDE TAB AI JUSTICE, SUPREME COURTJOHN AFOFABIFABI
PARTIES
PRINCE JOHN OKECHUK WU EMEKA APPELLANTS
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The Plaintiff/ 4th Respondent alongside the 4th Defendant/1st Respondent participated in the primaries conducted by the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) held on the 8th day of January 2011, while the 3rd Defendant/Appellant according to him participated in the primaries held on the 10th day of January 2011 to qualify as the senatorial candidate of the 2nd Defendant/Respondent for Anambra North senatorial district. The 4th Defendant/1st Respondent emerged winner and her name was forwarded to INEC as its candidate for the senatorial elections for Anambra North senatorial district. The Plaintiff/4th Respondent not satisfied with the decision of the 2nd Defendant/Respondent filed an originating summons at the Federal High Court praying the court to declare him winner of the said primary elections held on the 8th day of January 2011, the trial court gave a judgment in his favour and ordered that the 2nd Defendant/Respondent forward his name to the 1st Defendant/3rd Respondent as its candidate for the Anambra North Senatorial elections. The Defendants displeased with the decision of the trial court all appealed to the Court of Appeal which appeals were consolidated. The Court of Appeal overturned the decision of the trial court and held that the 1st Respondent was the lawful winner of the primary election held on the 8th of January 2011 and that the primary election purportedly held on the 10th of January was illegal as no primary election was held on such date. Dissatisfied with the decision of the Court of Appeal, the 3rd Defendant/Appellant hereby brought this appeal challenging the jurisdiction of both the trial court and Court of Appeal on the ground that it was the election tribunal that has jurisdiction and thus the decisions of the lower courts should be overturned.
HELD
Appeal dismissed.
ISSUES
Whether the Court of Appeal and or the trial Court had jurisdiction to determine who is the Peoples Democratic Party Candidate for the Anambra North Senatorial District in the April 2011 general election from two parallel primary elections held on 8th January, 2011 and 10th January 2011 respectively having regards to the provisions of the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended)Who among the following:(a) Prince John Okechukwu EMEKA (b) Lady Margery OKADIGBO (c) Senator Alphonsus Uba IGBEKEemerged as the winner of the PDP primaries conducted for the Senatorial seat for Anambra North in the general elections held in April 2011.Whether the Court of Appeal was right in regarding the failure of the trial judge to determine appellant’s pending motion filed on 16th march, 2011 as fresh issue that requires leave of Court to Appeal and if it does not amount to denial of Appeals right to fair hearing for the Court of Appeal to deliver judgment in the appellant’s Appeal without determining the said motion.
RATIONES DECIDENDI
JUDGMENT – A JUDGMENT IS AUTHORITY FOR WHAT IT DECIDES
“The position of the law is that a judgment is authority for what it actually decides. See Yusuf v. Obasanjo 2004 5 SC (pt.1) p.27; Adegoke Motor Ltd. v. Adesanya 1989 3 NWLR Pt.109 p.250.” PER B. RHODES-VIVOUR, JSC.
POLITICAL PARTY –DUTY OF COURTS TO ENSURE THAT A POLITICAL PARTY DOES NOT ACT ARBITRARILY
“The Courts will never allow a political party to act arbitrarily or as it likes. A political party must obey its own constitution. See Hope Uzodinma v. Senator O. Izunaso 2011 Vol.5 (Pt.1) MJSC P.27.” PER B. RHODES-VIVOUR, JSC.
JURISDICTION OF THE SUPREME COURT – JURISDICTION OF THE SUPREME COURT IN APPEALS
“This court hears appeals from or against the judgment of the Court of Appeal and not against the judgment of the High Court.” PER B. RHODES-VIVOUR, JSC
AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM – MEANING OF AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM
“Audi alteram partem means hear the other side. It is a maxim denoting basic fairness and a canon of natural justice. A judge should allow both parties to be heard and should listen to the point of view of both sides before resolving the issue. See Isiyaku Mohammed v. Kano NA 1968 1 ALL NLR P.42; Adigun v. A.G. Oyo State 1987 1 NWLR Pt.53 p.678.” PER B. RHODES-VIVOUR, JSC
INTERPRETATION OF THE LAW – IT IS THE DUTY OF THE COURT TO INTERPRETE THE LAW AS MADE BY THE LEGISLATURE
“The court however is 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 down to conduct of the primaries in the present dispensation under the Electoral Act 2010 as amended.” PER O. O. ADEKEYE, JSC
MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – WHEN DOES MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE OCCUR?
“Miscarriage of justice occurs if what occurred is not justice accordingly to the law. See Nnajiofor v. Ukonu 1986 4 NWLR Pt.36 p.505; H. Okonkwo & Anor. V.G. Udoh 1997 9 NWLR Pt.519 p.16” PER B. RHODES-VIVOUR, JSC
JURISDICTION –JURISDICTION CAN BE RAISED AT ANYTIME IN THE TRIAL COURT AND ON APPEAL FOR THE FIRST TIME PROVIDED PARTIES ARE HEARD
“Jurisdiction to hear a suit is a threshold matter. Once raised it must be heard first and decided quickly. It is so important that it can be raised at anytime in the trial Court, on Appeal, suo motu, provided parties are heard, and in this Court for the first time. See Usman Dan Fodio University v. Kraus Thompson Organisation Ltd 2001 15 NWLR Pt.736 P.305, Oloriade v. Oyebi 1984 1 SCNLR P.390, Ezomo v. Oyakhire 1985 2 SC p.260”. PER B. RHODES-VIVOUR, JSC
APPEAL – DUTY OF A RESPONDENT IN AN APPEAL
“A respondent is expected to defend the Appeal” PER B. RHODES-VIVOUR, JSC
ISSUE OF JURISDICTION – FUNDAMENTAL NATURE OF JURISDICTION –EFFECT OF WHERE A SUIT IS HEARD WHERE THE COURT LACKS JURISDICTION
“The issue of jurisdiction is fundamental in any suit. It is the heart and soul of a suit. It is a Courts authority or power to hear an issue and/or the suit. Once a Court lacks jurisdiction to hear a suit and it goes ahead to hear the suit as if it had jurisdiction, no matter how well the suit was decided the whole proceedings and judgment would amount to a nullity. See Bronik Motors Ltd &Ors.v. Wema bank Ltd 1983 1 SC NLR p.293. ; Okoya v. Santilli 1990 2 NWLR Opt.131 P.172; A.G. Federation v. Sode 1990 1 NWLR Pt.128 P.500; Osafile v. Odi (1) 1990 1 NWLR Pt.137 P.130.” PER B. RHODES-VIVOUR, JSC
CONDITIONAL APPEARANCE – WHAT DOES ENTRY OF CONDITIONAL APPEARANCE CONNOTE?
“The entry of conditional appearance is an appearance under protest and usually means an appearance to object to the Courts jurisdiction.” PER B. RHODES-VIVOUR, JSC
CONDUCT OF PRIMARY ELECTION – POWER OF THE COURT TO DECLARE THE RIGHT PROCESS AND PRODUCE A PROPER CANDIDATE WHERE TWO PRIMARIES ARE CONDUCTED
“The courts can declare which party’s process is right and can produce a proper candidate particularly where two primaries are held by a party for example, one by the National Executive Committee and the other by the State chapter of the party.” PER O. O. ADEKEYE, JSC
UNCONDITIONAL APPEARANCE – WHAT DOES ENTRY OF UNCONDITIONAL APPEARANCE CONNOTE?
“The entry of unconditional appearance conveys the clear impression that the party concerned has no objection to the suit, and that includes, no objection to the way the suit is/ was commenced.” PER B. RHODES-VIVOUR, JSC
CONDUCT OF A PRIMARY ELECTION – ONLY A CANDIDATE/ASPIRANT CAN COMPLAIN ABOUT THE CONDUCT OF A PRIMARY ELECTION
“A person who was not a candidate/aspirant at the primaries cannot come to the Court to complain about the conduct of the primaries. See Onuoha v. Okafor 1983 Vol.14 NSCC p.494; Dalhatu v. Turaki 2003 15 NWLR Pt.843 p.310; PDP v. T. Sylva & 2 Ors. SC.28/2012 and SC.9/2012 judgment delivered by this Court on 20/4/2012.” PER B. RHODES-VIVOUR, JSC
UNCONDITIONAL APPEARANCE – MEANING OF ENTRY OF UNCONDITIONAL APPEARANCE
“Entry of unconditional appearance means that he had no objection to the suit as filed.” PER B. RHODES-VIVOUR, JSC
JURISDICTION – DETERMINANT OF JURISDICTION
“It is well settled that the plaintiffs claim determines jurisdiction. See Anya v. Iyayi 1993 7 NWLR pt.305 p.290,A.G. Kwara State v. Warah 1995 7 NWLR pt.405 p.121, Anigboro v. Sea Trucks Nig Ltd 1995 6 NWLR Pt.399 p.43.” PER B. RHODES-VIVOUR, JSC
COMPETENCE OF COURT – WHEN IS A COURT SAID TO BE COMPETENT TO HEAR A MATTER?
“A Court is competent when-
1. It is properly constituted as regards numbers and qualifications of the members of the bench, and no member is disqualified for one reason or another.
2. The subject matter of the case is within its jurisdiction, and there is no feature in the case which prevents the Court form exercising its jurisdiction and
3. The case comes before the Court initiated by due process of law, and upon fulfillment of any condition precedent to the exercise of jurisdiction.” PER B. RHODES-VIVOUR, JSC
CANDIDATE FOR ELECTION – THE COURT HAS JURISDICTION TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE POLITCAL PARTY HAS COMPLIED WITH ITS GUIDELINES ON THE CHOICE OF A CANDIDATE FOR ELECTION
“The courts, both the Federal High Court or the State High Court, and in the Appeal to the Court, are competent to determine whether the relevant provision party constitution and electoral guidelines have been followed in the choice of a candidate for any elective post.” PER O. O. ADEKEYE, JSC
CANDIDATE OF A PARTY – THE INPUT OF A PARTY IS IMPORTANT IN DETERMINING WHO THE CANDIDATE OF A PARTY IS
“The PDP is expected to assist the court to determine who its candidate is and not leave the court to make mistake on such vital an issue. In determining who the candidate of a party is the input of the party is of paramount importance. See Uzodinma v. Izunaso 2011 vo. 5 (pt.1) MJSC p.27.” PER B. RHODES-VIVOUR, JSC
POLITICAL PARTY – DUTY OF A POLITICAL PARTY TO ASSIST THE COURT IN DECIDING WHICH CANDIDATE EMERGED FROM A PRIMARY ELECTION
“In matter where the courts are called upon to decide which of the candidates emerged from a primary, the input of the Party is of paramount importance. A political Party must inform the court of the true position and not leave such a vital issue to be resolved by the court without its input. In election matters the stakes are extremely high. The political party concerned must strive to assist the court positively at all time”. PER B. RHODES-VIVOUR, JSC
DISMISSAL OF APPEAL – MEANING OF DISMISSAL OF APPEAL
“Dismissal of Appeal means total agreement with the judgment of the Court of Appeal, while, that the judgment be set aside means total disagreement with the judgment of the Court of Appeal.” PER B. RHODES-VIVOUR, JSC
NOMINATION OF CANDIDATE FOR ELECTION – NOMINATION OF CANDIDATES FOR ELECTION REMAINS A DOMESTIC AFFAIR OF THE POLITICAL PARTY AND THE COURTS CANNOT NOMINATE FOR A POLITICAL PARTY
“The position still remains intact that the issue of nomination or sponsorship of an election candidate is within the domestic affairs of the political parties and the courts have no jurisdiction to nominate for a political party its candidate for any election. Onuoha vs. Okafor (1983) 2 SCNLR 244; Dalhatu vs. Turaki (2003) 15 NWLR, pt. 843, pg. 310.” PER O. O. ADEKEYE, JSC
CROSS- APPEAL – A RESPONDENT WHO SEEKS TO CORRECT ERRORS IN THE JUDGMENT FILES A CROSS-APPEAL
“The role of a respondent is to defend the judgment, but where a respondent seeks to correct errors in the judgment he files a cross-Appeal. See Eloichin (Nig) Ltd v. Mbaduwe 1986 1 NWLR Pt.14 p.47.” PER B. RHODES-VIVOUR, JSC
NOMINATION OF A CANDIDATE OF A POLITICAL PARTY – AN AGGRIEVED ASPIRANT’S COMPLAINT ON THE NOMINATION OF A CANDIDATE OF A POLITICAL PARTY CAN APPLY TO THE FEDERAL HIGH COURT OR HIGH COURT OF A STATE OR FCT FOR REDRESS
“Subsection (9) of section 87 of the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended) reads: “(9) Notwithstanding the provisions of the Act or Rules of a Political party, an aspirant who complains that any of the provisions of this 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, any apply to the Federal High Court or the High Court of a State or FCT for redress.” PER B. RHODES-VIVOUR, JSC
CONDUCT OF PRIMARY ELECTION – JURISDICTION OF THE COURT TO EXAMINE IF THE PRIMARIES WERE CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ELECTORAL ACT WHERE A DISPLEASED CONTESTANT COMPLAINS ABOUT THE CONDUCT OF THE PRIMARIES
“But where the political party conducts its primaries and a dissatisfied contestant at the said primaries 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 primaries were conducted in accordance with the Electoral Act, the Constitution and Guidelines of the party”. PER B. RHODES-VIVOUR, JSC
CASES CITED
STATUTES REFERRED TO
Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (1999) as amended.Electoral Act 2010 (as amended)