ALL PROGRESSIVE GRAND ALLIANCE (A.P.G.A.) VS. SENATOR CHRISTIANA N.D. ANYANWU & 2 ORS 

LEGALPEDIA  CITATION: LER[2014] SC. 20/2013

 

AREA OF LAW- ELECTORAL MATTER, JURISDICTION

 

SUMMARY OF FACTS
The 2nd Respondent instituted an action under originating summons contending that the 1st Respondent’s name ought not to have been submitted to the 3rd respondent as the appellant’s senatorial candidate for the Imo East Senatorial Zone Election in the 2011 general election because at the time of the primary election which took place on 14th January 2011, the 1st Respondent was not a member of the Appellant but an active member of another party, P.D.P. The trial Court struck out the Appellant’s originating summons on the grounds that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain same as the suit was contentious in nature and since nothing would be gained by ordering pleadings since the general elections were scheduled to take place in 7 days’ time. Aggrieved, the 1st Respondent appealed to Court of Appeal while the 2nd Respondent also cross-appealed. The Court of appeal upheld the cross-appeal and dismissed the appeal of the Appellant and remitted the case to the Trial Court for retrial. Dissatisfied, the Appellant further appealed to Supreme Court.

HELD

Appeal allowed.

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION

Is it correct for the court below to determine this appeal on merit without settling the challenge of jurisdiction of the court below to hear and determine the suit itself?
Whether the question of membership of a political party is justiciable to invoke the jurisdiction of the court below to determine same under the procedure enacted by Section 31(5) of the Electoral Act, 2010 or at all?

RATIOS:
JURISDICTION-IMPORTANCE OF-EFFECT OF LACK OF JURISDICTION
“The law is by now well settled that jurisdiction is the lifeblood of any adjudication and where it is lacking it would render any proceedings, no matter how well conducted, liable to be set aside for being a nullity.” PER MOTONMORI OLATOKUNBO KEKERE-EKUN, JSC

 

JURISDICTION-FUNDAMENTAL NATURE OF
“Jurisdiction is so fundamental that once the court’s jurisdiction to hear a matter is challenged, it must be dealt with and resolved first before any other step in the proceedings. It is because it is so fundamental that it can be raised at any time, in any manner and at any stage of the proceedings.” PER MOTONMORI OLATOKUNBO KEKERE-EKUN, JSC

 

LACK OF JURISDICTION- EFFECT OF
“The law is that where the court lacks jurisdiction to entertain a cause or matter, the entire process, no matter how well conducted, is an exercise in futility, for the proceedings are a nullity ab initio.” PER MOTONMORI OLATOKUNBO KEKERE- EKUN, JSC

 

JURISDICTION OF A COURT-DETERMINATION OF-PROCESSES THE COURT SHOULD CONSIDER
“The law is settled that in determining the jurisdiction of a court to entertain a cause or matter, the processes to be considered by the court are the processes filed by the plaintiff or applicant i.e. the writ of summons and statement of claim, or as in the present case the originating summons and its supporting affidavit.” PER MOTONMORI OLATOKUNBO KEKERE-EKUN, JSC

 

DECISION OF COURT-DECISION NOT APPEALED AGAINST-EFFECT OF
“It is a settled principle of law that a decision on any point of law or fact not appealed against is deemed to have been conceded by the party against whom it was decided and it remains valid and binding on all the parties.” PER MOTONMORI OLATOKUNBO KEKERE-EKUN, JSC

 

POLITICAL PARTY-MEMBERSHIP OF-DOMESTIC AFFAIR OF THE PARTY-WHETHER THE COURTS WILL BE INVOLVED THEREWITH
“There is a plethora of decisions of this court to the effect that membership of a political party is the domestic affair of the party concerned and the courts will not be involved in deciding who the members of a political party are.” PER MOTONMORI OLATOKUNBO KEKERE-EKUN, JSC

 

CASES MENTIONED:
Adeyemi Vs Opeyori (1976) 9-10 SC 31:
Anyaduba & Anor. Vs N.R.T.C. Ltd. (1992) 5 NWLR (Pt.243) 535 @ 553 G – F:
Elabanjo Vs Dawodu (2006) 15 NWLR (Pt.1001) 76:
Inakoju Vs Adeleke (2007) 4 NWLR (PT.1025) 427 at 588F
Lado Vs C.P.C. (2012) ALL FWLR (Pt.607) 598 ® 622 – 623 C – D & F – H: (2011) 12 SC (Pt.III) 113 & 139 – 140
Ogunyade Vs Osunkeye (2007) All FWLR (Pt.389) 1175 @ 1206 – 1207 H – B:
Onibodu & Ors. Vs Akibu & Ors. (1982) 13 NSCC 199:
Onuoha Vs Okafor (1983) 2 SCNLR 244: (1983) NSCC 494:
P.D.P. Vs Sylva (2012) 13 NWLR (Pt.1316) 85
Tukur Vs Governor Gongola State (1989) 4 NWLR (Pt.117) 517
Unity Bank Nig. Plc. Vs Bouari (2008) 7 NWLR (Pt.1086) 372 @ 400 B-C
STATUTES REFERRED TO:
The Electoral Act 2010 (as amended)
The Court of Appeal Rules 2011
The 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria

 

 

HON. GOODLUCK NANA OPIA VS INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION & ANOR

           LEGALPEDIA  CITATION: LER[2014] SC. 16/2013

AREA OF LAW- ELECTORAL MATTER, JURISDICTION

The Appellant filed an Originating Summons under S.68 (1) (c) of the Electoral Act (2010) (as amended) at the Federal High Court challenging the conduct of the supplementary election as well as the return of the 2nd Respondent as the winner of the supplementary election for Ohaji/Egbema State House of Assembly Constituency held on the 6th May, 2011.
The 2nd Respondent filed a notice of preliminary objection challenging the jurisdiction of the Trial Court to entertain the suit as the relief sought by the Appellant has the similitude of a post- election matter. The Trial Court dismissed the suit for want of jurisdiction. Aggrieved, the Appellant appealed to Court of Appeal where the decision of the Trial Court was affirmed. The Appellant further appealed to Supreme Court.

 

HELD:

Appeal dismissed

 

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION:
“Whether the Court of Appeal was right when it affirmed the decision of the trial court, wherein the said court declined jurisdiction to hear and determine the Appellants’ Amended Originating Summons.”

 

RATIOS:

 

PRINCIPLE OF LAW-PURPORT OF UBI JUS UBI REMEDIUM
“The basic, broad, and general principle of law is contained in the old latin maxim – UBI JUS UBI REMEDIUM.”JUS” here signifies the legal authority to do or demand something and REMEDIUM means the right of action, or the means given by law for the recovery or declaration. Simply put, wherever the law gives a right, it also gives a remedy conversely, wherever a plaintiff is claiming a remedy, that remedy must be joined on a legal right.” PER SULEIMAN GALADIMA, JSC

 

CAUSE OF ACTION-HOW DETERMINED
“A cause of action is determined by reference to the plaintiff’s statement of claim. The immediate materials a court should look at are the Writ of Summons and averments in the statement of claim.” PER SULEIMAN GALADIMA, JSC

 

COMPETENCE OF A COURT- HOW DETERMINED
“A court is competent when, inter alia, a case comes before it, initiated by due process of law and upon fulfillment of any condition precedent to the exercise of jurisdiction. As well, the subject matter must be cognizable by the court or Tribunal”. PER JOHN AFOLABI FABIYI, JSC

 

EXPRESSIO UNIUS EST EXCLUSIO ALTERIUS RULE –MEANING OF
“This means that the express mention of one thing in a statutory provision automatically excludes any other which otherwise would have been excluded by implication. PER JOHN AFOLABI FABIYI, JSC

 

JURISDICTION-IMPORTANCE OF-WHEN SHOULD BE DETERMINED-EFFECT OF LACK OF JURISDICTION
“Jurisdiction is very basic in adjudicatory process. It has to be determined at the earliest opportunity, as done by the trial Federal High Court in this matter. Any defect in competence is fatal as same is extrinsic to adjudication”. PER JOHN AFOLABI FABIYI, JSC

 

GROUND OF APPEAL-NATURE OF
“A ground of appeal should be concisely and elegantly drafted and straight to the point so that the error complained of, be it of fact or law, is apparent on its face.” PER NWALI SYLVESTER NGWUTA, JSC

 

ELECTION DISPUTES-JURISDICTION OF COURT TO DETERMINE SAME
“Section 285(1] (d) of the 1999 Constitution, having specifically conferred the power to decide disputes arising from the conduct of election on the Election Tribunal to the exclusion of the regular Courts, including the Federal High Court, the latter lacks the vires to decide election disputes”. PER SULEIMAN GALADIMA, JSC

 

CASES MENTIONED:
Ajayi v. Adebiyi (2012) ALL FWLR (pt. 634)1 at 30 ‘D
Alhaji M. Abubakar V. Bebeji Oil & Allied Product Ltd & Ors (2007) 2 SCNJ. 170
Anaeze v. Anyaso (1993) 5 NWLR (Pt. 291).
Buhari v. Dikko Yusuf (2003) 1 NWLR (Pt. 841) 446
Gabiri Ogbimi v. Beauty Ololo & Ors (1993) SC.447
Madukolu v. Nkemdilim (1962) 2 SCNLR 341
Oloba v. Akereja (1988) 3 NWLR (Pt. 84) 508
Oloruntoba-Ohu & ors v. Abdul-Raheem & ors (2009) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1157) 83.
PDP v. INEC (1999) 11 NWLR (Pt. 628) 200;
Udoh v. Orthopaedic Hospital Management Board (1993) 7 NWLR (Pt 304) 139

 

STATUTES REFERRED TO
Electoral Act 2010 (as amended)
Supreme Court Act
The 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended)

 

 

SENATOR CHRISTIANA N.D ANYANWU v HON. INDEPENDENCE CHIEDOZIEM OGUNEWE & 2 ORS

LEGALPEDIA CITATION: LER[2014] SC. 21/2013

 

AREA OF LAW- ELECTORAL MATTER, JURISDICTION

 

SUMMARY OF FACTS
The 1st Respondent instituted an action under originating summons at the trial Court contending that the Appellant’s name ought not to have been submitted as the senatorial candidate for the Imo East Senatorial Zone Election in the 2011 general election because at the time of the primary election which took place on 14th January 2011, that the Appellant was not a member of the APGA but an active member of another party, P.D.P. The trial Court struck out the 1St Respondent’s originating summons on the grounds that the suit was contentious in nature and since nothing would be gained by ordering pleadings since the general elections were scheduled to take place in 7 days’ time. Aggrieved, the Appellant appealed to Court of Appeal while the 1st Respondent also cross-appealed. The Court of appeal upheld the cross-appeal and dismissed the appeal of the Appellant and remitted the case to the Trial Court for retrial. Dissatisfied, the Appellant further appealed to Supreme Court.

 

HELD:
Appeal allowed.

 

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION
Whether the Appellant was given a fair hearing by the court below

Whether the Court of Appeal was right in holding that the issue of jurisdiction by the Federal High Court to hear the case was not properly raised in the Court of Appeal
Whether the Federal High Court has jurisdiction to hear the case as to justify the order of the Court of Appeal remitting the case to the Federal High Court for trial on the merit

RATIOS:

 

ISSUE OF JURISDICTION-FUNDAMENTAL NATURE OF
“The issue of jurisdiction is so fundamental to adjudication that it can be raised at any time and in any manner even for the first time on appeal and even viva voce.” PER MOTONMORI KEKERE-EKUN, JSC

 

JURISDICTION OF COURT-DETERMINATION OF –PROCESSES THE COURT SHOULD CONSIDER
“The law is settled that in determining the jurisdiction of a court to entertain a cause or matter, the processes to be considered by the court are the processes filed by the plaintiff or applicant i.e. the writ of summons and statement of claim, or as in the present case the originating summons and its supporting affidavit.” PER MOTONMORI KEKERE-EKUN, JSC

 

DECISION OF COURT-DECISION NOT APPEALED AGAINST –EFFECT OF
“It is a settled principle of law that a decision on any point of law or fact not appealed against is deemed to have been conceded by the party against whom it was decided and it remains valid and binding on all the parties.” PER MOTONMORI KEKERE-EKUN, JSC

 

POLITICAL PARTY-MEMBERSHIP OF-DOMESTIC AFFAIR OF THE PARTY-WHETHER THE COURTS WILL BE INVOLVED THEREWITH
There is a plethora of decisions of this court to the effect that membership of a political party is the domestic affair of the party concerned and the courts will not be involved in deciding who the members of a political party are.” PER MOTONMORI KEKERE-EKUN, JSC

 

JURISDICTION OF COURT -DUTY ON A COMPLAINANT
“It has been held that the jurisdiction of the court to entertain a complaint under this section is very narrow in scope. A complainant must bring himself squarely within the confines of the provision. He must be an aspirant who participated in the primary and his complaint must relate to non-compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act or the guidelines of the political party.” PER MOTONMORI KEKERE-EKUN, JSC

 

POLITICAL PARTY-RESPONSIBILITY OF DETERMINING WHO ITS MEMBERS ARE-WHETHER THE COURTS HAVE BUSINESS IN DETERMINING SAME
“It is the prerogative of every political party to determine who its members are. The courts have no business delving into the issue as dearly stated in the authorities of Onuoha Vs Okafor.” PER MOTONMORI KEKERE-EKUN, JSC

 

ISSUE OF JURISDICTION-IMPORTANCE OF –WHEN CAN BE RAISED
“As issue of jurisdiction is very vital in adjudicatory process, it can be raised at any time in any manner by the parties or even by the court suo motu, which must, however, give parties chance to address it on same.” PER JOHN AFOLABI FABIYI, JSC

 

CASES MENTIONED:
Adeyemi Vs Opeyori (1976) 9-10 SC 31:
Elabanio Vs Dawodu (2006)15 NWLR (Pt.1001) 76:
Inakoju Vs Adeleke (2007)4 NWLR (pt. 1025) 427 at 588F
Isaac Obiuweubi Vs CBN (2011) K7 NWLR (Pt.1247) 465 ® 494 D – F
Lado Vs C.P.C. (2012)1 ALL FWLR Pt.6071 598 (3) 622 – 623 C – D & F – H: (2011)12 SC (Pt.111) 113 @ 139 – 140
Onuoha Vs Okafor (19831 2 SCNLR 244: (19831 NSCC 494:
P.D.P. Vs Svlya (20121 13 NWLR (Pt.13161 85
Petrojessica Enterprises Ltd. Vs Leventis Tech. Co. Ltd. (1992) 5 NWLR (Pt.244) 675:
Tukur Vs Governor Gongola State (1989) 4 NWLR (Pt.117) 517

 

STATUTES REFERRED TO
The Electoral Act 2010 (as amended)
The Court of Appeal Rules 2011
The 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria