CHIEF ADEBISI ADEGBUYI v. ALL PROGRESSIVE CONGRESS (APC) & ORS

CORAM

JOHN AFOLABI FABIYI    JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

PARTIES

CHIEF ADEBISI ADEGBUYI  APPELLANTS

ALL PROGRESSIVE CONGRESS (APC) & ORS

RESPONDENTS 

AREA(S) OF LAW

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Plaintiff/Appellant brought an originating summons against the Defendants/Respondents at the Federal High Court, Abeokuta Judicial Division seeking a declaration that the 1st Defendant/Respondent did not conduct a senatorial primary election in accordance with section 87 of the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended) as it had handpicked the 2nd Defendant/Respondent as the winner of the said elections instead of the Plaintiff/Appellant who was the only qualified candidate having complied with the party’s guidelines. The Defendants/Respondent filed counter-affidavits contending that the Plaintiff/Appellant had withdrawn his intention to contest the said elections in the consequence of which, he was replaced with the 2nd Defendant/Respondent in compliance with section 87 (6) of the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended).The trial Court dismissed the originating summons and ordered that pleadings should be filed by parties. Dissatisfied with the ruling of the trial Court, the Plaintiff/Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal where the Appellate Court held that the use of the word “dismissal” in the ruling was a slip by the trial Court and dismissed the appeal. Still dissatisfied with the decision of the Appellate Court, the Plaintiff/Appellant appealed to the Supreme Court.

HELD

Appeal Dismissed

ISSUES

1. Whether the Court of Appeal was right in its conclusion that there was no evidence to contradict the printed record of appeal and that the accusation of alteration of record against the trial judge was incompetent and unproved?

2. Whether the Court of Appeal was not right in its decision that judgment should be read together and that the use of the word ‘dismissal’ was a slip?

RATIONES DECIDENDI

RECORDS OF APPEAL – RECORDS OF APPEAL MUST BE CONSIDERED WHOLISTICALLY IN ORDER TO AVOID INJUSTICE

“Most importantly, the record must be considered wholistically to avoid doing violence to its real content and injustice to the judge and the court.” PER M. D.MUHAMMAD, JSC

CONDUCT OF PRIMARY ELECTION – IT IS THE POLITICAL PARTY THAT HAS EXCLUSIVE POWER TO CONDUCT PRIMARY ELECTION AND IT WOULD BE IMPROPER FOR A COURT TO DABBLE INTO IT

“It is the political party that has exclusive power to conduct primary election. A court of record should not dabble into political question which remains the exclusive preserve of political parties that should be allowed to do their things. Such powers cannot be interfered with by the courts. See:Onuoha v. Okafor (1983) 2 SCNLR 244; Effiom v. CRS INEC (2012) 43 NSCQR 346.”PER J.A. FABIYI, JSC

ORIGINATING SUMMONS PROCEDURE – ORIGINATING SUMMONS PROCEDURE IS USED FOR THE DETERMINATION OF STRAIGHT FORWARD QUESTIONS BUT IT IS UNSUITABLE FOR CASES WITH HOSTILE OR CONTENTIOUS FACTS

“The principle has become trite that the originating summons procedure is not for causes in which facts remain hostile and in conflict. The procedure is ideal for the determination of short and straight forward questions of construction and interpretation of documents or statutes. It is never the applicable procedure in controversial cases where the facts on which the court is invited to construe or interprete the document or legislation in relation to remain violently in conflict. See National Bank of Nigeria V. Alakija (1978) 9-10 SC 59.” PER M. D.MUHAMMAD, JSC

EFFECT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACT- ANY FACT THAT IS UNCONTROVERTED/DENIED IS DEEMED ADMITTED

“It is significant that the appellant did not deny that he wrote the letter of withdrawal. It must be presumed that he admits the content and intendment of the letter. A court of record can conveniently take same as established and act on it. See: Agbanebo v. UBN Ltd. (2000) 7 NWLR (Pt. 666) 534 at 549; Edokpolor & Co. Ltd v. Ohenhen (1994) 7 NWLR (Pt. 358) 511 at 513; Bello v. Eweka (1981) 1 SC. 101.”PER J.A. FABIYI. JSC

WITHDRAWAL FROM ELECTION – A PARTY WHO WITHDRAWS FROM ELECTION HAS NO COMPETENCE TO COMPLAIN OR INSTITUTE AN ACTION TO COMPLAIN ABOUT THE CONDUCT OF THE ELECTION

“It is basic that the appellant who withdrew from the contest cannot validly complain about the conduct of the primary election. He has no competence and authority to complain or institute an action. He cannot be allowed to blow hot and cold at the same time. He has no capacity to approach the court to enforce any right from the same primary. See: Buhari v. INEC & Ors. (2008) 18 WRN 36; Bamigboye v. Saraki (2010) 14 WRN, 125.” PER J.A. FABIYI, JSC

CONCURRENT FINDINGS OF TWO LOWER COURTS – CONCURRENT FINDINGS OF TWO LOWER COURTS CANNOT BE ORDINARILY INTERFERED WITH BY THE APPELLATE COURT

“This court has positioned in a long line of authorities that concurrent findings of two lower courts would not ordinarily be interfered with; see Gbafe V. Gbafe (1996) 6 NWLR (Pt. 455) 417 at 436 and Nwose V. Board of Customs and Excise (1998) 12 SC (Pt 111) 77 at 88. See also Tiza V. Begha (2005) 5 SC 1 at 17; Akpagbue V. Ogu (1976) 6 SC 63; Amadi V. Nwosu (1992) 5 NWLR (Pt. 241) 273 and Ezekwesile V. Agbapiuonwu (2003) 9 NWLR (Pt. 825) 337.” PER C.B.OGUNBIYI, JSC

DETERMINATION OF ISSUES BEFORE THE COURT – DUTY OF COURT NOT TO RESTRICT ITSELF TO ONE OR MORE ISSUES WHICH IN ITS OPINION MAY DISPOSE OF THE MATTER BUT DETERMINE ALL ISSUES BEFORE IT

“The court below had an abiding duty to consider such a determinant issue which touches on jurisdiction, as it were. The court should pronounce on all issues as an intermediate court. It should not restrict itself to one or more issues which in its opinion may dispose of the matter. See Xtoudos Ser. Nig. Ltd. v. Taisei W. A. Ltd. (2006) WRN 46 at 37.”PER J.A. FABIYI, JSC

GROUND OF APPEAL – THE PURPOSE OF GROUND OF APPEAL IS TO GIVE NOTICE TO THE OTHER SIDE OF THE NATURE OF THE COMPLAINT AGAINST THE DECISION OF THE LOWER COURT

“It should be noted that the whole purpose of a ground of appeal is to give notice to the other side and the court the nature of the grouse or complaint which the appellant has against the decision of the lower court.” PER J. A. FABIYI, JSC

RECORD OF APPEAL – PRESUMPTION OF REGULARITY OF CERTIFIED RECORD OF APPEAL – PARTIES ARE BOUND BY THE CERTIFIED RECORD OF APPEAL

“It is incumbent on the appellant to realize that the court and the parties are bound by the record of appeal as certified and it is presumed correct unless the contrary is proved. A party who challenges the correctness of the record of proceedings must swear to an affidavit setting out the facts or part of the proceedings omitted or wrongly stated in the record. Such affidavit must be served on the judge or registrar of the court concerned.” PER J.A.FABIYI, JSC

CASES CITED

STATUTES REFERRED TO

Electoral Act 2010 (as amended)

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT