CHIEF IKECHI EMENIKE VS PEOPLES DEMOCRATIC PARTY & ORS

CORAM

PARTIES

CHIEF IKECHI EMENIKE APPELLANTS

RESPONDENTS

AREA(S) OF LAW

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Plaintiff/Appellant initiated an Originating Summons against the Defendants/Respondents jointly and severally at the Federal High Court seeking a declaration that Plaintiff/Appellant had won the  Abia State Gubernatorial primary election conducted by the State Executive Committee of the 1st Defendant/Respondent  but the National Executives of the 1st Defendant/Respondent conducted another gubernatorial primary election for Abia State (which the Plaintiff/Appellant did not participate therein) and wrongly substituted or replaced the Plaintiff/Appellant with the 4thDefendant/Appellant. The Plaintiff/Appellant further prayed the trial Court for an order of perpetual injunction restraining the Defendants from giving recognition to any other candidates other than the Plaintiff/Appellant.The trial Court dismissed the suit of the Plaintiff/Appellant.  Irked by the judgment of the trial Court, the Plaintiff/Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal where the appeal was dismissed. Still dissatisfied with the judgment of the lower Court, the Plaintiff/Appellant appealed to the apex Court.  ?

HELD

Appeal dismissed

ISSUES

Whether the Court of Appeal was right in dismissing the Appellant’s appeal and affirming the judgment of the trial Court

RATIONES DECIDENDI

DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION – THE COURT HAS A DUTY TO SUO MOTU DETERMINE WHETHER IT HAS JURISDICTION OR NOT

“A trial court (and say an appellate court) has a duty to suo motu deal with issue regarding whether or not it has jurisdiction to entertain a matter before it. See: Alaeto v. Nwapi (2007) All FWLE (Pt. 375) 591; Adesanya v. President FRN (2001) FWLR (Pt. 46) 869; (1981) 1 All NLR 1; Thomas v. Olufosoye (1986) 1 NWLR (Pt. 18) 669.” PER J. A. FABIYI, JSC

NOMINATION OF CANDIDATES BY A POLITICAL PARTY- NOMINATION OF CANDIDATE OF A POLITICAL PARTY ARE NON JUSTICIABLE

“Matters relating to nomination of the candidate of a political party are regarded as domestic affairs and are generally treated as not justiceable. This has been so for quite some time now. See: Onuoha v. Okafor (1983) 2 SC NLR 244; Ehinlanwo v. Oke (2008) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1113) 13”. PER J. A. FABIYI, JSC

GROUND OF LAW – NATURE OF COMPLAINT THAT WOULD AMOUNT TO GROUND OF LAW

“Where the complaint is that there was no evidence or no admissible evidence upon which a finding or decision was based; same is regarded as a ground of law.”PER J. A. FABIYI, JSC

JURISDICTION OF THE COURT IN THE NOMINATION OF A CANDIDATE – EXTENT OF THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT IN THE NOMINATION OF A CANDIDATE OF A POLITICAL PARTY

The courts have no power to compel a political party to sponsor a candidate outside the thin and limited powers conferred under section 87 of the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended). The jurisdiction of the court relates to whether complaints in respect of primary election for nomination of a candidate were conducted in line with the provisions of the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended), the party constitution and the party guidelines.”PER J. A. FABIYI, JSC

CASE LAW – A PARTY SHOULD BE CONSISTENT IN STATING HIS CASE

“This court has stated it in clear terms that a party should be consistent in stating his case and consistent in proving it. Justice is more than a game of hide and seeks. It will never decree anything in favour of so slippery a customer as the appellant. See: Ajide v. Kelani (1955) 3 MLR (Pt. 12) 248 at 269 C-D.”PER J. A. FABIYI, JSC

RAISING NEW ISSUE ON APPEAL – LEAVE IN RAISING NEW ISSUE ON APPEAL IS A CONDITION PRECEDENT TO THE EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION OF A COURT

“The law is trite that where leave is required to appeal or raise new issue on appeal, it is a condition precedent to the exercise of jurisdiction. See Nalsa& Team Associates v. N.N.P.C. (1991) 8 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 212) 652.” PER M. MOHAMMED, J.S.C

BURDEN OF PROOF ON A PARTY SEEKING DECLARATORY RELIEFS – A PARTY SEEKING DECLARATORY RELIEFS MUST PROVE HIS CASE AS DECLARATORY RELIEFS ARE NOT GRANTED EVEN ON ADMISSION BY THE DEFENDANT

“In Dumez Nig. Ltd. v. Nwakhoba (2008) 18 NWLR (pt. 119) 361 at 373-374 this court pronounced with force that the burden of Proof on the plaintiff in establishing declaratory reliefs to the satisfaction of the court is quite heavy in the sense that such declaratory reliefs are not granted even on admission by the defendant where the plaintiff fails to establish his entitlement to the declaration by his own evidence.”PER J. A. FABIYI, JSC

CASES CITED

Hope Uzodinma v. Senator O. Izunaso [2011] vol 5 pt. 1. MJSC p. 27Alaeto v. Nwapi [2007] All FWLR (pt. 375) 591

STATUTES REFERRED TO

Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended)Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999Supreme Court Rules

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT