CHIEF S. O. ADEDAYO VS P.D.P

CORAM

PARTIES

CHIEF S. O. ADEDAYO APPELLANTS

P.D.P

RESPONDENTS 

AREA(S) OF LAW

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The 1stDefendant/ Respondent a political party conducted its primary election in Kwara State to elect its candidate for the Gubernatorial election. After the Plaintiffs/Appellants had conducted the primary and declared the winner, the party set up a National Election Panel which conducted the primary election and submitted the 2nd Defendant/Respondent’s name as the duly elected candidate for the party, The Plaintiffs/Appellants claimed was that by virtue of the Peoples Democratic Party’s Constitution, the State Executive Committee was the recognized Panel saddle with the duty of conducting primary election and declaring candidates for the Gubernatorial Election, among all other things. The trial Court (Federal High Court) held in favour of the Defendants/Respondents, the Plaintiffs/ Appellants thereby appealed to the Court of Appeal which dismissed their appeal. Hence, the instant appeal was lodged in this Court.

HELD

Appeal dismissed.

ISSUES

1. Whether Appellants have satisfied the legal requirements necessary for this Court to depart from its decision in Lado’s case?

2. Whether this court is vested with the power and jurisdiction to depart and/or over-rule its previous decision has been well answered by the 1st and 2nd respondents’ learned counsel on their brief of argument?

RATIONES DECIDENDI

RAISING AN ISSUE SUO MOTU -WHERE THE COURT RAISES AN ISSUE SUO MOTU IT MUST AFFORD PARTIES OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD IN RESPECT OF THE NEW ISSUE

“A court of law is not permitted to raise an issue suo motu and proceed to determine the case before it on the issue so raised without calling on the parties or counsel representing them to address it on the said issue. It follows therefore that it is not the raising of the issue suo motu that is frowned upon by the law but the failure of the court to hear parties on the issue in question before proceeding to determine the case on the issue. Where the court fails to listen to the parties, particularly the party to be adversely affected by the decision on the issue so raised, it is said to have fallen foul of the principles of the rules of fair hearing, and such a decision is liable to be set aside.” PER ONNOGHEN JSC

EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE – DUTY OF THE APPELLATE COURT WHEN CONFRONTED WITH THE QUESTION OF PROPER EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE

“Where an appellate court is confronted with the question of proper evaluation of evidence stemming from a related ground of appeal, the duty lies on the said court to have recourse to the record with the view to ensuring that the lower court in fact acted on an available evidence. The confirmation of such evidence will incapacitate the appellate court from interference with such findings.”PER OGUNBIYI JSC

DECISIONS OF COURTS- CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE AN APPELLATE COURT WILL OVERRULE ITS PREVIOUS DECISION

“This Court may depart from or overrule its previous decision under certain circumstances and in accordance with laid down principles of law, or given per incuriam or that it has become an instrument of injustice and so on.” PER GALADIMA JSC

JURISDICTION OF THE HIGH COURT – JURISDICTION OF HIGH COURTS AS REGARD ELECTION MATTERS

‘‘In my view, the special jurisdiction granted the High Court by Section 87 of the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended) does not derogate from the ordinary jurisdiction of the Court pursuant to which it deals with matters relating to the interpretation and application of the Constitution of political parties as was done by the trial Court.’’PER NGWUTA

RATIO DECIDENDI AND OBITER DICTUM- WHEN AN OBITER DICTUM WILL BE BINDING AND CONSTITUTE STARE DECISIS

“However, it is not everything stated in the decision/judgment that constitutes the stare decisis. What is binding in the previous decision as precedent is the enunciation of the reason or principle upon which the question before the court was decided. Any other thing said by way of arriving at that decision is usually referred to as obiter dicta which is not binding, though they may have persuasive efficacy. Where however, an obiter dictum is based on the ratio decidendi of the Supreme Court, it will be regarded as binding.” PER ONNOGHEN JSC

STARE DECISIS- MEANING OF THE PRINCIPLE OF STARE DECISIS.

” Stare decision et non quelamovere” therefore means, literally “To stand by what has been decided and not to disturb and unsettle things which are established”. The term stare decisis thus means to abide by former precedents where the same points come again in litigation” PER ONNOGHEN JSC

NOMINATION FOR ELECTION-A PARTY SEEKING REDRESS IN COURT IN RESPECT OF A PARTY’S NOMINATION MUST BRING HIS CAUSE WITHIN THE PROVISION OF SECTION 87 OF THE ELECTORAL ACT 2010

‘‘It has been decided that a party in an action founded on party nomination for elections who fails to bring himself within the provisions of Section 87 of the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended), has no cause of action to be enforced in the courts and as such the courts will have no jurisdiction to entertain such an action, particularly as the issue as to who should be a candidate in a political party still remains a political question within the domestic jurisdiction of the political parties, and therefore not justiciable.’’PER GALADIMA, JSC

FINDINGS OF FACT BY A TRIAL COURT- WHEN CAN AN APPELLATE COURT INTERFERE WITH FINDINGS OF THE TRIAL COURT

‘‘Appellate court can only interfere with such findings after evaluation by the trial court, where the said finding are perverse as it is not supported by the evidence on record or is based on wrong evaluation or not based on the evidence on record or is based on wrong evaluation, or not based on the evidence led at the trial at all.’’ PER GALADIMA JSC

JUDICIAL PRECEDENT -THE SUPREME COURT IS NOT BOUND BY THE PRINCIPLE OF JUDICIAL PRECEDENT EXCEPT IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES.

‘‘ In other words and although this court by its position is not bound by precedent, it nevertheless respects precedent which is essential for the certainty of the law that it should generally follow its previous decisions, except of course where the justice of the earlier decision is in question; the interest of justice should rightly therefore dictate otherwise. See the case of Asanya V. The State (1991) 4 SC page 40 @ 55 per Nnemeka-Agu JSC.’’PER OGUNBIYI,

FINDINGS OF FACTS- INSTANCES WHERE THE APPELLATE COURT WILL INTERFERE WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE TRIAL COURT

“Also settled is the principle of law to the effect that an appellate court can only interfere with such findings after evaluation by the trial court where the said findings are perverse, i..e. not supported by the evidence on record or is based on wrong evaluation or not based on the evidence led, at all.” See Peterside V. Oligakwe 11 NLR 41; Woluchem V. Chief Gudi (1981) 5 S.C. 291; Ebba Vs Oegodoe (1984) 4 S.C 84.” PER ONNOGHEN JSC

EVIDENCE – A COURT IS PERMITTED TO DRAW INFERENCES FROM EVIDENCE

“In any event, a court is permitted by law to draw inferences from evidence on record such as documents – See Olorunkunle V. Adigun (2012) ALL FWLR (PT. 614) 139 at 148. Such inferences cannot be regarded as raising issues suo motu, by the court.” PER ONNOGHEN JSC

DECISIONS OF COURTS – THE COURT MUST BE SATISFIED THAT ITS EARLIER DECISION IS PATENTLY WRONG BEFORE SUCH DECISION IS REVERSED

“A reversal of an earlier decision of the court can give rise to instability in the rules of judicial precedent, particularly the rules governing stare decisis, hence the court must be satisfied or convinced that the earlier decision was clearly and patently wrong.” PER ONNOGHEN JSC

NOMINATION OF CANDIDATE -RIGHTS OF CANDIDATES WHO ARE DISSATISFIED WITH THEIR POLITICAL PARTY’S CONDUCT IN THE PROCESS OF NOMINATING CANDIDATES TO SEEK REMEDY IN COURT

‘‘It is pertinent to state that the law has in anticipation envisaged and thus provided for situations where aspirants and candidates who are dissatisfied with the conduct of their political parties in the process of nomination of candidates could seek for remedy. The caring provision is section 87(9), (10) of the Electoral Act 2010 as amended.’’PER OGUNBIYI

PRIMARY ELECTION – EFFECT OF PRIMARY ELECTION CONDUCTED CONTRARY TO THE PARTY’S CONSTITUTION AND THE ELECTORAL ACT.

‘‘The courts, including the Supreme Court regards any purported primary election conducted by a State Executive Committee of a political party contrary to the party constitution, Electoral Act and party guidelines, on conduct of primary elections as an illegal primary and therefore not justiciable. See Emenike v. PDP (2012) ALL FWLR (Pt. 640) 1261’’.PER ONNOGHEN JSC

JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS – PRINCIPLES OF JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS

“The issue as to whether or not the Supreme Court, being the final court of appeal in the land should depart from its previous decision is linked up with the principles of judicial precedents particularly the principle of stare decisis which is a principle by which a court is bound to follow decisions in previous cases otherwise known as precedent. The principles are thus interrelated. The use of precedent is an indispensable foundation upon which to decide what the law is and its application to individual cases.” PER ONNOGHEN JSC

ASCRIPTION OF PROBATIVE VALUE TO EVIDENCE– IT IS THE DUTY OF A TRIAL COURT TO ASCRIBE PROBATIVE VALUE TO EVIDENCE.

“Ascription of probative value to evidence is a matter primarily for the trial court. Where a trial court unquestionably evaluates the evidence and appraises the facts, it is no business of the appellate court to substitute its own views of undisputed facts with the views of the trial court.”see Balogun v. Agboola (1974) 1 ALL NLR (Pt. 2) 60; Fatoyinbo v. Williams (1959) 1 FSC 87.” PER ONNOGHEN JSC

EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE AND ASCRIPTION OF PROBATIVE VALUE -THE APPELLATE COURT IS NOT TO SUBSTITUTE ITS OWN VIEWS OF UNDISPUTED FACT WITH THE VIEWS OF THE TRIAL COURT.

“The ascription of probative value to evidence is a matter primarily before the trial court, where the trial court has thoroughly and unquestionably evaluated the evidence and appraised the facts, it is not the business of the appellate court to substitute its own views of undisputed fact with the views of the trial court.” PER GALADIMA JSC

CASES CITED

STATUTES REFERRED TO

Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999

Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended)

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT