CHUKWUDI EZE VS THE STATE

CORAM

MEHAMMED LAWAL GARBA JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL

PARTIES

CHUKWUDI EZE APPELLANTS

THE STATE RESPONDENTS

AREA(S) OF LAW

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The facts are that Umaru Musa Yar’adua and the 1st Defendant/Respondent were elected as the President and Vice-President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria Nigeria, respectively on the 21st of April, 2007. Three years after the swearing in, the President died and the 1st Defendant/Respondent was sworn into the office to complete the tenure of  the late President of Nigeria in accordance with section 146 (1) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

After completing the tenure of the deceased President, the 1st Defendant/Respondent contested an election wherein he was elected as the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria on the 29th of May, 2011. A year after, the Punch Newspaper reported the statement of one Dr. Reuben Abati, the Senior Special Adviser on Media and Publicity to the 1st Defendant/Respondent, saying that the 1st Defendant/Respondent is in his first term in office, thus implying entitlement for a second term as President, for the 1st Defendant/Respondent. The  Plaintiff/Appellant who had nursed the ambition of contesting for the Office of the President under the umbrella of the Peoples Democratic Party (the 2nd Defendant/Respondent)was aggrieved by the newspaper report and thus approached the trial Court by way of an Originating Summons supported by an affidavit seeking for reliefs among which are a declaration that the tenure of the President began on the 6th of May 2010 and should end on the 29th of May 2015,that by virtue of section 136(1)(b) of the Federal Republic of Nigeria no person shall take the Oath of allegiance and the Oath of office more than twice and an order of injunction restraining the 1st Defendant/Respondent from further contesting for the Office of the President. A counter –affidavit and a preliminary objection was filed in respect of the originating summons by the 1st and 2nd Respondent challenging the competence of the suit.

The trial Court was of the view that the Preliminary Objections had merit and same was upheld. The suit was therefore struck out for the absence of any cause of action and for lack of locus standi on the part of the Appellant. Dissatisfied with the decision of the trial Court, the Plaintiff/Appellant has appealed to the Court of Appeal.

HELD

Appeal Dismissed

ISSUES

1.Whether the learned trial Judge was right in law and on the facts when he held that the plaintiff does not possess the locus standi to institute the action and that his suit does not disclose a reasonable cause of action. (Grounds 1 and 2 of the Notice of Appeal).?

2.Whether the learned trial Judge was right in law and on the facts when he held that the 1st Respondent is eligible to seek election for another four (4) years in the 2015 Presidential Elections having regard to the provisions of sections 147(1)(b), 135(2)(b) and 318 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, (as amended). (Ground 3, 4 and 5 of the Notice of Appeal).?

RATIONES DECIDENDI

INTERPRETATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION – DUTY OF THE COURT TO CONSIDER THE RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION IN ITS ENTIRETY WHILE INTERPRETING THE PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION

‘‘The words in the Constitution, are what convey the intention of the framers of the Constitution. Therefore disputes or misunderstandings are bound to occur in the course of working with the Constitution. The lot is on the courts, to interpret the Constitution. In so doing, a court of law is duty bound to consider in entirety, the relevant sections of the Constitution, in order to arrive at the correct result, i.e. to decipher the intention of the framers – PDP VS. INEC & Ors (1999) 11 NWLR (Pt.626) 200; Chime Vs. Ude(1996) 7 NWLR (Pt. 461) 379 and A.T. LTD VS. A.D.H LTD (2007) 15 NWLR (Pt.1056) 118 which held that –“It is settled law that when a court is faced with the interpretation of a Constitutional provision, the entire provisions must be read together as a whole so as to determine the object of that provision…”PER A. D. YAHAYA, J.C.A

LOCUS STANDI IN THE REALM OF PUBLIC LAW – WHETHER AN INDIVIDUAL HAS LOCUS STANDI WITH RESPECT TO RIGHTS AND DUTIES OWED TO MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC

‘‘In the realm of public law, (this includes constitutional law) the law on locus standi is still that an individual or citizen or a tax payer without more will generally not have standing as a plaintiff. This is because such litigations concern public rights and duties which belong to and are owed all members of the public including the appellant. It is the duty of the Attorney – General to sue on such rights and duties. A private individual can only sue when he is given a fiat in that regard by the Attorney-General. It is only where the individual has suffered special damage or injury over and above the one suffered by the other members of the public generally, that he can sue personally. Interest common to all members of the public is not a litigable interest and cannot accord standing. See Adesanya (Supra); Bewaji Vs. Obasanjo(2008) 9 NWLR (1093) 540, 576 and Iwara Vs. Item (2009) 17 NWLR (1170) 337.’’ PER A. D. YAHAYA, J.C.A

CAUSE OF ACTION – MEANING OF CAUSE OF ACTION

‘‘Generally, a cause of action is the entire set of circumstances giving rise to an enforceable claim. It is the fact or combination of facts, which gives rise to a right to sue. The term cause of action can also be defined as the factual situation which a plaintiff relies upon to support his claim, recognized by law as giving rise to a substantive right capable of being claimed or enforced against a defendant – Adesokan Vs. Adegorolu(1997) 3 NWLR (Pt 493) 261 at PG 279 PARA D; Emator Vs. Nigerian Army (1999) 12 NWLR (Pt 631) 362 at PG 369-370; Asoboro Vs. Pan Ocean Oil (NIG) LTD (2006) 4 NWLR (Pt 971) 599 at PG 617 PARA A-G; NICON Ins Corp VS. Olowofoyeku (2006) 5 NWLR (Pt.973) 244 at Pg 255 Para F-G.’’ PER A. D. YAHAYA, J.C.A

LACK OF LOCUS STANDI – LACK OF LOCUS STANDI DEPRIVES THE COURT OF JURISDICTION.

“Where a plaintiff lacks locus standi, the court cannot properly assume jurisdiction”. PER A. D. YAHAYA, J.C.A

DISQUALIFICATION TO STAND FOR ELECTION TO THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT- SECTION 137(1)(B) OF THE 1999 CONSTITUTION DISQUALIFIES A PERSON WHO HAS BEEN ELECTED TWICE TO THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT TO CONTEST IN AN ELECTION FOR THE SAME OFFICE.

‘‘Section 137(1)(b) of the 1999 Constitution disqualifies a person from standing for an election to the office of the President if-
“he has been elected to such office at any two previous elections.”
So the operative word, is election. The disqualification is to stand for an election again, if one had been elected at two previous elections.’’ PER A. D. YAHAYA, J.C.A

STATUS OF THE CONSTITUTION – THE CONSTITUTION IS THE GRUNDNORM AND SOURCE FROM WHICH OTHER TRIBUTARIES EMANATE.

‘‘The Constitution is the grundnorm and it is sacrosanct, for it is from it that other laws are made, rights created and powers conferred. It is the source from which other tributaries emanate and the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria is the foundation upon which the democratic system of Government we practice is anchored. It governs the relationship between citizens, between citizens and Government and also defines our relationship with other Nations in this global village. It is therefore a document that must be appreciated, respected and obeyed by all of us.’’ PER A. D. YAHAYA, J.C.A

CONCEPT OF LOCUS STANDI – THE CONCEPT OF LOCUS STANDI FOCUSES NOT ON THE MERIT OF THE CASE BUT ON THE MERIT OF THE PARTY INSTITUTING THE CASE

“The concept focuses not on the merit of the case but on the merit of the person seeking to approach the court. The essence of the concept is to protect the court from being used as a playground by professional litigants, busy bodies, meddlesome interlopers and cranks who have no real stake or interest in the subject matter of the litigation they seek to pursue.’’ PER A. D. YAHAYA, J.C.A.

DECLARATORY RELIEF RELATING TO THE CONSTITUTION – DUTY OF A PLAINTIFF TO ESTABLISH A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT WHEN SEEKING A DECLARATORY RELIEF RELATING TO THE CONSTITUTION

“The law is that a plaintiff who seeks a declaratory relief relating to the Constitution as in this case, must establish a constitutional right or interest in relation to which the declaration can be made, as courts will not decide hypothetical questions. The right or interest must be substantial, tangible and not vague, intangible or a caricature. See Inakoju Vs. Adeleke(2007) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1025) 427, 602.” PER A. D. YAHAYA, J.C.A.

INADMISSIBILITY OF NEWSPAPER REPORTS – NEWSPAPER REPORTS ARE NOT ADMISSIBLE AS EVIDENCE.

‘‘Newspaper reports in any case are not generally admissible as evidence of facts contained in them. See Lawal Vs. Governor, Kwara State (2006) ALL FWLR (321) 1299, 1308.’’ PER A. D. YAHAYA, J.C.A

CAUSE OF ACTION – WHEN WILL A CAUSE OF ACTION ARISE

“For a cause of action to arise (i) there must be a juristic person who can make the claim and a juristic person against whom the court can make an enforceable order. (ii) There must be a factual situation which will enable the court to inquire. It is only when facts establishing a civil right or obligation and facts establishing infraction or trespass on that right and obligation exist side by side, that a cause of action is said to accrue. See Consolidated Resources Ltd Vs. Abofar Ventures Nig Ltd (2007) 6 NWLR (Pt 1030) 221, 294 and Osigwe Vs. PSPLS Management Consortium Ltd (2009) 171 LRCN 94, 111.’’ PER A. D. YAHAYA, J.C.A.

DETERMINATION OF LOCUS STANDI – TO DETERMINE WHETHER A PLAINTIFF HAS LOCUS STANDI OR NOT, THE COURT IS TO EXAMINE THE PLAINTIFF’S STATEMENT OF CLAIM

‘‘In considering the standing of a plaintiff the court is to study carefully the statement of claim (in this case the originating summons and the affidavit in support) to see if sufficient interest is disclosed on the part of the plaintiff.’’ PER A. D. YAHAYA, J.C.A

CONCEPT OF LOCUS STANDI IN CIVIL PROCEEDINGS – SECTION 6(6)(B) OF THE 1999 CONSTITUTION OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA – A COMPLAINANT MUST SHOW THAT HIS PRIVATE RIGHTS HAVE BEEN INFRINGED

‘‘In Anozie Vs. Ag Lagos State and Others (2010) 15 NWLR (Pt 1216) 207 at 234, this court emphasized:
“Basically, the concept of locus standi, applicable to civil proceedings in the Nigerian courts, is traceable to the provision of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999, most especially section 6(6) (b) thereof. By the said section 6(6)(b) of the 1999 Constitution, the judicial powers of the courts shall extend to all matters between persons or between government or authority, and any person in Nigeria, and to all actions and proceedings relating thereto, for the determination of any question regarding the civil rights and obligations of the complainant. The complainant must show that the act complained of affects rights and obligations peculiar or personal thereto. He must also show that his private rights have been infringed or injured or there is a threat of such infringement or injury…”PER A. D. YAHAYA, J.C.A

INTERPRETATION OF STATUTE – CANNONS OF INTERPRETATION OF STATUTE

‘‘In interpreting the Constitution when the relevant provisions are read together, the words used, if clear and unambiguous, must be given their plain and ordinary meaning – Fred Egbe Vs. Alhaji (Supra) and Ojukwu Vs. Obasanjo(2004) 12 NWLR (Pt. 886) 169 at 210. As far back as 1981, Obaseki JSC formulated cannons of interpretation, in the case of A.G. Bendel State Vs. A.G. Federation 12 NSCC 314 at 371 – 373. They are –
(1) Effect should be given to every word.
(2) A Construction nullifying a specific clause will not be given to the constitution unless absolutely required by the context.
(3) A Constitutional power cannot be used by way of condition to attain unconstitutional result.
(4) The language of the Constitution where clear and unambiguous must be given its plain evident meaning.
(5) The Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria is an organic scheme of government to be dealt with as an entirety; a particular provision cannot be dissevered from the rest of the Constitution.
(6) While the language of the Constitution does not change, the changing circumstances of a progressive society for which it was designed yield new and fuller import to its meaning.
(7) A Constitutional provision should not be construed so as to defeat its evident purpose.
(8) Under a Constitution conferring specific powers, a particular power must be granted or it cannot be exercised.
(9) Declaration by the National Assembly of its essential legislative functions is precluded by the Constitution [section 58(4) and section 4(1).]
(10) Words are the common signs that mankind make use of to declare their intention one to another and when the words of a man express his meaning plainly and distinctly and perfectly, there is no occasion to have recourse to any other means of interpretation.
(11) The principles upon which the Constitution was established rather than the direct operation or literal meaning of the words used, measure the purpose and scope of its provisions.
(12) Words of the Constitution are therefore not to be read with stultifying narrowness.’’ PER A. D. YAHAYA, J.C.A

LOCUS STANDI – MEANING OF LOCUS STANDI

‘‘The phrase “locus standi” or “standing” refers to the right of a party to appear and be heard on the question before the court.
It denotes legal capacity to institute legal proceedings in a court of law. In other words, the right to or competence to institute proceedings in a court for redress or assertion of a right enforceable at law. It is the bulwark or the framework which entitles a litigant to bring another party before the altar of adjudication. See Adesanya Vs. President of Nigeria (1981) 12 NSCC 146; Attorney General Kaduna State Vs. Hassan (1985) 2 NWLR (Pt. 8) 483 at 496 and Bakare Vs. Ajose Adeogun (2014) 6 NWLR (1403) 320, 350”. PER A. D. YAHAYA, J.C.A.

CASES CITED

STATUTES REFERRED TO

1.Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended)

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT