May 24, 2025
Legalpedia Citation: (2011) Legalpedia (SC) 11918 In the Supreme Court of Nigeria HOLDEN AT ABUJA Thu Jan 27, 2011 Suit Number: SC. 39/2010 CORAM KUDIRAT MOTONMORI KRKRRE-EKUN […]
CORAM
KUDIRAT MOTONMORI KRKRRE-EKUN
MUHAMMED LAWAL SHUAIBU JCA
PARTIES
HON. EMMANUEL BWACHA APPELLANTS
HON. JOEL DANLAMI IKENYAINDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION (INEC)PEOPLES DEMOCRATIC PARTY RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
This suit was brought about as a result of the substitution of the 1st Respondent by the 3rd Respondent with the Appellant without a cogent reason by the 3rd Respondent. It was filed at the Federal High Court which granted the reliefs sought by the 1st Respondent then the Appellant appealed against it up to the Supreme Court.
HELD
Appeal dismissed.
ISSUES
Whether the Court below was right in holding that the case of the Plaintiff/1st Respondent before the trial Federal High Court Kaduna was not caught or affected by the doctrine of issue estoppel. Whether the learned justices of the Court of Appeal were right when they held that the reason contained in the letter for the substitution of the 1st Respondent, was not cogent and verified. Whether the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal were right when they held that the fact that the claim of the 1st Respondent in his originating summons at the trail Court was not brought under any sub-section of the Section 34 of the Electoral Act 2006
RATIONES DECIDENDI
ESTOPPEL – PRINCIPLE OF ESTOPPEL
“In Ladega & Ors. v. Durosimi & Ors. (1978) N.S.C.C. 175 at 179 Eso JSC stated the principle thus -“A party is precluded from contesting the contrary of any precise point which has been distinctly put in issue and with certainty determined.”
DOCTRINE OF ISSUE ESTOPPEL – APPLICABILITY OF THE DOCTRINE OF ISSUE ESTOPPEL
“The doctrine of issue estoppel would apply in such circumstances so as to make those issues to create an issue estoppel in a subsequent litigation between the same parties.” PER M. MOHAMMED, J.S.C
DEFENCE OF ISSUE ESTOPPEL – FOR A PARTY TO SUCCEED WHEN RAISING THE DEFENCE OF ISSUE ESTOPPEL, IT IS SUFFICIENT IF THE NECESSARY PARTIES TO THE ISSUE IN THE PREVIOUS SUIT ARE SAME AS IN THE LATTER SUIT “The state of the law was also stated by this Court in Ikemi and Ors. v. Efamo & Ors. (2001) 10 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 720) 1 at 11 – 12 and 17 – 18 where this Court stated –
“The principle that for a defence of issue estoppel to succeed there must be identity of the parties does not mean that all the parties in the previous suit must be made parties in the latter suit. It is sufficient where there are several parties in the previous suit, that those of the parties who were necessary parties to the issue in the previous suit are the same as in the latter suit.” See also other decisions of this Court in Ogbogu v. Ugwuegbu (2003) F.W.L.R. (Pt. 161) 1825 and Omnia Nigeria Ltd. v. Dyktrade Ltd. (2007) All F.W.L.R. (Pt. 394) 201 at 239″
NECESSARY PARTIES -MEANING OF NECESSARY PARTIES
“This Court explained in the case of Kalu v. Uzor (2004) 12 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 886) 1 at 33 as follows – “Necessary parties are those who are not only interested in the subject matter of the proceedings but also who in their absence, the proceedings could not be fairly dealt with. In other words, the question to be settled in the action between the existing parties must be a question which cannot be properly settled, unless they are parties to the action instituted by the Plaintiffs.”
SUBSTITUTION OF CANDIDATE – A PARTY WHO SPONSORED A CANDIDATE CAN SUBSTITUTE SUCH CANDIDATE
“In the Electoral Act power to substitute is in a party who sponsored and nominated that candidate. INEC has no power to do so.”
ISSUE ESTOPPEL – CONDITION PRECEDENT TO THE APPLICATION OF ISSUE ESTOPPEL
“The condition precedent to application of issue estoppel is based on the principle of law that a party is precluded from contending the contrary of any specific point which having been once distinctly put in issue has with certainty been determined against him. “
ISSUE ESTOPPEL – MEANING OF THE DOCTRINE ISSUE ESTOPPEL
“The doctrine of issue estoppel so far as it affects Civil proceedings may be stated as a situation where a party to Civil proceedings is not entitled to make as against the other party, an assertion, whether of fact or of the legal consequences of facts, the correctness of which is an essential element in the previous cause of action or defence in previous proceedings between the same parties or their predecessors in title and was found by a court of competent jurisdiction in such previous Civil proceedings to be incorrect, unless further material which is relevant to the correctness or incorrectness of the assertion and could not by reasonable diligence have been adduced by that party in the previous proceedings has since become available to him.
SUBSTITUTION OF A CANDIDATE BY A POLITICAL PARTY – A POLITICAL PARTY WISHING TO SUBSTITUTE THE NAME OF A CANDIDATE WITH ANOTHER CANDIDATE MUST SUPPORT SUCH AN ACT WITH COGENT AND VERIFIABLE REASONS – SECTION 34 (2) OF THE ELECTORAL ACT, 2006.
“A party which has any cause to substitute a nominated candidate whose name had been submitted to the Independent National Electoral Commission must support such act with cogent and verifiable reasons. Section 34 (2) of the Electoral Act 2006; Ugwu v. Ararume (2007) 12 NWLR pt. 1048 pg. 367; Ehinlawo v. Oke (2008) All FWLR pt. 447 pg. 1087; Rotimi Amaechi v. INEC & Ors (2007) 9 NWLR pt. 1040, pg.504; P. D. P. v. K. S. I. E. C. (2006) 3 NWLR pt. 968 pg. 565; Pam v. Mohammed (2008) 16 NWLR pt 1112 pg. 1.” PER O. O. ADEKEYE, J.S.C
SUBSTITUTION OF CANDIDATES BY A POLITICAL PARTY – STEPS A POLITICAL PARTY MUST TAKE IN ORDER TO EFFECT A VALID CHANGE OF ITS CANDIDATE FOR AN ELECTION. “A party must inform the Commission in writing of its intention to effect a change of its candidate within 60 days to the election. The information must be in the form of an application which must unequivocally state the reason(s) for the substitution and such reason(s) must be cogent and verifiable. This has been consistently maintained by this court. See: Ugwu v. Ararume (2007) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1048) 437, Rotimi Amaechi v. Independent National Electoral Commission & Ors (2007) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1040) 504, Pam v. Monday (2008) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1112) 1,’ Ehinlanwo v. Oke (2008) 16 (Pt. 1113) 357 at 426.”
CASES CITED
1. Duchess of Kingston (1775 – 1802) All E.R. Rep 623|2. Fidelitus Shipping Co. Ltd. v. V/O Export-Chleb (1965) 2 All E.R. 4 at 10|3. Ladega & Ors. v. Durosimi & Ors. (1978) N.S.C.C. 175 at 179.|4. Ebba v. Ogodo (2000) 10 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 675) 387 at 407,|5. Ikeni v. Efamo (2001) 10 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 720) 1 at 15,|6. Oyerogba v. Olaopa (1998) 3 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 968) 565 at 622,|7. Kalu v. Uzor (2004) 12 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 886) 1 at 33,|8. Ogboga v. Ugwuegbu (2003) F.W.L.R. (Pt. 161) 1825|9. Omnia Nigeria Ltd. v. Dyktrade Ltd (2007) All F.W.L.R. (Pt. 394) 201 at 239.
STATUTES REFERRED TO
1. ELECTORAL ACT 2006.|
CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT