May 15, 2025
Legalpedia Citation: (2013) Legalpedia (SC) 71686 In the Supreme Court of Nigeria Fri Apr 12, 2013 Suit Number: SC.238/2012 SC.326/2012 SC.350/2012 CORAM MOHAMMAD SAIFULLAH MUIMTAKA-COOMASSIE PARTIES MRS. […]
CORAM
MOHAMMAD SAIFULLAH MUIMTAKA-COOMASSIE
PARTIES
MRS. SUSAN OLAPEJU SINMOSOLA OLLEY APPELLANTS
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
In the primary election conducted by 2nd Respondent, Action Congress of Nigeria, to elect its flag bearer in the House of Representatives Election held in April 2012, in which the appellant was declared winner, the 1st Respondent who took part in the primary election challenged the nomination of the Appellant in the Federal High Court, Abuja. The case was transferred to Lagos Division Ikeja, and trial Court granted the reliefs of the Respondent. Dissatisfied, the 1st and 2nd Defendants appealed to the Court of Appeal and the lower court dismissed their Appeals. Thus, they appealed to the Apex Court. ?
HELD
APPEAL ALLOWED
ISSUES
Whether the Originating Summons without any questions for determination, is competent and/or vests any jurisdiction in the High Court to grant any relief(s) which can be affirmed by the lower court, and, Whether the lower court was not in grave error in holding that the suit was commenced properly by way of an Originating Summons in view of contentious and hostile state of facts before the trial court.?
RATIONES DECIDENDI
CONCURRENT FINDINGS OF THE LOWER COURTS-DUTY OF THE APEX COURT TO SET ASIDE WRONG FINDINGS OF THE LOWER COURTS
“The law on this point is clear. The inviolability of concurrent findings of fact of the two lower Courts to interference by the apex Court is not cast in stone or concrete. As argued by the appellant, it is not absolute. This Court will disturb concurrent findings of the two Courts below if the findings are perverse or based on wrong premises, in which case the Court has a right, and indeed, a duty to set aside such findings.” PER NWALI SYLVESTER NGWUTA, JSC
TECHNICALITY DEFECT-MEANING OF TECHNICALITY DEFECT
A “technical defect” is one which may come within the four
Corners of it but in fact, it does not affect the merit of the case. It is a mistake which does not go to the bone of the matter.” PER NWALI SYLVESTER NGWUTA, JSC
NOMINATION OF CANDIDATES FOR ELECTION – POWER OF AN AGGRIEVED ASPIRANT TO SEEK REDRESS IN COURT ON NON COMPLIANCE WITH THE GUIDELINES ON NOMINATION OF CANDIDATES FOR ELECTION- SECTION 87(10) OF THE ELECTORAL ACT, 2011( AS AMENDED)
“The power of a plaintiff to approach the court in an election matter on nomination of candidates for election is grounded on section 87(10) of the Electoral Act, 2011 as amended which provides as follows:-
“Notwithstanding the provisions of the Act or rules of a political party an aspirant who complains that any of the provisions of this Act and the guidelines of a political party has not been complied with in the selection or nomination of a candidate of a political party for election may apply to the Federal High Court or the High Court of a State, for redress.”PER W. S. N. ONNOGHEN, JSC
INTERPRETATION-INTERPRETATION OF THE FEDERAL CAPITAL TERRITORY HIGH COURT RULES
“It is trite law that a case is authority only for what it decided. In the case above, this Court interpreted Order 6 Rule 3 (1) of the Federal Capital Territory High Court Rules. It was not shown in the judgment of the Court below that the provisions of Order 6 Rule 3 (1) of the Federal Capital Territory High Court Rules are in pari materia with the provisions of Order 3 Rules 6-9 of the Federal High Court (Civil Procedure Rules 2009. It therefore follows that the interpretation of the former cannot be imported into the latter.” PER NWALI SYLVESTER NGWUTA, JSC
ORIGINATING SUMMONS – INSTANCES WHERE ORIGINATING SUMMONS CAN BE USED – ORDER 3 RULES 6 AND 7 OF THE FEDERAL HIGH COURT (CIVIL PROCEDURE) RULES, 2009
“Order 3 Rules 6 and 7 of the Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2009, provides as follows:-
“(6.) Any person claiming to be interested under a deed will, enactment or other written instrument may apply by Originating Summons for the determination of any question of construction arising under the instrument and for a declaration of the rights of the persons interested.
(7.) Any person claiming any legal or equitable right in a case where the determination of the question whether such a person is entitled to the right depends upon a question of construction of an enactment, may apply by Originating Summons for the determination of such question of construction and for a declaration as to the right claimed.”PER W. S. N. ONNOGHEN, JSC
ORIGINATING SUMMONS-CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE ORIGINATING SUMMONS WILL BECOME INCOMPETENT
“In my humble view, the originating summons without the questions, the answers on which to predicate the declarations sought is incompetent and by extension the lower Court had no jurisdiction in the matter. The originating summons was not commenced by due process of law. The issue of question or questions for determination in an originating summons is a question of substance in which Order 51 Rule 1 of the Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2009 is of no avail.” PER NWALI SYLVESTER NGWUTA, JSC
POLITICAL PARTIES – DUTY OF POLITICAL PARTIES IN THE CONDUCT OF PRIMARY ELECTION
“It is important that political parties must do everything possible to entrench internal democracy in their dealings with their members and also strive very hard to earn credibility in the conduct of their primary elections so that the court can believe and rely on the result declared by the party following nomination exercise.” PER W. S. N. ONNOGHEN, JSC
ORIGINATING SUMMONS – WHEN CAN ORIGINATING SUMMONS BE USED?
“Originating Summons is used only when the facts of a case or matter is not likely to be or in fact are not disputed. In other words, it is to be used for non contentious action, or not hostile proceedings. See Osuagwu V. Emez (1998) 12 NWLR (Pt.579) 640; Director of SSS & Anor V. Agbakoba (199) 3 NWLR (Pt.545) 425; (1999) SCNJ 1; Amasike V. Registrar General CAC & Anor (2010) 13 NWLR (Pt.1211) 337 (2010) LPELR 456.”PER O. ARIWOOLA, JSC
ORIGINATING SUMMONS – ORIGINATING PROCESS IS INAPPROPRIATE IN COMMENCING AN ACTION WHERE THERE IS LIKELIHOOD OF DISPUTE ON THE FACTS
“Wherever there is a dispute or likelihood of a dispute on the facts, an Originating Summons procedure is not appropriate and should not be used to commence a civil action. See; Doherty Vs Doherty (1968) NMLR 241 at 242 Ossai Vs Wakwah & Ors (2006) 4 NWLR (Pt.969) 208; (2006) LPELR 281; Elelu Habeeb & Anor Vs AG Federal & Ors (2012) 13 NWLR (Pt.1318) 423.”PER O. ARIWOOLA, JSC
TECHNICALITY- WHAT TECHNICALITY MEANS
“The word “technicality” has been elevated to the status of a mantra. It has become the escape goat on which to blame any defect in procedural or substantive law in a process filed in Court. If one may ask, what is technicality? Perhaps, the phrases such as technical defect; technical error or simply the word “technical” from which it is derived will provide insight into the import of the word “technicality.” PER NWALI SYLVESTER NGWUTA, JSC
ORIGINATING SUMMONS – ORIGINATING SUMMONS IS NOT MEANT TO EXPAND THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT
“Originating Summons is merely a method of procedure but not one that is meant to enlarge or expand the jurisdiction of the court. See; National Bank of Nigeria & Anor V. Lady Ayodele Alakija& Anor 1978) 9-10 SC (Reprint) 42; (1978) LPELR 1949.” PER O. ARIWOOLA, JSC
CASES CITED
Ebba V Egode (1984) 4 SC 84Nioku & ors v. Erne & ors (1973) 5 SC 293 at 306 Kale v. Coker (1982) 12 SC 262 at 271?
STATUTES REFERRED TO
NONE