OWELLE ROCHAS ANAYO OKOROCHA VS PEOPLES DEMOCRATIC PARTY & 4 ORS.

CORAM

PARTIES

OWELLE ROCHAS ANAYO OKOROCHA APPELLANTS

PEOPLES DEMOCRATIC PARTY & 4 ORS.

RESPONDENTS 

AREA(S) OF LAW

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The trial Court dismissed the suit of the 2nd and 3rd Respondents challenging the constitutionality or validity of the supplementary Gubernatorial Election conducted by the 4th Respondent on the grounds that the subject-matter before it was a post-election matter. Dissatisfied with the judgment, the 2nd and 3rd Respondents appealed to the Court of Appeal. While the appeal was pending at the Court of Appeal, the lower court granted leave to the 1st Respondent, who had lost in the appeal to Supreme Court on a similar subject-matter, to appeal against the decision of the trial Court notwithstanding the notice of preliminary objection filed by the Appellant to the said application. Dissatisfied with the ruling of the lower Court granting leave to the 1st Respondent to appeal, the Appellant appealed to Supreme Court. The Supreme Court upheld the appeal and held inter alia that the 1st Respondent, having elected to challenge the election through the Tribunal and right up to Supreme Court, can no longer re-litigate his case as a pre-election matter at the Court of Appeal.?

HELD

Appeal allowed

ISSUES

1. Whether by the combined effect of S. 233(1), S. 285(1), (2) and (7) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) and S. 133(1) of the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended) as well as the relief sought at the lower court by the 1st Respondent in his notice of appeal, the lower court has jurisdiction to entertain the appeal of the 1st respondent and grant the relief sought while not sitting as an election petition appellate court?

2. Whether the lower court has jurisdiction to hear the appeal of the 1st respondent, the subject matter and the relief being sought having been heard and determined by this honourable court on 2nd March, 2012 in an election Appeal No: SC/17/2012 – P.D.P. Vs. Okorocha & Ors.?

RATIONES DECIDENDI

PARTIES TO AN ACTION -WHEN A PARTY CAN BE JOINED AS AN INTERESTED PERSON IN A SUIT

“The principle of law is well settled that a party may be joined as a person interested in a suit very early or midstream depending on when he knew of the proceedings”.
PER CLARA BATA OGUNBIYI

GROUNDS OF LAW- PRINCIPLES OF

“The question, what is a ground of law, has been a subject of controversy and discussion in numerous cases. This court had, for instance, laid down the general principles in making the distinction between different types of grounds of appeal. Some of these principles have been elucidated in the case of Calabar Co-op. Ltd. & 2 Ors. V. Ekpo (2008) 1 – 2 SC 229 at 273 – 275 where the following instances were held as grounds of pure law:
a. Where a ground complains of misunderstanding by the lower court of the law or a misapplication of the law to the facts already proved or admitted, it is a ground of law.
b. Where the lower court or tribunal applying the law to the facts in a process which requires the skill of a trained lawyer, this is a question of law.
c. Where the lower court reaches a conclusion which cannot reasonably be drawn from the facts as found, the appeal court will assume that there has been a misconception of the law. This is a ground of law.

d. Where a trial court fails to apply the facts which it has found correctly to the circumstance of the case before it and there is an appeal to Court of Appeal which alleges misdirection in the exercise of the application by the trial court, the ground of appeal alleging the misdirection is a ground of law not of fact.

e. Where the appeal court interferes in such a case and there is a further appeal to a higher Court of Appeal on the application of the facts, the grounds of appeal alleging such misdirection by the lower Court of Appeal is a ground of law not of fact”
PER CLARA BATA OGUNBIYI

RULES OF COURT- NEED FOR THE RULES OF COURT TO BE OBEYED

“The rules of court are meant to be obeyed for purpose of protecting the sanctity and dignity of the law and court. He who comes to equity must come with clean hands and which presupposes diligence and care”. PER CLARA BATA OGUNBIYI

QUESTION OF JURISDICTION-NATURE OF-EFFECT OF ABSENCE OF JURISDICTION

“It is very elementary and trite that the question of jurisdiction is very fundamental. The absence of jurisdiction robs a court of any power to adjudicate on a case and the exercise will be in futility. This age long principle had been well pronounced and enunciated in the locus classicus case of Madukolu V. Nkemdilim (1962) 2 NSCC (Vol. 2) 374; (1962) 1 All NLR (Pt. 4) 587 wherein the learned jurist Bairamian F. J. said:-
“Put briefly, a court is competent when –
1. it is properly Constituted as regards numbers and qualifications of the members of the bench, and no member is disqualified for one reason or another; and
2. the subject matter of the case is within its jurisdiction, and there is no feature in the case which prevents the court from exercising its jurisdiction; and
3. the case comes before the court initiated by due process of law, and upon fulfillment of any condition precedent to the exercise of jurisdiction.”
PER CLARA BATA OGUNBIYI

GROUNDS OF APPEAL-WHETHER CEASES TO BE GROUNDS OF LAW BY REASON OF THE COMPLAINTS IN THE PARTICULARS

“Grounds of appeal do not cease to be grounds of law simply because the complaints were adumbrated in the supporting particulars; that they remain grounds of law, for which no leave of court is required pursuant to S. 233 (2)(a) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended). PER CLARA BATA OGUNBIYI

UNCHALLENGED EVIDENCE- WHETHER AN UNCHALLENGED EVIDENCE CAN CONSTITUTE SUFFICIENT PROOF

“The law is trite and well settled on unchallenged evidence which without more can constitute sufficient proof. Plethora of authorities are all settled”. PER CLARA BATA OGUNBIYI

RECORD OF APPEAL-DUTY OF A COURT THERETO

“It is an elementary principle of law that a court has a duty to holistically take into consideration all the relevant facts presented before it as revealed on the records of appeal, which in this case is not limited to the main record but also the supplementary record of Appeal”. PER CLARA BATA OGUNBIYI

PRELIMINARY OBJECTION-NEED TO BE CONSIDERED AND RESOLVED FIRST WHERE RAISED

“It is long settled that once a preliminary objection is raised, it must first be considered and resolved as it can make or unmake the outcome of a proceeding. The justification for the prompt action is obvious because of the effect of its outcome. In otherwords, it could either bring a proceeding to an abrupt end at the preliminary stage or streamline it down by excluding factors which may not legitimately or otherwise be accommodated. PER CLARA BATA OGUNBIYI

PRELIMINARY OBJECTION- COMPETENCE OF-EFFECT OF FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENT FOR COMPETENCE

“For a preliminary objection to be competent, it must be raised formally. The failure to comply with the requirement is detrimental because it renders the entire move of no effect and liable to be discountenanced”. PER CLARA BATA OGUNBIYI

EXERCISE OF DISCRETION-DUTY OF THE COURT THERETO

“The law is also trite and well settled as rightly submitted by the learned counsel that in an exercise of discretion, it is expected of the court to act judicially by being guided by available relevant facts and within the precincts of law in doing what is just and proper”. PER CLARA BATA OGUNBIYI

CASES CITED

ALASAN BABATUNDE, AJAGUNNA II OLUKARE OF IKARE VS GOVERNOR, WESTERN REGION   1960   FSC 207/1959   [1960] NSCC 41C.B.N. V. Okojie (2002) 8 NWLR (Pt. 768) 48 at 61In Re: Arowolo (1993) 2 NWLR (Pt. 275) 317 at 331.Ezomo V. A. G. Bendel State (1986) 4 NWLR (Pt. 36) 488Dingyadi V. INEC (No.2) supra at page 194 – 195.Madukolu V. Nkemdilim (1962) 2 NSCC (Vol. 2) 374; (1962) 1 All NLR (Pt. 4) 587Gafar V. Governor Kwara State (2007) 20 WRN Page 170; Osun State Government Vs. Danlami Nigeria Ltd. (2007) 17 WRN Page 1 at 18;Adeyemi Vs. Opeyori (1976) 6 – 10 SC 31, Tukur V. Government of Gongola State (1989) 4 NWLR (Pt. 117) 517 Magaji V. Matari (2000) 1 WRN (Vol. 2) 75; (2000) 5 SC 57F.B.N. V. Isa Ind. Ltd. (2010) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1216) 247 at 291 – 292,Comex Ltd. V. N.A.B. Ltd. (1997) 3 NWLR (Pt. 496) 643 at 656 – 657Ajuwa V. S.P.D.C.N. Ltd (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1279) P.822 – 823Calabar Co-op. Ltd. & 2 Ors. V. Ekpo (2008) 1 – 2 SC 229 at 273 – 275

STATUTES REFERRED TO

None

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT