SENATOR CHRISTIANA ANYANWU VS HON. INDEPENDENCE OGUNEWE

CORAM

O.O. WURA – JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

ANTHONY IKECIIUKWU IGUH, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

PARTIES

SENATOR CHRISTIANA N.D ANYANWU APPELLANTS

HON. INDEPENDENCE OGUNEWE

RESPONDENTS / APPELLANT 

AREA(S) OF LAW

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The 1st Respondent instituted an action under originating summons at the trial Court contending that the Appellant’s name ought not to have been submitted as the senatorial candidate for the Imo East Senatorial Zone Election in the 2011 general election because at the time of the primary election which took place on 14th January 2011, that the Appellant was not a member of the APGA but an active member of another party, P.D.P. The trial Court struck out the 1St Respondent’s originating summons on the grounds that the suit was contentious in nature and since nothing would be gained by ordering pleadings since the general elections were scheduled to take place in 7 days’ time. Aggrieved, the Appellant appealed to Court of Appeal while the 1st Respondent also cross-appealed. The Court of appeal upheld the cross-appeal and dismissed the appeal of the Appellant and remitted the case to the Trial Court for retrial. Dissatisfied, the Appellant further appealed to Supreme Court.

HELD

Appeal allowed?

ISSUES

1. Whether the Appellant was given a fair hearing by the court below

2. Whether the Court of Appeal was right in holding that the issue of jurisdiction by the Federal High Court to hear the case was not properly raised in the Court of Appeal?

3. Whether the Federal High Court has jurisdiction to hear the case as to justify the order of the Court of Appeal remitting the case to the Federal High Court for trial on the merit?

RATIONES DECIDENDI

DECISION OF COURT-DECISION NOT APPEALED AGAINST -EFFECT OF

“It is a settled principle of law that a decision on any point of law or fact not appealed against is deemed to have been conceded by the party against whom it was decided and it remains valid and binding on all the parties.” PER MOTONMORI KEKERE-EKUN, JSC

POLITICAL PARTY-RESPONSIBILITY OF DETERMINING WHO ITS MEMBERS ARE-WHETHER THE COURTS HAVE BUSINESS IN DETERMINING SAME

“It is the prerogative of every political party to determine who its members are. The courts have no business delving into the issue as dearly stated in the authorities of Onuoha Vs Okafor.” PER MOTONMORI KEKERE-EKUN, JSC

JURISDICTION OF COURT -DUTY ON A COMPLAINANT

“It has been held that the jurisdiction of the court to entertain a complaint under this section is very narrow in scope. A complainant must bring himself squarely within the confines of the provision. He must be an aspirant who participated in the primary and his complaint must relate to non-compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act or the guidelines of the political party.” PER MOTONMORI KEKERE-EKUN, JSC

JURISDICTION OF COURT-DETERMINATION OF -PROCESSES THE COURT SHOULD CONSIDER

“The law is settled that in determining the jurisdiction of a court to entertain a cause or matter, the processes to be considered by the court are the processes filed by the plaintiff or applicant i.e. the writ of summons and statement of claim, or as in the present case the originating summons and its supporting affidavit.” PER MOTONMORI KEKERE-EKUN, JSC

ISSUE OF JURISDICTION-IMPORTANCE OF -WHEN CAN BE RAISED

“As issue of jurisdiction is very vital in adjudicatory process, it can be raised at any time in any manner by the parties or even by the court suo motu, which must, however, give parties chance to address it on same.” PER JOHN AFOLABI FABIYI, JSC

POLITICAL PARTY-MEMBERSHIP OF-DOMESTIC AFFAIR OF THE PARTY-WHETHER THE COURTS WILL BE INVOLVED THEREWITH

There is a plethora of decisions of this court to the effect that membership of a political party is the domestic affair of the party concerned and the courts will not be involved in deciding who the members of a political party are.” PER MOTONMORI KEKERE-EKUN, JSC

ISSUE OF JURISDICTION-FUNDAMENTAL NATURE OF

“The issue of jurisdiction is so fundamental to adjudication that it can be raised at any time and in any manner even for the first time on appeal and even viva voce.” PER MOTONMORI KEKERE-EKUN, JSC

CASES CITED

Adeyemi Vs Opeyori (1976) 9-10 SC 31: Elabanio Vs Dawodu (2006)15 NWLR (Pt.1001) 76: Inakoju Vs Adeleke (2007)4 NWLR (pt. 1025) 427 at 588FIsaac Obiuweubi Vs CBN (2011) K7 NWLR (Pt.1247) 465 ® 494 D – FLado Vs C.P.C. (2012)1 ALL FWLR Pt.6071 598 (3) 622 – 623 C – D & F – H: (2011)12 SC (Pt.111) 113 @ 139 – 140Onuoha Vs Okafor (19831 2 SCNLR 244: (19831 NSCC 494:P.D.P. Vs Svlya (20121 13 NWLR (Pt.13161 85 Petrojessica Enterprises Ltd. Vs Leventis Tech. Co. Ltd. (1992) 5 NWLR (Pt.244) 675:Tukur Vs Governor Gongola State (1989) 4 NWLR (Pt.117) 517?

STATUTES REFERRED TO

The Electoral Act 2010 (as amended)

The Court of Appeal Rules 2011

The 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria?

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT