CORAM

Joseph Olubunmi Kayode Oyewole Justice of the Court of Appeal

Okon Efreti Abang Justice of the Court of Appeal

I.M Sani Justice of the Court of Appeal

PARTIES

THE GOVERNOR OF RIVERS STATE

APPELLANTS 

1. RIVERS STATE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY

2. THE RIGHT HONOURABLE MARTIN CHIKE AMAEWHULE (THE HONOURABLE SPEAKER, RIVERS STATE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY)

3. THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA

4. THE PRESIDENT OF THE SENATE OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA

5. THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT OF THE SENATE OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA

6. THE MAJORITY LEADER OF THE SENATE OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA

7. THE MINORITY LEADER OF THE SENATE OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA

8. THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA

9. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA

10. THE MAJORITY LEADER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA

11. THE MINORITY LEADER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA

12. THE CLERK OF THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA

13. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF RIVERS STATE 14. THE COMMISSIONER OF FINANCE FOR RIVERS STATE

15. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL OF RIVERS STATE

16. RIVERS STATE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION

17. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE

18. RT. HONOURABLE EHIE OGERENYE EDISON (SPEAKER, RIVERS STATE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY)

RESPONDENTS 

AREA(S) OF LAW

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, LEGISLATIVE POWERS, SEPARATION OF POWERS, CIVIL PROCEDURE, APPELLATE JURISDICTION

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The 1st and 2nd Respondents (Rivers State House of Assembly and its Speaker) filed an Originating Summons at the Federal High Court seeking declarations and injunctions regarding the powers of the Rivers State House of Assembly, the Governor’s actions, and the National Assembly’s role. The trial court granted the Respondents’ reliefs. The Appellant (Governor of Rivers State) initially contested the action but later withdrew all processes. The trial court’s judgment was delivered on January 22, 2024, in favor of the Respondents. The Governor appealed this decision.

HELD

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment of the Federal High Court. The Court held that:

ISSUES

1. Whether the trial Court was right in holding that exhibits C-C1 are not admissible ?

RATIONES DECIDENDI

COMPETENCE OF GROUNDS OF APPEAL – EFFECT OF APPEALING AGAINST FINDINGS MADE AGAINST ANOTHER PARTY

“The Appellant cannot appeal against the findings of the trial Court made against the 18th Respondent that was the 17th Defendant at the trial Court as of right, the 17th Defendant having failed to challenge the findings of the trial Court made against him by way of appeal.” – Per Okon Efreti Abang, J.C.A.

CONSISTENCY IN PRESENTING CASE – PROHIBITION AGAINST APPROBATING AND REPROBATING

“A party should be consistent in stating his case as well as in proving it. He will not be allowed to take one stance in his pleadings, then somersault during the trial and then assume a non-challant attitude in the appellate Court. Justice is not a game of hide and seek.” – Per Okon Efreti Abang, J.C.A.

LEGISLATIVE POWERS – QUORUM REQUIREMENTS FOR STATE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY

“4 out of 31 members of the Rivers State House of Assembly cannot by any stretch of imagination constitute required quorum for transacting a legislative business of the Rivers State House of Assembly. The conduct of the Appellant in presenting the Appropriation Bill to 4 out of 31 members of the Rivers State House of Assembly is a gross violation of Section 91 of 1999 Constitution as amended he swore to uphold when he took the oath of office and oath of allegiance of the Constitution.” – Per Okon Efreti Abang, J.C.A.

OBEDIENCE TO COURT ORDERS – IMPORTANCE OF GOVERNMENT COMPLIANCE WITH COURT ORDERS

 “If Government treat Court’s Order with levity and contempt, the confidence of the citizen in the Courts will be seriously eroded and the effect of that will be the beginning of anarchy in replacement of the rule of law. If anyone should be wary of orders of Court, it is the authorities for they more than anyone else need the application of the rule of law in order to govern properly and effectively.” – Per Okon Efreti Abang, J.C.A.

INHERENT POWERS OF COURT – POWER TO RESTORE STATUS QUO

 “The trial Court therefore rightly invoked its inherent and disciplinary jurisdiction to instill judicial discipline on the Appellant and other erring parties in the suit in order to maintain, restore and preserve the dignity and respect of the Court.” – Per Ishaq Mohammed Sani, J.C.A.

UNCONTROVERTED AFFIDAVIT EVIDENCE – EFFECT OF FAILURE TO FILE COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT

“In law, it is generally accepted that when a party fails, refuses or neglect to file a counter-affidavit to an affidavit, such a defaulting party is deemed to have admitted the facts conceded in his opponent’s affidavit and the Court is also under obligation to act on such unchallenged affidavit evidence.” – Per Ishaq Mohammed Sani, J.C.A.

EXECUTIVE INTERFERENCE WITH LEGISLATIVE FUNCTIONS – IMPROPRIETY OF EXECUTIVE ACTIONS IMPEDING LEGISLATIVE BUSINESS

“The situation in Rivers State is that of dictatorship and has nothing to do with democratic governance. The situation in Rivers State House of Assembly where 4 out of 31 members sit to conduct legislative business is similar to what took place in the case of DAPIALONG V DARIYE (2007) 8 NWLR (PT. 1036) P. 332 AT P. 357 that 8 out of 24 members sat to impeach a Governor.” – Per Okon Efreti Abang, J.C.A.

EFFECT OF WITHDRAWAL OF PROCESSES AT TRIAL COURT – CONSEQUENCES OF CONCEDING ACTION AT TRIAL

“It seems to be purely academic for a party to concede an action at the lower Court and then turn around to challenge the same action without any indication of fraud or misrepresentation being responsible for the earlier concession.” – Per Joseph Olubunmi Kayode Oyewole, J.C.A.

VALIDITY OF LEGISLATIVE PROCEEDINGS – REQUIREMENTS FOR VALID LEGISLATIVE ACTIONS

“In line with the decision of Supreme Court in DARIYE’S case, the deliberation of Rivers State Budget appropriation Bill by 4 members that was purportedly signed into law by the Appellant cannot be an action or decision of Rivers State House of Assembly under 1999 Constitution as amended.” – Per Okon Efreti Abang, J.C.A.

LIMITS OF EXECUTIVE POWERS – PROHIBITION AGAINST EXECUTIVE INTERFERENCE WITH LEGISLATIVE FUNCTIONS

“The Appellant did not also place anything before the trial Court borne out of record of appeal whether the 2nd Respondent has been lawfully removed from office as speaker by the votes of not less than 2/3 majority of the members of the Rivers State House of Assembly pursuant to Section 92 sub-section 2(c) of 1999 Constitution as amended to warrant presenting Appropriation Bill to a forum other than Rivers State House of Assembly presided over by the 2nd Respondent.” – Per Okon Efreti Abang, J.C.A.

IMPORTANCE OF RULE OF LAW IN DEMOCRACY – SUPREMACY OF CONSTITUTION AND COURT ORDERS

“My Lords, democracy is anchored on the rule of law not on the rule of might. A Court system cannot be maintained without the willingness of parties to abide by findings and orders of a competent Court until reversed on appeal.” – Per Okon Efreti Abang, J.C.A.

COURT’S POWER TO PROTECT ITS ORDERS – DUTY OF COURTS TO MAINTAIN JUDICIAL INTEGRITY

“Where a party or a person makes an attempt to disparage an order of Court as in this case, the Court that made the Order or another Court of competent jurisdiction that is seised of the proceedings where the alleged disobedience is raised should do everything possible to protect its order. This is to maintain the integrity and sanctity of the Court of law.” – Per Okon Efreti Abang, J.C.A.

SCOPE OF APPELLATE REVIEW – LIMITATION ON RAISING NEW ISSUES ON APPEAL

“By the provisions of Order 7 Rule 2(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules 2021, all appeals shall be by way of rehearing. The trial Court did not make findings in grounds 1, 2, 4, 8, 9, 5, 7, 6 against the Appellant. I agree with my learned brother J. O. K. OYEWOLEZ JCA that those grounds are incompetent because the trial Court did not take any decision against the Appellant arising from the grounds of appeal mentioned above.” – Per Okon Efreti Abang, J.C.A.

CASES CITED

STATUTES REFERRED TO

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

2. Legislative Houses (Powers and Privileges) Act, 2017

3. Court of Appeal Rules, 2021

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGEMENT