Legalpedia Citation: (2015-03) Legalpedia (SC) 65069
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Fri Mar 27, 2015
Suit Number: SC 713/2013
CORAM
PARTIES
1.VIVIAN CLEMS AKPAMGBO-OKADIGBO
2.OBINNA EMENAKA
3.ONYEKA PAULINUS
4.REBECCA UDOJI
5.OLIBIE JOHN
APPELLANTS
EGBE THEO CHIDI
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The Plaintiffs/Respondents who are members of the Peoples Democratic Party brought an action at the Federal High Court against the Party and Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC). By an Originating summons, the Plaintiff/ Respondents sought the determination of some questions amongst which are: whether having regard to the constitution of the Peoples Democratic Party and her Electoral Guidelines, it is only the National Chairman and the National Secretary of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) who can make submission of names of the candidates sponsored by the party. The Plaintiffs/Respondents thereafter sought for a declaration that they are the validly nominated candidates of the P.D.P for the election into the Anambra State House of Assembly and an order of court restraining the 1st Defendant from issuing certificates of return to any other person other than the 1st, 8th, 10th,14th and 16th Plaintiffs having won the election in their respective constituencies or an order cancelling the certificate where it has been issued to any other person other than the said Plaintiffs . The Plaintiffs/Respondents asserted that I.N.E.C had unlawfully accepted the list of the names of the Appellants from the Enugu State Executive body rather than the list of the names of the Plaintiffs/Respondents submitted to it by the National Executive body of the P.D.P as the candidate in the election. In its judgment, the trial court granted some of the reliefs sought by the Plaintiffs/Respondents, subsequently, five out of the Plaintiffs/Respondents instituted an action against INEC, the Appellants and the Clerk of the Anambra State House of Assembly seeking to enforce the judgment they obtained in the earlier suit. Leave was granted to them to enforce the judgment of the trial court. However, the Appellants being dissatisfied with the decision of the trial court, appealed to the Court of Appeal where the appeal was dismissed on the grounds that the Appellants were not parties to the initial suit. Further dissatisfied with the decision of the Court of Appeal, the Appellants have appealed to this Court.
HELD
ISSUES
1. Whether the trial Court and the Court of Appeal had jurisdiction to entertain/grant reliefs ‘6’ and ’10’ introduced to the suit by further amendment 21 days after election; and if the answer is in the negative, whether both the trial Court and the Court of Appeal had jurisdiction to entertain the whole Suit at that stage. (This issue relates to grounds 1 and 2 of the Amended Notice of Appeal)?
2. Whether the lower court endorsed the breach of the rule of audi alteram partem when it held in its judgment as follows:-‘Since the appellants did not participate in the primary election conducted by the National Executive Committee of the PDP, they did not have any interest to protect in this suit that is questioning the powers of INEC to accept candidates of the parties emerging therefrom, the appellants have heard them?
3. The appellants are a product of an illegality and cannot enjoy any right or privilege to be protected by the Court by affording a hearing or fair hearing?
RATIONES DECIDENDI
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS AS TO FAIR HEARING – SECTION 36(1) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA 1999 (AS AMENDED)
“By Section 36(1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended),
“in the determination of his civil rights and obligations, including any question or determination by or against any government or authority, a person shall be entitled to a fair hearing within a reasonable time by a court or other tribunal established by law and constituted in such manner as to secure its independence and impartiality.” PER J. I. OKORO, J.S.C.
PARTIES TO A SUIT – TEST IN DETERMINING THE NECESSARY PARTIES IN A SUIT
“The test whether or not the appellants are necessary parties is whether without them the suit could effectively be determined”. PER M. D. MUHAMMED, J.S.C.
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION ON FAIR HEARING – WHERE A PARTY IS NOT HEARD BEING A CONDITION PRECEDENT, THE COURT IS WITHOUT VIRES TO HEAR AND DETERMINE THE CLAIMS OF THE ADVERSE PARTY –SECTION 36(1) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA 1999
“Section 36(1) of the 1999 Constitution as amended makes it a condition precedent that the appellants be heard or offered the opportunity of being heard in the matter otherwise the case not being initiated by due process the court is without the vires to hear and determine 1st – 17th respondents claim.” PER M . D. MUHAMMED, J.S.C
CONDUCT OF PRIMARIES OF A POLITICAL PARTY – UPON A COMPLAINT BY AN AGGRIEVED PARTY A COURT HAS JURISDICTION TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE PRIMARIES OF A POLITICAL PARTY WAS CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ELECTORAL ACT, THE CONSTITUTION AND GUIDELINES OF THE
“Where, as in the instant case, a political party conducts its primaries and a dissatisfied contestant at the said primaries complains about the conduct of the primaries, the courts have jurisdiction by virtue of Section 87(9) of the 2010 Electoral Act as amended, to examine if the primaries were conducted in accordance with the Electoral Act, the Constitution and Guidelines of the party.” PER M. D. MUHAMMED, J.S.C.
SUPREMACY OF THE CONSTITUTION – THE CONSTITUTION PREVAILS OVER AN INFERIOR LEGISLATION WHERE THERE EXIST A CONFLICT BETWEEN BOTH STATUTES
“The 1999 Constitution which makes the joinder of the appellants in the suit mandatory remains the supreme law of this Country. By Section 1(1) & (3) of the very constitution, it prevails over Order 9 rule 14(1) of the Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules being an inferior legislation in the event of any conflict between the two. See Awuse V. Odili (2003) 18 NWLR (Pt 851) 116. See Ekulo Farms Ltd &anor V. UBN Plc (2006) LPELR-SC 306/2001”. PER M . D. MUHAMMED, J.S.C
JOINDER OF A PARTY – DUTY OF THE COURT ON AN APPLICATION, TO ORDER THE JOINDER OF A PARTY AGGRIEVED BY THE RESULT OF THE LITIGATION
“It has been settled that the court may on an application or suo motu, in the circumstance of a case, order the joinder of a party where inter alia, eventually, the party is aggrieved or likely to be aggrieved by the result of the litigation to the extent that he will be directly legally or financially affected by the result of the litigation”. PER S. GALADIMA, J.S.C.
JOINDER OF A PARTY – INSTANCES WHERE A COURT CAN SUO MOTU ORDER THE JOINDER OF A PARTY
“A court on application or suo motu necessarily orders the joinder of a party where:-
a. the party is aggrieved or likely to be aggrieved by the result of the litigation to the extent that he will be directly, legally or financially affected by the result of the litigation.
b. to avoid multiplicity of suits arising from the same subject matter or res;
c. to enable the court fully, completely and effectually deal with the suit in order to frustrate or stop a possible future litigation on the subject matter;
(d) to ensure that the principles of fair hearing under section 36 of the1999 Constitution as amended and the natural justice rule of Audi Alteram Partem are not breached, (e) to avoid loss of jurisdiction by the fact of non-joinder. See Uku v. Okumagba (1974) 3 SC 35; Oyedeji Akambi (Mogaji) &anor v. Okunlola Ishola Fabunmi &anor (1986) 2 SC 471; Green v. Green (1987) 3 NWLR (pt 61) 480 and Ige v. Farinde (1994) 78 SCNJ (pt 2) 284”. PER M. D. MUHAMMED, J.S.C.
RIGHT TO FAIR HEARING – THE CONSTITUTION HAS ENSURED THAT HEARING OF THE PARTIES MUST BE FAIR AND BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE
“It is well settled that the right to fair hearing entrenched in Section 36(1) of the 1999 Constitution (supra) entails not only hearing a party on any issue which could be resolved to his prejudice but also ensuring that the hearing is fair and in accordance with the twin pillars of justice, namely, audi alteram partem and nemo judex in causa sua. Thus, where a party is not heard at all in a matter which affects his right or the trial is adjudged unfair, any judgment generated therefrom, becomes a nullity and of no legal consequence. It is bound to be set aside. See Alhaji Suleiman Mohammed &Anor V. Lasisi Sanusi Olawunmi &Ors (1990) 4 SC 40, Okafor V. A.G. Anambra State (1991) 6 NWLR (pt. 200) 659, Adigun V. A.G. of Oyo State (1987) 1 NWLR (pt. 53) 678, Obodo V. Olomu (1987) 3 NWLR (pt. 59) 111”. PER J. I. OKORO, J.S.C
PRINCIPLE OF INTERPRETATION – A CARDINAL PRINCIPLE OF INTERPRETATION IS THAT THE PROVISIONS OF A STATUTE SHOULD NOT BE READ IN ISOLATION BUT AS A WHOLE
“It is a cardinal principle of interpretation that provisions of a statute should not be read in isolation. To avoid violence, the provisions must be read together. Thus in ascertaining the true meaning of the provisions of a statute the statute must be read as a whole. See Obayuwana v. Governor Bendel State and anor (1982) 12 SC 147 and Action Congress (AC) and anor v. INEC (2007) 12 NWLR (pt 1048) 222 at 259”. PER M. D. MUHAMMED, J.S.C.
AMENDMENT OF A DOCUMENT – EFFECTIVE DATE OF AN AMENDED DOCUMENT
“An amendment takes effect not from the date it is ordered by the court but from the date of the original document the order of the court amends.” PER M. D. MUHAMMED, J.S.C.
REJOINDER OF PARTIES – GROUND FOR ORDERING THE REJOINDER OF PARTIES
“Another good ground for ordering the rejoinder (relevant to the case at hand) is to ensure that the principle of fair hearing under section S. 36 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) is not breached”. PER S. GALADIMA , J.S.C.
JURISDICTION OF COURT – CONNOTATION OF A VALIDLY CONSTITUTED COURT
“The jurisdiction of a validly constituted court, it must always be remembered, connotes the limits imposed upon its power to hear and determine issues between persons seeking to avail themselves of its processes inter-alia by reference to:-
a. the subject matter of the issue or
b. the persons between whom the issue is joined or
c. the kind of relief sought.” PER M. D. MUHAMMED, J.S.C.
RIGHT TO FAIR HEARING – PREDOMINANCE OF THE LAW RELATING TO THE RIGHT TO FAIR HEARING
“The law must prevail particularly where the issue involves the constitutionally guaranteed fundamental right to fair hearing in the determination of the rights and/or obligations of any person”. PER W. S. N. ONNOGHEN, J.S.C.
RIGHT TO FAIR HEARING – A PARTY SHOULD NOT BE DENIED HEARING IN A CASE BEFORE A DECISION IS REACHED
“A party who has shown sufficient interest or right in a case should not be denied hearing before a decision is reached, this is to avoid breach of section 36(1) of the Constitution (supra)”. PER S. GALADIMA, J.S.C.
PARTIES TO AN ACTION – DUTY OF THE COURT TO JOIN ALL PARTIES NECESSARY TO DETERMINE THE ISSUE OF VALIDITY OF PRIMARIES /NOMINATION OF CANDIDATES
“However, before the court can legally come to a conclusion as to which of the two primaries/nominations is valid, all the parties necessary for that determination must be joined in the Suit and heard by the court. Where there is a failure to hear all the necessary parties to the dispute before a decision is reached, there is a breach of section 36(1) of the 1999 Constitution as amended which has the effect of automatically rendering the proceedings in the action and the Judgment or ruling resulting therefrom a nullity and void, without any legal effect. PER W. S. N. ONNOGHEN, J.S.C.
JURISDICTION OF A COURT – INSTANCE WHERE A COURT CAN LOSE ITS JURISDICTION IN A SUIT
“The law remains that a court while duly constituted all the same loses its jurisdiction to proceed on the suit where:-
a. the action is not initiated by due process or
b. a condition precedent to the exercise of its jurisdiction has not been fulfilled. See National Union of Road Transport Workers &anor v. Road Transport Employers Association of Nigeria & 5 ors (2012) 1 SC (pt 11) 119”. PER M . D. MUHAMMED, J.S.C
CASES CITED
STATUTES REFERRED TO
Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) 1999
Federal High Court (Civil Procedure Rules)
Electoral Act 2010 (as amended)