CORAM

---

---

PARTIES

---

WILLIAM ANGADI

APPELLANTS 

---

PEOPLES DEMOCRATIC PARTY & ORS

RESPONDENTS 

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

APPEAL COURT, ELECTION, FAIR HEARING, INJUNCTION, JURISDICTION, LAW OF EVIDENCE, LEGAL PRACTITIONER, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE.

 

 

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Appellant and 3rd Respondent herein both contested in the primary election of the 1st Respondent in respect of the General Election into the House of Representative for Bomadi/Patani Federal Constituency of Delta State. The Appellant contested the result of the election, but the 1st Respondent went ahead to submit the name of the 3rd Respondent to the 2nd Respondent (INEC) as its candidate for the General Election. The Appellant in response to the result, took out an originating Summons before the Federal High Court and subsequently another at the F.C.T. High Court seeking Orders against this decision of the 1st Respondent. The 1st Respondent at the F.C.T High Court entered conditional appearance and file a Preliminary Objection requesting the trial Court to dismiss the suit of the Appellant for being a gross abuse of judicial process. The trial Court dismissed the suit as requested by the 1st Respondent without hearing or calling parties to address it on the Preliminary Objection. Dissatisfied with the decision of the trial Court, the Appellant appeal to Court of Appeal. The 3rd Respondent again, filed a Notice of Preliminary objection challenging the competence of the appeal and praying the Court below to strike out the appeal for want of identifiable signatory to the Notice of Appeal. The 3rd Respondent further filed a Respondent’s Notice, to contend that the decision of the trial Court be affirmed on grounds other than those relied on by the trial Court. The Appellant also filed a Preliminary Objection to challenge the competency of said Respondent’s Notice. The Court of Appeal in its judgment, dismissed the 3rd Respondent’s Preliminary Objection, citing substantial justice over technical justice, but upheld the 3rd Respondent’s Notice, thereby dismissing the Appellant’s Preliminary Objection to the Notice. The Court however, considered the fact that such decision may be overturned on Appeal to the Court and abundanti cautela decided on the substantive appeal. Aggrieved by the decision of the Court of Appeal, the Appellant has further appealed to the Supreme Court.

 

 

---

HELD

---

Appeal Dismissed

 

---

ISSUES

---

ISSUE FOR DETERMINATION

 Whether the Court below was right to find that the trial Court correctly declined jurisdiction in dismissing the suit of the Appellant.

 

 

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

JURISDICTION, COURT

---

 JURISDICTION OF COURT- FEATURES THAT DETERMINES THE JURISDICTION OF A COURT TO ADJUDICATE ON A MATTER

“It is now a well-settled principle of law that the issue of jurisdiction is an all so important one, which must be decided before a Court can proceed to adjudicate on a matter. Further, the issue of jurisdiction may be substantiated through the presence of certain features as laid down in the age old judicial authority of Madukolu Vs Nkemdilim (1962) 2 NSCC 374 at 379-378, wherein this Honourable Court held thus:-

“Put briefly, a Court is competent when –

a.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

b.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

c.the case comes before the Court initiated by due process of law, and upon fulfilment of any condition precedent to the exercise of jurisdiction.”

It is clear from the forgoing that there is not just one way of establishing that a Court has jurisdiction on any given matter, and the mere fact that a Court has jurisdiction on an issue such as subject matter, does not automatically imbue the Court with jurisdiction on another issue.” PER S.D. BAGE, J.S.C

JURISDICTION, COURT, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

JURISDICTION OF COURT- WHETHER THE COURT CAN EXERCISE VALID JURISDICTION WITH THE MERE PRESENCE OF ONE FEATURE OF JURISDICTION

“The issue of jurisdiction of a Court to determine a case may be determined as per subject matter of the case, the parties between whom the issue is joined, or the kind of relief sought. See Adeyemi V. Opeyori (1976) 9-10 SC 31; Ikine Vs Edjerode (2001) 92 LRCN 3288 at 3316; Aladegbemi Vs Fasanmade (1988) 3 NWLR (Pt.81) 129. These factors operate exclusively of one another such that if anyone is faulty, in spite of the other two being present, the Court cannot exercise any valid jurisdiction.

The mere presence of one feature does not exclude the need for the presence of all other features. The concept of what jurisdiction encompasses was proffered in the judgment of this Honourable Court in Aladejobi VS N.B.A.(2013) 15 NWLR (Pt.1376) page 66 at 81, wherein this Court held as to the Constitution of jurisdiction thus;

“It is said to be the authority which a Court has to decide matters that are litigated before it or to take cognizance of matters presented in a formal way for its decision. Such authority of the Court is controlled or circumscribed by the statute creating the Court itself or it may be circumscribed by a condition precedent created by a legislation which must be fulfilled before the Court can entertain the suit. It is the power and authority of a Court to hear and determine a judicial proceedings and power to render particular judgment in a cause of action.”

PER. S.D BAGE, J.S.C

APPEAL, COURT, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

ISSUE RAISED SUO MOTU- EXCEPTION TO THE RULE ON THE NEED TO CALL ON COUNSEL TO ADDRESS THE COURT ON AN ISSUE RAISED SUO MOTU BY THE JUDGE

“The issue of whether the trial Court below was right in considering processes which they had not been addressed on processes filed before it. This Court has held particularly in Gbagbarigha vs Toruemi (2013) 6 NWLR (Pt.1350) 289 at 310, paragraphs C-G as follows:

“When a Judge raises an issue on his own motion, or raises an issue not in contemplation of the parties; or an issue not before the Court, the Court is said to have raised the issue suo motu.

The well laid down position of the law is that when an issue is raised suo motu the parties should be heard before a decision is reached on the issue… but there is an exception to this procedure. There would be no need to call on counsel to address the Court on an issue raised suo motu by the judge:-

1.When the issue relates to the Court’s own jurisdiction;

2.When both parties are not aware or ignored a statute which may have bearing on the case; or

3.When on the face of the record serious questions of the fairness of the proceedings is evident.”

– PER S.D. BAGE, J.S.C

APPEAL

FRESH ISSUES ON APPEAL- WHETHER A PARTY CAN RAISE FRESH ISSUE ON APPEAL.

“It is trite that an issue, not raised at the Court below cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. It is now trite that any issue not distilled from any ground of appeal goes to no issue. See Eta Vs Dazie (2013) 9 NWLR (Pt.1359) page 248 at 262 paragraph E-F; Osinupebi VS Saibu (1982) 7 SC 104; Ali VS CBN (1997) 4 NWLR (Pt.498) 192.” PER. S.D BAGE, J.S.C

INJUNCTION

INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION – WHETHER AN INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION IS A REMEDY FOR A COMPLETED ACT

“It is the law that Courts do not restrain a completed act. This Court in Ideozu VS Ochoma (2006) 4 NWLR (Pt. 970) 364 at 395, at C-E Per Tobi, JSC held thus:

“In Ajewole Vs Adetimo (1996) 2 NWLR (Pt. 431) 391, this Court held that when a Court is asked to restrain a party from doing an act pending the decision in a matter before it, but the act has been done, no order to restrain will be made. This is so because, what is sought to be prevented had happened. In other words, an interlocutory injunction is not a remedy for an act, which has already been carried out.”

– PER S.D. BAGE, J.S.C

COURT

RELIEFS – DUTY OF THE PLAINTIFF TO SEEK APPROPRIATE RELIEFS FROM A COURT

“In seeking reliefs from a Court of law, a plaintiff ought to seek appropriate reliefs in order not to render academic a subject matter that hitherto would have been life and within the jurisdiction of the Court, when a plaintiff, as in the instant case, omits to seek appropriate reliefs, he ties the hands of the Court and snuffs the life out of the case before the Court. It is trite that Courts do not exercise jurisdiction over academic issues as it would be an exercise in futility. The Court is also not a Father Christmas and cannot grant reliefs not sought before it. See UBN LTD vs Ogbu (1995) 2 NWLR (Pt. 380) 647; Kate Enterprises LTD vs. Daewoo NIG. LTD.(1985) 2 NWLR (Pt.5) page 116.; Owoade vs Omitola (1988) 2 NWLR (Pt. 77) page 413.” PER S.D. BAGE, J.S.C

JURISDICTION, COURT, APPEAL, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

JURISDICTION OF COURT- WHETHER AN APPELLATE COURT CAN PROCEED TO DETERMINE AN APPEAL BEFORE IT WHERE IT LACKS JURISDICTION

“In the light of my finding that the Court below was right in declining jurisdiction on this appeal, I will decline jurisdiction on these issues and not consider them despite the very alluring temptation in counsel’s submission. I hold the view that the issues, which arose from the Lower Court’s decision abundanti cautela are now academic before this Court.

The Court below merely abided the decision of this Court in Stowe vs Benstowe (2012) 9 NWLR (Pt.1306) 450 at 463, where this Court stated the law in the following words:

“I must observe that the Court of Appeal was correct to hear the appeal on its merit when it was aware that it had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal. When an appeal is pending before a Court of Appeal and the issue of jurisdiction is raised and the Court of appeal has no jurisdiction to hear the appeal, the Court of Appeal as the penultimate Court should proceed to hear the appeal on its merit notwithstanding the fact that it has no jurisdiction. Hearing the Appeal gives the Supreme Court the benefit of its opinion. The reasoning is simple, if the Supreme Court finds both Court had jurisdiction, the suit will have to be sent back to the Court of Appeal with great cost to the litigant and waste of judicial time.”

I agree and again state the law that where the Lower Court declines jurisdiction on an appeal before it, it is better for the Lower Court, not being the final Court, to hand down a decision on the substance of the case to enable the Supreme Court give consideration to the substance where it overrules the Lower Court’s decision to decline jurisdiction.

Contrary to what has been urged on this Court in this appeal, let me state clearly that the mere consideration of the substance of a case by a Court despite its lack of jurisdiction does not automatically confer jurisdiction on the appellate Court to exercise its appellate jurisdiction on the decision of the Lower Court on the substance of the matter which it decided abundanti cautelu. Where the Court of Appeal, as in this case, declines jurisdiction on an appeal but proceeds to hand down a decision on the substance abundanti cautela, no jurisdiction will be conferred on the Supreme Court to consider the merit of that decision if the Supreme Court finds that the Court of Appeal rightly declined jurisdiction on the appeal. The appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to consider the correctness or otherwise of the decision handed down abundanti cautela by the Court below will only be activated if the Supreme Court overrules the Court of Appeal’s decision declining jurisdiction on the appeal.” PER S.D. BAGE, J.S.C

LAW OF EVIDENCE, LEGAL PRACTITIONER

ADDRESS OF COUNSEL – WHETHER ADDRESS OF COUNSEL TAKES THE PLACE OF EVIDENCE

“It has to be stated that address of counsel does not take the place of evidence. Adua v Essien (2010) 14 NWLR (Pt.1213) 141 at 167; Atamah v Ebosele (2010) All FWLR (Pt.1925) at 19394”. PER M. U. PETER-ODILI, J.S.C.

FAIR HEARING

DENIAL OF FAIR HEARING – WHETHER A PLEA OF DENIAL OF FAIR HEARING OPERATES BY MERE INVOCATION

“A plea of denial of fair hearing is not taken as a given merely because a party cries as such being not a technical doctrine which activates and operates by the mere invocation. See Muhammed v. A.B.U. Zaria (2015) 7 NWLR (Pt.1407) 500 at 538; Omokhodion v. FRN (No.2) (2005) 10 NWLR (Pt.934) 581”. PER M. U. PETER-ODILI, J.S.C.

 

 

---

CASES CITED

---

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

Electoral Act, 2010

Supreme Court Act

 

---

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT