LABOUR PARTY & ORS v. COMRADE RUFUS OYATORO
(2016)LCN/8091(CA)
In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
On Thursday, the 7th day of January, 2016
CA/AK/32/2012
RATIO
COURT: JURISDICTION; WHAT THE COURT MUST CONSIDER IN ORDER TO DECIDE WHETHER IT HAS JURISDICTION TO ENTERTAIN A CASE WHERE JURISDICTION IS CHALLENGE
This is because where as in the instant case, the jurisdiction of a Court over a suit is challenged, the Court is entitled under Section 6 of the 1999 Constitution to consider the plaintiff’s claim before it in order to decide, whether it has jurisdiction to entertain it.
See: Adeleke v. O.S.H.A (2006) 16 NWLR (Pt.1006) 608, Egbebu v. I. G. P. (2006) 5 NWLR (Pt.972) 146 at 162, Skenconsult v. Ukey (1981) 1 SC 6 and Magaji v. Matari (2000) 5 SC 46. per.
MOJEED ADEKUNLE OWOADE, J.C.A.
COURT: DUTY OF THE COURT: THE DUTY OF THE COURT AS THE PRIMARY CUSTODIAN OF THE CONSTITUTION
It goes without saying that a Court of law cannot close its eyes to the infringement of the Constitution as it is the primary custodian of the Constitution.
See: Akinmade v. Ajayi (2008) 34 NWLR (Pt.175) 187 and Inakoju v. Adeleke (2008) 30 WRN 1 at 136.
MOJEED ADEKUNLE OWOADE, J.C.A.
Juctice
MOJEED ADEKUNLE OWOADE Juctice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
MOHAMMED AMBI-USI DANJUMA Juctice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
JAMES SHEHU ABIRIYI Juctice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
Between
LABOUR PARTY & 25 ORSAppellant(s)
AND
COMRADE RUFUS OYATORORespondent(s)
MOJEED ADEKUNLE OWOADE, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): The Appellants herein claimed to have filed two Notices of Appeal against two different Rulings in suit No. HOS/137/2011.
The first Notice of Appeal said to be against the Ruling delivered by Honourable Juctice S. Oyejide Falola on 24th January, 2011 is in respect of the Appellants preliminary objection against the Respondent??s suit. The second which the Appellant claimed is in a supplementary record is said to be against the Ruling of 28/03/2014 which ordered the setting aside of the 1st Appellant’s congresses held pursuant to the calendar of INEC.
Unfortunately, after a painstaking search of the Registry of this Court, no one could find any Supplementary Record of Appeal by the Appellants or a Notice of Appeal other than the one concerning the Ruling of 24th January, 2012 contained on page 213 of the record of appeal.
Based on the Notice of Appeal filed on 30/1/2012, Appellants filed a brief of argument on 10 – 7 – 2014 and secured the order of this Honourable Court to hear the appeal on the Appellant’s brief alone, the Respondent having failed and/or
neglected to file a brief of argument.
The 1st Appellant is a registered political party in Nigeria with the 2nd Appellant as its national secretary whilst the 3rd to 26th Appellants were at the material time the 1st Appellant’s Osun State executive members.
By originating summons dated 28-10-2011 and filed on 28-10-2011 the Respondent as plaintiff in the Court below posed eight (8) questions for determination and sought ten (10) reliefs as follows:
QUESTIONS FOR DETERMINATION
l. WHETHER by virtue of Article 19(2)(D) of the Labour Party Constitution, 2009 and S.36(1) of the Amended 1999 Constitution the 3rd – 26th Defendants can validly suspend the plaintiff without giving him fair hearing.
2. WHETHER by virtue of Article 19(2)(D) of the Labour Party Constitution, 2009 and S.36(1) of the Amended 1999 Constitution the purported suspension of the plaintiff by the 3rd – 26th Defendants as the Osun State Chairman of the 1st Defendant, on the 30th of September, 2011 is not illegal, unlawful, null and void.
3. WHETHER the 3rd – 26th Defendants are competent and can validly pass a vote of no confidence on the plaintiff as against Article 17
of the Labour Party (LP) Constitution, 2009 which vested such powers to the congress.
4. WHETHER the actions of the Defendants is not an abuse on the Legal rights of the plaintiff as guaranteed by the Article 19(2)(D) and S.36(1) of the Amended 1999 Constitution and of such is unlawful, illegal null and void and of no effect.
5. WHETHER or not the purported suspension of the plaintiff by the 3rd – 26th Defendants is not a breach of the rules of natural Juctice as contained in Article 19(2)(D) of the Labour Party (LP), 2009 and S.36(1) of the Amended Constitution and of such unlawful, illegal, null and void and of no effect.
6. WHETHER or not the 2nd Defendant as the National Secretary of the 1st Defendant has not abused his office and ultra vires his functions by unilaterally confirming the purported illegal and unlawful suspension of the plaintiff vide a letter dated the 14th October, 2011 without due compliance with the provisions of the party Constitution.
7. WHETHER or not the purported election/or appointment of the 3rd Defendant is not a violation of the rules of natural Juctice and provisions of the Labour Party (LP) Constitution, 2009
and of such illegal, unlawful, null and void and of no effect whatsoever.
8. WHETHER or not the purported meeting of 30th of September, 2011 wherein ?a vote of No Confidence was passed on the plaintiff which led to his purported suspension from office as State chairman of Labour Party is not illegal, unlawful, null and void and of no effect whatsoever.
RELIEFS SOUGHT BY THE PLAINTIFF
1. A DECLARATION that the actions of 3rd – 26th Defendants is illegal, unlawful, null and void and of no effect.
2. A DECLARATION that the purported suspension of the plaintiff as the Osun State Chairman of the 1st Defendant on the 30th of September, 2011 is illegal, null and void as it violates Article 19(2XBX2) of the Labour Party (LP) Constitution, 2009 and S.36(1) of the Amended 1999 Constitution.
3. A DECLARATION that the purported vote of No Confidence passed by the 3rd – 26th Defendants is illegal, null and void and of no effect whatsoever as it violates Article 17 of the Labour Party (LP) Constitution, 2009.
4. A DECLARATION that the purported election/or appointment of the 3rd Defendant as the State acting Chairman by the 4th – 26th,
Defendants is illegal, unlawful, null and void and of no effect whatsoever.
5. AN ORDER setting aside the purported suspension and vote of No confidence passed by the 3rd – 26th Defendants on the plaintiff forthwith.
6. AN ORDER declaring that the plaintiff as the authentic and duly recognized State chairman of Labour party of Osun State.
7. AN ORDER directing the Defendants to recognize the plaintiff as the authentic State Chairman of the Labour Party of Osun State in any manner whatsoever and howsoever.
8. AN ORDER declaring that actions of the 2nd Defendant vide the said letter of suspension which he issued and signed as National Secretary of the 1st Defendant dated the 14th October, 2011 is an abuse of office and of such is illegal, unlawful, null and void and of no effect whatsoever.
9. AN ORDER OF PERPETUAL INJUNCTION restraining the 3rd Defendant from parading himself as acting State Chairman of Labour Party, Osun State in any manner whatsoever and howsoever.
10. AN ORDER OF PERPETUAL INJUNCTION restraining the Defendants, its agents, privies and servants from recognizing the 3rd Defendant as acting State Chairman of
Labour Party, Osun State in any manner whatsoever and howsoever.
The said originating summons was accompanied by affidavit in support, sundry exhibits and a written address in support of the application.
The Respondent also filed a motion on Notice for interlocutory injunction. These processes are contained at pages 2 – 163 of the record of appeal.
On 16-11-2011, the Appellants as Defendants/Applicants filed a Notice of Preliminary objection to the Respondent’s originating summons and motion for interlocutory injunction indeed against the Respondent’s suit in its entirety on the grounds:-
?1. The plaintiff has no locus standi to bring this action,
2. No jurisdiction is vested in the Honourable Court to entertain intra party matters as the same are injusticiable.
3. The jurisdiction of the Court in intra party matters under the Electoral Act 2011 (as amended) is limited to nomination of candidates for election wherein only the Aspirants thereby are vested with the right to institute an action.
4. The plaintiff’s suit is an abuse of Court processes.<br< p=””>
</br<>
————————————————————————-?
The Appellants preliminary objection to the Respondent’s processes was also supported by affidavit and written address (see pages 164 to 179 of the record of appeal).
The Respondent thereafter filed a counter affidavit and written address
(see pages 180 – 190 of the record).
In a Ruling delivered on 24 – 01 – 2012, the learned trial judge found no merit in the Appellants preliminary objection.
He held that the plaintiff Respondent has locus standi to bring the suit and that the Court also has jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
The learned trial judge found that the provision of Section 87 (10) of the Electoral Act relied on by the learned counsel to the Appellants is not applicable to the case.
?He juxtaposed the provisions of Sections 78 and 80 of the Electoral Act with those of Section 6 (6) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) and observed at page 209 of the record that:
?In all these provisions, nothing has suggested that a member of a political party cannot sue the political party to which
he belongs on any other ground. The submission of the learned counsel to the Applicants is a frightening challenge to the provisions of Section 6 (6) (a) and (b) of the Constitution on the judicial powers in Nigeria—————————?
?
The learned trial judge concluded at pages 210 – 211 of the records as follows:
”As a matter of fact the Defendants/Applicants appear to have intuitively raised their defence as part of the objection by justifying their action by a majority decision. However, what a Court of law needs to consider at this stage is the Originating process of the plaintiff and see if it complies with the law. It will be premature at this stage to consider the defence of the Applicants in defence of the Originating Summons in a Preliminary Objection. One of the documents attached to the Originating process as Exhibit is the Membership Card of the Plaintiff which shows that he is a financial member of the Labour Party and that he was put in office under the Constitution of the party. It is up to the Defendants to deny all these assertions in their defence. If there is accrual of right to the plaintiff as a financial member and
as an officer of the party then his right and obligations if infringed upon can be looked into by the Court – Ozigbo v. PDP (2010) 25 WRN at 75: Amaechi v. INEC & Ors. (2008) 6 WRN at page 1 and Amechi v. INEC (2008) 10 WRN 164.
In both cases the Supreme Court held that members of a political party are bound by the Constitution of the party and that a political party must ensure intra party democracy and abide by the provisions of its Constitution.
I find no merit in this Preliminary Objection. The Plaintiff has locus standi to bring this suit. The Court also has jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
Consequently the Preliminary Objection is dismissed.”
Dissatisfied with this decision Appellants filed a Notice of Appeal containing two (2) grounds of appeal before this Court on 30-01-2012.
As noted earlier on, Appellants filed a brief of argument containing two issues for determination on 10-7-2014.
Appellants second issue in the said brief of argument is based on a non-existent Notice of Appeal. Appellants issue 2 in the said brief of argument which is not based on any Notice of Appeal is incompetent and struck out.
Consequently, the only issue formulated for determination in this appeal is
??Whether the trial Court is clothed with jurisdiction to hear and determine intra – party dispute and whether the trial Court is competent to determine the Respondent’s originating summons??
Learned counsel for the Appellants submitted that the trial Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain and determine intra – party matter and thereby lacks jurisdiction to determine the Respondent’s suit.
He argued that the issues in controversy in the suit are matters relating to the control, management, administration and organization of the affairs of 1st Appellant (Labour Party) in Osun State. That the General Body of the party particularly majority of the Executive members of the party as was represented by the 3rd to 26th Appellants at the State and Local Government levels of the party across the State passed a vote of no confidence on the Respondent as their State Chairman, upon his stepping down in a meeting where the issue was deliberated. Thereupon, the act was reported to the National Body of the 1st Appellant, which approved the appointment of the 3rd Appellant as the Acting
State Chairman, pending discreet investigation into the matters and when the Respondent as the State Chairman would have been heard to defend himself on the allegations levelled against him.
He submitted that the Respondent, rather than make his representation on the allegation against him to the 1st Appellant, instituted this suit to challenge his suspension.
Appellants counsel then referred to an array of cases to demonstrate that the practice of the Court is not to run associations for the members, it leaves the members to run their associations. Also, that it is a domestic issue and not one justiciable in a Court of law, and being so, no one has the locus to contest it.
He referred to the cases of Onuoha v. Okafor (1983) 2 NLR 244, Dr. Bukola Adesunyi v. Hon. B. Oduyoye (2004) NWLR (Pt.854) 430 – 31, Suleiman Abiodun Ogunbiyi v. Isreal Adisa Ogundipe & 3 Ors. (1992) 9 NWLR (Pt.263) P.24, Legg-Jack v. Ogunsumiju (1998) 10 NWLR (Pt.571) 693, Kurti v. Mohammed (1993) 2 WLR (Pt.277) 6, Ejikeme v. Amaechi 57 ER 189 and Anyanwu v. Ogubewe & Ors. (2014) 4 SCM 90 at 115 – 116.
He submitted that considering the authorities by the Apex
Court on this area of the law, the trial Court lacks the requisite jurisdiction to entertain and determine the Respondent’s suit.
He added that the only time when an individual member of a political party can challenge the decision of the party is as provided in Section 87 (a) of the Electoral Act 2011. The provision confers locus on an aspirant (as against individual member of the party) who contested primary election but felt aggrieved by the decision of the party. Beyond this provision, said counsel, no individual member of a political party/association (like the Respondent herein) is clothed with locus to challenge the party whatever decision taken by the party.
He urged us to allow the appeal.
In deciding the sole issue in this appeal it is important to take note of some relevant positions of the law.
First, the registration of political parties in Nigeria is governed by the provisions of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999.
See: INEC v. Musa (2002) 17 NWLR (Pt.796) 412.
?
Secondly, an intra – party dispute is a dispute between members of the party inter – se, or between a member or members on the
one hand and the party on the other.
See: P. D. P. v. K. S. I. E. C. (2006) 3 NWLR (Pt.968) 865.
In this respect, learned counsel for the Appellants was right to have posited that an intra – party matter is entirely within the party’s internal affairs, exclusively and completely outside the province or competence of Courts or Tribunals.
See: Abdulkadir v. Mamman (2003) 14 NWLR (pt. 839) 1 and Jang v. INEC (2004) 12 NWLR (Pt. 886) 46.
Indeed, in the case of Amaechi v. INEC (2007) 9 NWLR (Pt.1040) 504 the Court of Appeal decided that the expulsion of a member of a political party as a disciplinary measure remains truly an intra – party affair. Such a member having subscribed to the party’s Constitution is bound by its provisions. The party and its members cannot be stopped from exercising their legitimate rights, there – under having freely given their consent to be so bound. Thus, the Court cannot inquire into such rights where a party had exercised its legitimate right to discipline any of its members.
See also Ehinlawo v. Oke (2008) 16 NWLR (Pt.1113) 357 at 402, Pam v. ANPP (2008) 4 NWLR (Pt.1077) 224, Bakam v. Abubakar (1991) 6
NWLR (Pt.199) 564 and Ugwu v. Ararume (2007) 12 NWLR (Pt.1048) 367 at 499 – 500.
However, and as it relates to the instant case, this position of the law must be considered alongside the legitimate rights of the party and its members. This is because, the party or association as well as its members are bound by the Constitution of such a party and also subject to the provisions of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended).
Relatedly, in considering whether a Court has jurisdiction to entertain a matter, the Court is guided by the claim before it by critically looking at the writ of summons and the statement of claim.
This is because where as in the instant case, the jurisdiction of a Court over a suit is challenged, the Court is entitled under Section 6 of the 1999 Constitution to consider the plaintiff’s claim before it in order to decide, whether it has jurisdiction to entertain it.
See: Adeleke v. O.S.H.A (2006) 16 NWLR (Pt.1006) 608, Egbebu v. I. G. P. (2006) 5 NWLR (Pt.972) 146 at 162, Skenconsult v. Ukey (1981) 1 SC 6 and Magaji v. Matari (2000) 5 SC 46.
In the instant case, I think the Appellants seem
indeed to be carried away with their intuitive belief that the suit before the Court is an intraparty dispute without carefully appraising the processes of Court as to whether on its face it could be so declared as intra – party dispute.
Meanwhile, the questions and reliefs sought in the originating summons border on the violation of Article 19 (2) (B) (2) of the 1st Appellant’s Constitution, 2009 and S. 36 (1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended).
It goes without saying that a Court of law cannot close its eyes to the infringement of the Constitution as it is the primary custodian of the Constitution.
See: Akinmade v. Ajayi (2008) 34 NWLR (Pt.175) 187 and Inakoju v. Adeleke (2008) 30 WRN 1 at 136.
The learned trial judge was thus right when it held at pages 210 – 211 of the record that:-
It would be premature at the stage of considering the Appellants preliminary objection to also consider the defence of the Appellants that the Respondent’s suit relates to intra – party dispute. And, also if there is accrual of right to the Respondent as a financial member and an officer of the 1st
Appellant, then his right if infringed must be looked into by the Court.
In other words, the trial Court was not unaware of the position of the law as regards intra – party disputes but at the stage of preliminary objection by the Appellants, that it was bound to be guided only by the Respondent’s claims.
In the circumstance, the decision of the learned trial judge of 24-01-2012 was not wrong.
The only issue in this appeal is resolved against the Appellant. The appeal lacks merit and it is accordingly dismissed.
I make not order as to costs.
MOHAMMED AMBI-USI?DANJUMA, J.C.A.: I agree.
JAMES SHEHU ABIRIYI, J.C.A.: I agree.
>
Appearances
Akinyemi OmowareFor Appellant
AND
Respondent counsel absent but was served through phoneFor Respondent
