PRINCE NNANNA UKAEGBU & ORS v. ALL PROGRESSIVES GRAND ALLIANCE & ORS
(2019)LCN/13053(CA)
In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
On Wednesday, the 10th day of April, 2019
CA/OW/63/2019
JUSTICES
AYOBODE OLUJIMI LOKULO-SODIPE Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
RITA NOSAKHARE PEMU Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
IBRAHIM ALI ANDENYANGTSO Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
Between
1. PRINCE NNANNA UKAEGBU
2. BEDE NMEREM
(Chairman Abia North Zone)
3. OKIYI MICHAEL CHIGOROM
(Chairman Abia Central)
4. CHIEF CHARLES NWANYANWU
(Chairman Abia South Zone)
(For themselves and representing members of State Congress) – Appellant(s)
AND
1. ALL PROGRESSIVES GRAND ALLIANCE (APGA)
2. CHIEF VICTOR IKE OYE
(For himself and representing other members of the National Working Committee (APGA)
3. INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION – Respondent(s)
RATIO
WHETHER OR NOT HE WHO ASSERTS MUST PROVE
Section 131 (1) of the Evidence Act 2011 stipulates that:- Whoever desires any Court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability, dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts, must prove that those facts exist.? OGUNLEYE v. ONI (1990) 2 NWLR (PT. 135) 745. PER PEMU, J.C.A.
THE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE OF JURISDICTION
It is trite that it is the Plaintiff?s Statement of Claim or Petitioner?s petition that confers jurisdiction on a Court of competent jurisdiction. This must be examined holistically by the Court ? OJUKWU v. YAR?ADUA (2009) 12 NWLR (PT. 1154) 50. The law is settled that a Court of law has no power to, and cannot decide not to hear a process properly before it ? NALSA TEAM ASSOCIATES v. NNPC (1991) 8 NWLR (PT. 212) 652; CHIEF VIRGILUS AND CHIEF LIKU MAMA NNA (1996) 4 NWLR (PT. 440) 101. Jurisdiction being the threshold of judicial power and judicalism and by extension extrinsic to adjudication, parties cannot by connivance, acquiescence or collusion, confer jurisdiction on a Court, where jurisdiction is lacking ?OKOLO v. UNION BANK OF NIG PLC (2004) ALL FWLR (PT. 197) 987; FGN v. OSHIOMOLE (2004) 3 NWLR PT 860 @ 305; S. O. AKEGBEJO & ORS v. DR. D. O. ATAGA & ORS (1998) 1 NWLR (PT. 534) 459; OSADEBAY v. A. G. BENDEL STATE (1991) 1 NWLR (PT. 169) 525. PER PEMU, J.C.A.
WHETHER OR NOT FAILURE TO DISCLOSE LOCUS STANI IS FATAL TO AN ACTION
The law is elementary, that failure to disclose any locus standi is as fatal to the action as failure to disclose any reasonable cause of action ? NIGERIA CIVIL SERVICE UNION & ANOR v. O. G. ESSEIN & ANOR (1985) 3 NWLR (PART 12) 306. Decidedly there are two tests for determining existence of locus standi:-
a. The action must be justiciable
b. There must be a dispute between the parties.
And there ought to be a liberal approach in applying the tests ? BARBUS & CO (NIG) LTD v. OKAFOR ? UDEJI (2018) 11 NWLR ? PART 1630. 298 @ 311 Paragraph F-H. OJUKWU v. OJUKWU (2008) 18 NWLR (PT. 119) 439; EMEZI v. OSUAGWU (2005) 12 NWLR (PT. 939) 340; THOMAS v. OLUFOSOYE (1986) 1 NWLR (PT 18) 669.
The pleadings of a party must disclose a cause of action vested in him, and that his right and obligation, or interest, has been violated, before he can be vested with locus standi to sue. PER PEMU, J.C.A.
RITA NOSAKHARE PEMU, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): This appeal is against the decision of the Federal High Court sitting in Umuahia Judicial Division delivered on the 6th of January, 2019 in suit No. FHC/UM/CS/96/2018.
In that decision, the Court below declined jurisdiction to entertain the suit based on the Respondents? preliminary objection, filed on the 23rd of October, 2018 but went on to consider the suit on its merits and dismissed same.
SYNOPSIS OF FACTS
The 1st Appellant (Prince Nnanna Ukaegbu) is the Chairman of the Abia State Chapter of the ALL PROGRESSIVES GRAND ALLIANCE (APGA).
The 2nd, 3rd and 4th Appellants are Chairmen of the respective three zones of the 1st Respondent.
?In 2019, just before the primary elections of the 1st Respondent for elective position in Abia State, the 1st Appellant noticed that individual members of the 1st Respondent had, in collusion with the 2nd Respondent and in disregard of the 1st Respondents Constitution, made plans to impose candidates on the Abia State Chapter of the 1st Respondent, without the knowledge, nor input of the 1st Respondent?s members in Abia State.
1
The 1st Appellant, because of the infraction on the 1st Respondent?s Constitution, quickly approached the High Court of Abia State where it sought an order of interlocutory injunction restraining the 1st and 2nd Respondents from taking any steps or decision in relation to the 1st Respondent in Abia State, without the involvement and/or participation of the 1st Appellant as the Abia State Chairman of the 1st Respondent.
At the primary elections which was conducted in line with the 1st Respondent?s Constitution and the Electoral Act, for the elective offices in Abia State, the 1st Appellant allegedly emerged as the 1st Respondent?s candidate for Abia State North/Aba South Federal Constituency.
The 1st Appellant as agents of the 1st Respondent forwarded the names of the candidates who emerged, duly nominated at the primary elections conducted in line with the 1st Respondent?s Constitution, to the 3rd Respondent.
?
However, the 2nd Respondent also forwarded another list of candidates for Abia State, who allegedly did not participate in any primary elections known to the 1st Respondent?s Constitution, or
2
the Electoral Act, to the 3rd Respondent. A situation which raised a lot of dust and confusion. The question now came up ? who is the bonafide candidate of the 1st Respondent at the 2019 general Elections?
The Appellants thus instituted this suit the subject matter of this Appeal; vide Originating Summons filed on the 23rd of October 2018.
The 1st Respondent filed a Preliminary Objection challenging the jurisdiction of the Court below, and also filed a counter affidavit in opposing the Originating Summons.
The 2nd and 3rd Respondents respectively also filed counter affidavits.
After considering the matter, the Court below upheld the Preliminary Objection, but went on to entertain the Appellants suit and dismissed same.
The Appellants are dissatisfied with the judgment of the Court below and have appealed it.
Pursuant to the Practice Direction of this Honourable Court, the Appellants filed a Notice of Appeal on the 15th day of February 2019 encapsulating 14 Grounds of Appeal.
The Appellants filed their brief of argument on the 12th of March 2019. It is settled by ADEMOLA ABIMBOLA, ESQ.
3
The 1st Respondent?s brief was filed on the 25th of March 2019. It is settled by C. I. MBAERU ESQ.
The 2nd Respondent filed its brief of argument on the 25th of March 2019. It is settled by BERTRAM FAOTU ESQ.
The Appellants filed a Reply to the 1st Respondents? brief of argument on the 25th of March, 2019. The Reply of the Appellants to the 2nd Respondent?s brief of argument was filed on the 26th of March, 2019.
On the 1st of April, 2019, the parties adopted their respective briefs of argument.
The Appellants distilled four (4) Issues for determination from the Grounds of Appeal. They are:-
i. WHETHER OR NOT THE LOWER COURT WAS RIGHT WHEN HIS LORDSHIP HELD THAT THE COURT LACKED JURISDICTION TO ENTERTAIN THE SUIT BECAUSE NONE OF THE APPELLANTS WAS AN ASPIRANT IN THE PRIMARY ELECTION IN ISSUE. (DISTILLED FROM GROUNDS 1 & 12 OF THE NOTICE OF APPEAL)
ii. WHETHER OR NOT THE LOWER COURT WAS RIGHT WHEN HIS LORDSHIP HELD THAT THE COURT LACKED JURISDICTION TO ENTERTAIN THE SUIT BECAUSE IT DID NOT FALL UNDER SECTION 87 (9) OF THE ELECTORAL ACT 2010. (DISTILLED FROM GROUNDS 2, 3, 4 AND 6 OF THE NOTICE OF APPEAL)
iii. WHETHER OR NOT THE SUIT WAS
4
PROPERLY COMMENCED BY WAY OF ORIGINATING SUMMONS. (DISTILLED FROM GROUND 7 OF THE NOTICE OF APPEAL)
iv. WHETHER OR NOT THE LOWER COURT WAS RIGHT WHEN HIS LORDSHIP REFUSED TO GRANT THE RELIEFS SOUGHT IN THE ORIGINATING SUMMONS. (DISTILLED FROM GROUNDS 5, 8, 9, 10, 11 AND 13 OF THE NOTICE OF APPEAL)
The 1st Respondent distilled two (2) Issues for determination from the Grounds of Appeal. They are:-
I. WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT BELOW RIGHTLY DECLINED JURISDICTION TO ENTERTAIN THE SUIT AND ACCORDINGLY FOUND THE SUIT LIABLE TO BE STRUCK OUT.
II. WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT BELOW RIGHTLY REFUSED ALL THE RELIEFS SOUGHT BY THE APPELLANTS AND DISMISSED THEIR SUIT ON ITS MERIT.
The 2nd Respondent on his part distilled three (3) Issues for determination from the Grounds of Appeal. They are:-
a. WHETHER THE LEARNED TRIAL JUDGE WAS RIGHT TO HOLD THAT THE APPELLANTS DID NOT CONTEST THE PRIMARY ELECTION LEADING TO THE PRESENT ACTION THEREBY DECLINING JURISDICTION.
b. WHETHER THE LEARNED TRIAL JUDGE WAS RIGHT TO WHEN HE HELD THAT THE APPELLANTS SUIT WAS ON NON-COMPLIANCE WITH AN INJUNCTIVE ORDER OF A PENDING SUIT AND THEREFORE NOT COMPETENT.
5
c. WHETHER THE LOWER COURT WAS RIGHT WHEN IT REFUSED ALL THE RELIEFS SOUGHT IN THAT COURT BY THE APPELLANTS HEREIN.
A cursory glance at the issues for determination proffered by the respective Respondents show that they coalesce and are an adoption of the issues proffered by the Appellants.
I shall in the circumstances determine this appeal based on the Appellants? issues for determination.
ISSUE NO 1.
WHETHER OR NOT THE LOWER COURT WAS RIGHT WHEN HIS LORDSHIP HELD THAT THE COURT LACKED JURISDICTION TO ENTERTAIN THE SUIT BECAUSE NONE OF THE APPELLANTS WAS AN ASPIRANT IN THE PRIMARY ELECTION IN ISSUE.
The Appellants submit that the lower Court was wrong to rely on facts contained in the counter-affidavit to the originating Summons to determine the issue of jurisdiction, and that the finding of the lower Court that none of the Appellants was an aspirant at the primary election in issue is perverse.
?
Submitting that locus standi is a jurisdictional issue which goes to the root of the power of the Court, the jurisdiction of the Court of law is determined by examining only the Originating Summons, the reliefs contained
6
therein, and the facts in the affidavit in support of the Originating Summons.
That in this matter, the Court below agreed with this principles of law, but reprobated from this position by finding that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain this case primarily on the basis of facts stated by the 1st Defendant in paragraph 22 of the 1st Defendant (1st Respondent in this appeal), counter affidavit in opposition to the Originating Summons.
Submits that the Court below had found that none of the Appellants was an aspirant at the primary election in issue, and that this is perverse. That indeed the primary ground upon which the lower Court declined jurisdiction to entertain the case was that none of the Appellants was an aspirant in the primary election conducted by the National Working Committee of the 1st Respondent.
Submits that the 1st Appellant was an aspirant in the primary elections conducted by the 1st Respondent ? referring to Paragraphs 17, 19 and 21 of the Affidavit in support of the Originating Summons ? Pages 5 to 6 of the Record of Appeal.
?
The Appellants submit that Exhibit ?F? contains the names of all persons
7
who contested in the primary elections conducted by the 1st Respondent and that the 1st Appellant emerged as winner.
That in Exhibit ?F?, the 1st Appellant?s name (BARRISTER PRINCE A. UKAEGBU) was included as the candidate of the 1st Respondent for election into the office of member Federal House of Representatives representing Aba North/Aba South Federal Constituency.
They submit that documents attached to an affidavit form part of the affidavit in question. Therefore Exhibit ?F? having been attached to the Originating Summons, and which contains the names of the persons who contested and emerged as winners in the 1st Respondent?s primaries, the Court below is bound to consider and countenance the contents of Exhibit ?F?.
They submit that the facts deposed to in Paragraphs 17, 19 and 21 of the Affidavit in support of the Originating Summons, and the contents of Exhibit ?F? were never disputed or controverted by the Respondents. That the Respondents however did not produce a contrary list of persons, who contested and won any primary elections.
8
Submits that the Court below discountenanced Exhibit ?F? on the ground that Barrister Prince A. Ukaegbu named in Exhibit ?F? is not the same person as the 1st Appellant. That Barrister Prince A. Ukaegbu named in Exhibit ?F? is the same person as the 1st Appellant (Prince Nnanna Ukaegbu). That the word ?PRINCE? and ?UKAEGBU? appear as the first and last name in both names. The only difference between Barrister Prince A. Ukaegbu and Prince Nnanna Ukaegbu is the abbreviated middle name of ?A? and ?Nnanna?. Submitting that the difference is not material.
It is their submission that the reliance of the Court below on the inconsequential discrepancies in the middle names, to conclude that the two names do not refer to one and the same person is technical. Urges this Court to hold that the 1st Appellant could validly invoke the jurisdiction of the lower Court under Section 87 (9) of the Electoral Act 2010 (As amended).
They submit that the primary elections was conducted with the knowledge, approval, and sanction of the National Working Committee of the 1st Respondent.
9
Referring to Paragraphs 15 and 21 of the affidavit in support of the Originating Summons, they submit that it shows that the primary elections in issue must have been conducted with the sanction and approval of the National Working Committee. That the Respondents did not contest Paragraphs 15 and 21 of the Affidavit in support of the Originating Summons. The implication of this is that the Respondents accepted that the primary election in issue was conducted in compliance with the Constitution of the 1st Respondent; the 1st Respondents? Guidelines for the conduct of its primaries and the Electoral Act (2010) (As amended). And by extension, that the same primary elections was conducted with the sanction and approval of the National Working Committee of the 1st Respondent.
Urges this Honourable Court to resolve this issue in favour of the Appellants, and to set aside the decision of the lower Court declining jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
ISSUE NO 2.
WHETHER OR NOT THE LOWER COURT WAS RIGHT WHEN HIS LORDSHIP HELD THAT THE COURT LACKED JURISDICTION TO ENTERTAIN THE SUIT BECAUSE IT DID NOT FALL UNDER SECTION 87 (9) OF THE ELECTORAL ACT 2010.
10
The Appellants submit that another ground upon which the Court below declined jurisdiction was that the suit borders on the Respondents? non-compliance with injunctive orders in a pending suit, and not with the Electoral Act or the 1st Respondents guidelines. But that this is not true.
Submits that, as reflected in Paragraphs 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 21 of the Affidavit in Support of the Originating Summons, it reveals that the case of the Appellants is that the 1st and 2nd Respondents breached the provisions of Sections 87 (4) (b) (i) (ii) and 87 (4) (c) (i) and (ii) of the Electoral Act 2010 (As amended). ?
This is because the 1st and 2nd Respondents refused to forward the names of the persons who emerged winners at the 1st Respondents? primary elections (including the 1st Appellant) to the 3rd Respondent as the 1st Respondent?s candidates for election into the respective offices, and the unilateral decision of the 2nd Respondent to develop and send to the 3rd Respondent another list of candidates who did not win the primary elections and who were different from the candidates whom the Appellants forwarded to the 3rd Respondent. That the 1st and 2nd
11
Respondents actions were against the provisions of Section 87 (4) (b) (i) (ii) and 87 (4) (c) (i) and (ii) of the Electoral Act 2010 (As amended).
It is their contention that the failure to forward the names of the winners of the primary election (including the 1st Appellant) as contained in Exhibit ?F? to the 3rd Respondent as its candidates for the elective positions in the 2019 general elections for Abia State by the 1st and 2nd Respondents, they were in breach of the provisions of Section 87 (4) (b) (i) (ii) and 87 (4) (c) (i) (ii) of the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended) citing OLUGBEMI v. LAWRENCE 2017 16 NWLR (PART 1591) 209 @ 256 ? 247 paras B-F.
They submit that the provisions of Section 87 (4) of the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended) makes it mandatory for political parties to forward only names of the candidates who won their primaries.
?
That in the instant case, there is the complaint that the provisions of Section 87 (4) (c) (i) (ii) was not complied with. That this complaint falls squarely within the provisions of Section 87 (9) of the Electoral Act 2010 (As amended). Consequently both the Federal and State High Courts
12
have the concurrent jurisdiction to entertain same citing LOKPOBIRI v. OGOLA (2016 3 NWLR (PT. 1499) 328 @ 882; LAU v. PDP (2018) 4 NWLR (PR. 1608) 60 @ 110.
They submit that the decision of the Court below declining jurisdiction to entertain the suit, the subject matter of this appeal, on the ground that the Appellants have not brought their action within the provisions of Section 87 (9) of the Electoral Act 2010 (As amended) was erroneous.
Submits that it was the duty of the Court below, to determine which between the primary elections conducted by the Appellants or Respondents was valid, and in compliance with the 1st Respondent?s Constitution, Guideline and Electoral Act 2010 (As amended).
ISSUE NO 3.
WHETHER OR NOT THE SUIT WAS PROPERLY COMMENCED BY WAY OF ORIGINATING SUMMONS.
The Appellants submit that the 1st Respondent had objected to the suit below being instituted by way of Originating Summons as the suit involved substantial dispute of facts, and was hostile in nature. That the suit should have been instituted by Writ of Summons.
?
They submit that the Court below misconstrued the Appellants case when it held inter
13
alia that:-
?The material facts in the suit before the lower Court were not steeped in deep confrontation, neither was the Chairmanship of the 1st Respondent the main or central issue in the suit at the lower Court.?
Submits that the totality of the case presented by the Appellants as reflected in the affidavit in support of the Originating Summons is as follows:-
1. Following the decision of the Abia State High Court, primaries were conducted into various elective position in Abia State in line with the 1st Respondent?s Constitution and Guidelines and the Provisions of the Electoral Act.
2. After the said primaries, Appellants submitted a list of candidates who won the primaries to the 3rd Respondent.
3. 2nd Respondent unilaterally generated another list, and supplanted the authentic list of the party initially submitted by Appellants. and the list of candidates.
4. And the list of candidates submitted by the Appellants to the 3rd Respondent, contains the names of the persons who stood for election and won at the various primaries conducted by the 1st Respondent in Abia State in line with its Constitution.
14
They submit that the Respondents in their respective counter affidavits deposed to the facts that the 1st Appellant was no longer a member of the 1st Respondent. Sale of forms into different political offices in Abia State was carried out by the National headquarters of the 1st Respondent. The primaries were conducted in line with the guideline for conduct of primary elections issued by the 1st Respondent, the 1st Appellant was not a candidate in the primary elections and is not even a member of the 1st Respondent, there is an appeal against the injunctive order referred to by the Appellants; and the Respondents accepted only the list of candidates as presented by the extant Chairman of the 1st Respondent in Abia State.
It is the Appellants? contention that the crux of the dispute between the parties at the lower Court was ?which of the two lists of candidates submitted by the parties was authentic in compliance with an order of Court, and conducted in line with the 1st Respondent?s Constitution and Guidelines and the Provisions of the Electoral Act.?
That the issue of the Chairmanship of the 1st Respondent was not the crux
15
of the Appellants? case at the Court below.
Submits that where there are contradictions as to facts in the affidavit of parties, the Court ought to resort to the documentary evidence before it.
The Appellants contend that the lower Court ought to have resorted to documentary evidence exhibited to the Appellants? Originating Summons, to resolve any conflict in the oral evidence of the parties, especially as the Respondents failed to adduce any documentary evidence to disprove the Appellants? position presented. That if the Court below did so, it would have seen that there was an order of the High Court of Abia State recognizing the 1st Appellant as the authentic Chairman of the 1st Respondent in Abia State. – refers to Exhibit ?B? attached to the affidavit in support of the Originating Summons. That this would have resolved the issue of ?deep confrontation? in facts. That the Respondents tendered no documentary evidence to counter Exhibit ?B?.
?
Submits that where an action is commenced by a wrong mode, the action cannot be defeated, as such error is a mere irregularity which the Court may
16
waive, referring to the Provisions of Order 3 Rule 1 of the Federal High Court Rules 2000.
Submits that the Court ought to have, in the interest of justice converted the suit to the appropriate mode of commencement, instead of striking out the suit or declining Jurisdiction.
ISSUE NO 4.
WHETHER OR NOT THE LOWER COURT WAS RIGHT WHEN HIS LORDSHIP REFUSED TO GRANT THE RELIEFS SOUGHT IN THE ORIGINATING SUMMONS.
They submit that they were entitled to the reliefs sought in the Court below. That the candidates in the Appellants list (Exhibit ?F?) emerged from the only valid primary elections of the 1st Respondent in Abia State. Submits that the Appellants were able to establish at the Court below, that the primaries which produced the candidates in the list of candidates submitted by the Appellants were conducted in line with the 1st Respondents Constitution and Electoral Guidelines for Primary Elections 2019, and the Provisions of the Electoral Act 2010 (As amended).
?
That the Appellants in establishing their case at the lower Court relied on Paragraphs 15, 16, 17 and 21 of the Affidavit in support of the Originating Summons.
17
Submits that the 1st and 2nd Respondents state that the 1st Respondent conducted primary elections in line with the guideline of the 1st Respondent, the 1st Appellant was no longer a member of the 1st Respondent, and the 1st Appellant?s tenure ended in 2015. Refers to Paragraphs 21, 22 and 32 of the 1st Respondent?s affidavit.
That the Abia State High Court subsisting order is to the fact that the 1st Appellant is the Chairman of the Abia State Chapter of the 1st Respondent. But the 1st Respondent?s contention is that the 1st Appellant?s tenure ended in 2015.
Submits that the 1st Respondent was duty bound to forward the names of the winners of its primary election to the 3rd Respondent.
Submits that rather than enforce the order of the Abia State High Court, the Court below delved into the merits of the order and deprecated the interlocutory order of a Court of coordinate jurisdiction. Citing UMAR v. APC (2018) 18 NWLR (PT. 1650) 139 @ 154.
Submits that the lower Court ought to have assumed jurisdiction to enforce the injunctive orders of the Abia State High Court. That the implication of the order of the Abia
18
State High Court is that the Appellants, particularly the 1st Appellant should be involved in the selection, nomination and sponsorship of candidates of the political party. That as a result, all actions taken by the Appellants ought to be ratified by the 1st Respondent, as failure to do so would amount to disobeying the Order of Courts. That Court of record have the power to enforce an existing order of the Court.
It is the 1st Respondent contention that the four years tenure of office of the Appellants elapsed in May 2015, having been first elected in the year 2011, and this was pleaded in his statement of claim in suit No. HOB/47/2014. PRINCE NNANNA UKAEGBU v. CHIEF VICTOR UMEH & ORS.
That upon the examination of their tenure in 2015, APGA conducted State Congress on the 23rd of May, 2015, where a new State Executive Committee emerged in Abia State, under the leadership of Reverend Augustine Ehiemere as State Chairman.
?
On the 25th of September, 2018 however, more than three years after his tenure of office had elapsed, the 1st Appellant obtained an interlocutory order from an Abia State High Court predicated on reliefs sought in Suit No.
19
HOB/47/2014 ? PRINCE NNANNA UKAEGBU v. CHIEF VICTOR UMEH & ORS, which was filed in 2014, seeking inter alia for an order to be allowed to complete his tenure that ends in 2015. The order restrained the Respondents from running the affairs of APGA in Abia State without the 1st Appellant?s participation or involvement as Abia State Chapter Chairman.
They submit that the interlocutory order concerned only the office of State Chairman of APGA in Abia State, and that it has nothing to do with the conduct of primary elections which is the exclusive prerogative of the National Working Committee of political parties.
It is the contention of the 1st Respondent that the National Working Committee of APGA appointed Electoral Panels, in compliance with established principles, on conduct of primaries, which conducted primary elections in October 2018 state-wide, Abia State inclusive. This is for the purpose of nomination of the APGA candidates in the 2019 general elections. After the primaries, the list of nominated candidates were forwarded to INEC by the 1st and 2nd Respondents as stipulated by Section 31 (1) of the Electoral Act 2010 (As amended).
20
That it is apparent that the 1st Appellant thought that the interlocutory order which he obtained on the 25th of September, 2018, had empowered him to personally conduct primary elections for APGA. The 1st Appellant therefore personally drew up his own list of nominated candidates, which he sent to Abia State office of INEC, and not INEC Headquarters in Abuja.
The Appellants armed with this list sought declaratory orders in the Court below for the validation of his list of candidates as the lawful list of candidates of APGA for the 2019 elections.
It is the contention of the 2nd Respondent that the 1st Appellant was the Abia State Chairman of the 1st Respondent. He was elected in 2011 for a four years tenure, which expired in 2015. He was however suspended and later removed from office in 2014 for anti party activities. An acting Chairman served out his remaining tenure.
While on suspension, the 1st Appellant filed a suit in November 2014 challenging the suspension as chairman of the 1st Respondent in Abia State.
?
Despite various anomalies in the suit regarding delay in serving processes, and a motion for stay of proceedings
21
before this Honourable Court, the Abia State High Court proceeded to grant the motion for injunction.
The 1st Respondent and others in the said suit filed an appeal against the said interlocutory order of the Abia State High Court. Armed with the interlocutory order of 25/9/18, the 1st Appellant and the other Appellants, rushed to the Federal High Court Umuahia, where they filed a suit, the subject matter of this appeal.
The Appellants did not disclose that there was a pending appeal against the order of the Abia State High Court of 25/9/18.
He submits that the 1st Appellant tried to deceive the Court below into thinking that he was the chairman of the 1st Respondent.
It is also the contention of the 2nd Respondent that the Appellants filed the suit, the subject matter of this Appeal for themselves, and as representing members of the State Congress of the 1st Respondent, and NOT as aspirants who contested the primary/primaries of the 1st Respondent.
In his reply to the 1st Respondent?s brief of argument, the 1st Appellant submits that the case of EZE v. PDP & ORS (2019) 1 NWLR (PT. 1652) where it has held that the only
22
legitimate or valid primary election of a political party, is the primary conducted by the National Working Committee of a party, does not apply to APGA, which Constitution allows State Congress for which the 1st Appellant is the Chairman, to conduct primaries for elective positions within the State.
That the word ?CONGRESS? is interpreted in Article 33 of the 1st Respondents Constitution to mean ?A LARGE FORMAL MEETING OR SERIES OF MEETINGS WHERE PARTY MEMBERS/DELEGATES FROM DIFFERENT PARTY LEVELS TAKE DECISIONS, PASS RESOLUTIONS, AND CONDUCT ELECTIONS.”
Submits that if the Court below had considered that the 1st Appellant was indeed an aspirant in the election which was duly conducted in line with the 1st Respondent?s Constitution, the Electoral Act and the 1st Respondent?s Guideline, he would have arrived at a different conclusion.
?
In their reply to the 2nd Respondent?s brief of argument, the Appellants contend that the issue between the parties at the Court below was not as to which primary elections was conducted in line with the Constitution and Guideline of the 1st Respondent. That the issue in
23
contention is whether the lower Court ought to have recognized and validated the list of candidates (EXHIBIT ?F?) submitted by the Appellants. That the issue of whether any of the Appellants contested in the primary elections is moribund.
Submits that the Court below failed to consider the totality of the evidence before it. That the Court below did not consider the facts in the affidavit in support of the Originating Summons, and counter affidavit of the Appellants in support of the Originating Summons, and in opposition to the 2nd Respondents preliminary objection.
RESOLUTION OF ISSUES
I have taken pains to put forth the cases of the respective parties in this appeal.
Section 131 (1) of the Evidence Act 2011 stipulates that:-
?Whoever desires any Court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability, dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts, must prove that those facts exist.? OGUNLEYE v. ONI (1990) 2 NWLR (PT. 135) 745.
It is trite that it is the Plaintiff?s Statement of Claim or Petitioner?s petition that confers jurisdiction on a Court of competent jurisdiction. This must be
24
examined holistically by the Court ? OJUKWU v. YAR?ADUA (2009) 12 NWLR (PT. 1154) 50.
The law is settled that a Court of law has no power to, and cannot decide not to hear a process properly before it ? NALSA TEAM ASSOCIATES v. NNPC (1991) 8 NWLR (PT. 212) 652; CHIEF VIRGILUS AND CHIEF LIKU MAMA NNA (1996) 4 NWLR (PT. 440) 101.
Jurisdiction being the threshold of judicial power and judicalism and by extension extrinsic to adjudication, parties cannot by connivance, acquiescence or collusion, confer jurisdiction on a Court, where jurisdiction is lacking ?OKOLO v. UNION BANK OF NIG PLC (2004) ALL FWLR (PT. 197) 987; FGN v. OSHIOMOLE (2004) 3 NWLR PT 860 @ 305; S. O. AKEGBEJO & ORS v. DR. D. O. ATAGA & ORS (1998) 1 NWLR (PT. 534) 459; OSADEBAY v. A. G. BENDEL STATE (1991) 1 NWLR (PT. 169) 525.
Section 87 (1) of the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended) stipulates that ?a political party seeking to nominate candidate for elections under the Electoral Act, shall hold primaries for aspirants, in all elective positions.?
The Provisions of Order 3 Rule 6 of the Federal High Court (Civil Procedure Rules) has this to
25
stay about ORIGINATING SUMMONS, Order 3 Rule 6
?a person claiming to be interested under a deed will, enactment or other written instrument may apply by Originating Summons for the determination of any question of construction arising under the instrument and for a declaration of the rights of the person interested.”
Order 3 Rule 7
?Any person claiming any legal or equitable right in case where the determination of the question whether such a person is entitled to the right dependent upon a question of construction of an enactment, may apply by Originating Summons, for the determination of such question of construction and for a declaration as to the right claimed.”
Having restated some elementary principles of law that may be germane and relevant in considering this appeal I deem it pertinent now to consider the issues for determination proffered by the Appellant in this Appeal, and resolve same.
ISSUE NO 1
In considering whether the 1st Appellant, was an aspirant in the primary elections in issue, there is the need to painstakingly peruse the facts in the Originating Summons and its
26
attendant affidavit, to see if there are facts which depict that the Appellants ? indeed the 1st Appellant was an aspirant in the primary elections conducted by the National Working Committee of the 1st Respondent.
The Originating Summons subject matter of the present appeal, filed on the 23rd of October 2018 ex facie/seeks the determination of the following issues by the Federal High Court Abia State, holden in Umuahia in Suit No. FHC/UM/CS/96/2018. They are:-
1. WHETHER THE 2ND DEFENDANT HAS THE REQUISITE VIRES TO REJECT THE LIST OF CANDIDATES FOR THE 1ST DEFENDANT IN THE 2019 ELECTIONS TO CONDUCTED BY THE 3RD DEFENDANT WHEN THE SAID CANDIDATES EMERGED IN A MANNER CONSISTENT WITH A SUBSISTING ORDER OF HIGH COURT OF ABIA STATE IN SUIT NO HU/82/2018 MADE ON THE 25TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2018, ARTICLES 12 (5); 13 (a) (3) AND 24 (3) (4) (5) OF ALL PROGRESSIVE GRAND ALLIANCE 2014 (AS AMENDED)?
2. IF THE ANSWER TO ISSUE I ABOVE IS NO, WHETHER THE DEFENDANTS? ARE BOUND TO ACCEPT AND ACT UPON THE LIST OF CANDIDATES OF APGA INTO VARIOUS POSITIONS IN 2019 ELECTION IN ABIA STATE AS THE LAWFUL CANDIDATES OF THE 1ST DEFENDANT IN 2019 GENERAL
27
ELECTIONS IN ABIA STATE AS THE SAID LIST OF CANDIDATES IS THE OUTCOME OF THE PRIMARY ELECTIONS OF THE 1ST DEFENDANT?
3. WHETHER THE 1ST DEFENDANT CAN BE RESTRAINED FROM ACCEPTING AND PUBLISHING ANY LIST OF CANDIDATES OUTSIDE THE ONE SUBMITTED TO THE 1ST DEFENDANT BY THE PLAINTIFFS?
The Declaratory reliefs sought by the Appellants are
a. A DECLARATION that the outcome/report of the primary election for the selection of candidates of the 1st Defendant in 2019 election conducted by the Plaintiffs is valid and binding on the Defendants having been conducted in accord with the Order of the High Court of Abia State in Suit No. HU/82/2018, the Electoral Act, Articles 12 (a) (33) and 24 (3) (4) (5) of the Constitution of All Progressive Grand Alliance, 2014, the 1st Defendant (as amended).
b. A DECLARATION that the candidates that were elected/selected at the said primary elections whose names have been compiled and submitted to the 3rd Defendant in a LIST OF CANDIDATES OF APGA INTO VARIOUS ELECTIVE POSITIONS IN 2019 ELECTION by the Plaintiffs is the lawful list of candidates of the 1st Defendants for the 2019 Election being conducted by the 3rd
28
Defendant.
c. A DECLARATION that the Plaintiffs and Defendants are bound by the order of Court made in Suit No. HU/82/2018 PRINCE NNANNA UKAEGBU v. UCHENNA OKOGBUO & ANOR concerning the administration of the affairs of the 1st Defendant in respect of the conduct of its affairs and in particular the conduct of the primary elections for the election/selection of candidates for 2019 General Elections.
d. A ORDER of Perpetual Injunction restraining the 3rd Defendant from accepting and publishing the name of any candidate from any list of candidates submitted to it by the 2nd Defendant for any elective position on the platform of the 1st Defendant except the names appearing in the said LIST OF CANDIDATES OF APGA INTO VARIOUS POSITIONS IN 2019 ELECTION IN ABIA STATE already submitted to the 3rd Defendant by the Plaintiffs.? Pages 1-2 of the Record of Appeal.
The Originating Summons is supported by a 23 Paragraphs affidavit.
?
Pertinent to note that the Appellants (Plaintiffs in the Court below) institute the cause the subject matter of this appeal for themselves, and as representing members of State Congress, and not as aspirants to any elective posts.
29
A painstaking perusal of the affidavit in support of the Originating Summons sworn to by the 1st Appellant, shows in the main that he is the Abia State Chairman of the 1st Defendant (Respondent) ? APGA, a political party registered in Nigeria. (Paragraph 2 of the affidavit in support of the Originating Summons) ? Page 4 of the Record of Appeal.
In Paragraph 17 of the Affidavit in support of the Originating Summons, he deposed thus:-
?That at the end of the primaries which we duly conducted in all constituencies, Senatorial Zones and Gubernational level, we timeously gave to the 1st Defendant the names of those who emerged as the candidates of the 1st Defendant.”
In Paragraph 19, he deposed thus:-
?That we have also submitted the same list to the 3rd Defendant and the photocopy of the acknowledged copy is hereto attached as Exhibit ?F?
PARAGRAPH 21
?That the list of candidates we submitted to the 1st Defendant contains the names of the persons who stood for election and won at the various primaries conducted by the 1st Defendant in Abia State.?
30
Pages 4 ? 6 of the Record of Appeal. It is apparent that nowhere in the Originating Summons/affidavit in support did the 1st Appellant depose to the fact that he was an ASPIRANT for the elections.
The 1st Respondent had filed a Notice of Preliminary Objection on the 16th of November, 2018, which is for an order striking out/dismissing the suit, the subject matter of this action ? Pages 297 ? 298 of the Record of Appeal.
The grounds upon which the objection is predicated are as follows:-
a. The Plaintiffs herein lack the locus standi to bring the suit.
b. The subject matter of the suit herein does not fall within the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court.
c. The subject matter of the suit herein as constituted is non-justiciable, being an intra-party affair.
d. This suit is wholly incompetent in that it was not commenced by the appropriate Originating Summons process, i. e. by way of ordinary writ of summons.
e. Abuse of process.
Section 87 (1) & (9) of the Electoral Act 2010 (As amended) stipulates that:
87 (1) A political party seeking to nominate candidates for elections under this Act
31
shall hold primaries for aspirants to all elective position.”
87 (9). Notwithstanding the provisions of this Act or rules of a political party, an aspirant who complains that any of the provisions of this Act and the guideline of a political party has not been complied with in the selection or nomination of a candidate of a political party for election, may apply to the Federal High Court or the High Court of a State or FCT, for redress.”
WHO IS AN ASPIRANT:
The word ?aspirant? as interpreted in the Electoral Act (2010)(as amended) No 15 (2015), means;
?A person who aspires or seeks or tries to contest an election to a political office.? ARDO V. NYAKO & ORS (2014) LPELR 22878 SC.
The term LOCUS STANDI simply means ?THE STANDING?.
The touchstone of justiciability of a controversy or dispute is injury to a legally protected right.
JOINT ANTI FACIST REFUGEE COMMITTEE v. MCGRATH 341. U.S. 123, Burton and Douglass J. J. (in dissenting.)
In POWELL v. MC CAMACK 395 U. S. 486 ? it was held inter alia that:-
?In deciding whether a claim is justiciable, a
32
Court must determine whether the duty asserted can be judicially identified, and its breach judicially determined, and whether protection for the right asserted can be judicially wielded.? ? PATRICK C. ONUOHAH v. CHIEF R. B. K. OKAFOR (1983) 10 S. C. 118.
It is trite that any fact not pleaded goes to no issue. ADAKE v. AKUN (2003) 11 MJSC. 99. Has the 1st Appellant pleaded that he was an aspirant to any elective posts? The answer is in the negative.
The law is elementary, that failure to disclose any locus standi is as fatal to the action as failure to disclose any reasonable cause of action ? NIGERIA CIVIL SERVICE UNION & ANOR v. O. G. ESSEIN & ANOR (1985) 3 NWLR (PART 12) 306.
Decidedly there are two tests for determining existence of locus standi:-
a. The action must be justiciable
b. There must be a dispute between the parties.
And there ought to be a liberal approach in applying the tests ? BARBUS & CO (NIG) LTD v. OKAFOR ? UDEJI (2018) 11 NWLR ? PART 1630. 298 @ 311 Paragraph F-H. OJUKWU v. OJUKWU (2008) 18 NWLR (PT. 119) 439; EMEZI v. OSUAGWU (2005) 12 NWLR (PT. 939) 340;
33
THOMAS v. OLUFOSOYE (1986) 1 NWLR (PT 18) 669.
The pleadings of a party must disclose a cause of action vested in him, and that his right and obligation, or interest, has been violated, before he can be vested with locus standi to sue.
In the present case, the Respondent had argued vehemently that the 1st Appellant, indeed the Appellants have no locus standi to bring the Originating Summons, as they did. The plank upon which they hinge this in the Preliminary Objection of the 1st Respondent, is that the 1st Appellant has not shown that he was an aspirant according to the provisions of the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended), and that the name of the 1st Appellant as stated in his processes are quite different from the names on Exhibit ?F?.
As observed earlier in this judgment, nowhere in the affidavit in support of the Originating Summons did the 1st Appellant depose to the fact that he is an aspirant. He may be resorting to Exhibit ?F? where one BARRISTER PRINCE A. UKAGBU?S name is indicated under ABA NORTH/ABA SOUTH FEDERAL CONSTITUENCY ? (Page 97 of the Record of Appeal.) But it was one Prince Nnanna Ukaegbu who
34
instituted the Originating Summons, the subject matter of this Appeal.
There is no doubt that the names BARRISTER PRINCE A. UKAEGBU and PRINCE NNANNA UKAEGBU can by any stretch of imagination be one and the same person. Assuming (but without conceding) that the initials is what one is going by, it still cannot be one and the same person.
It is imperative that a party approaching the hallowed precincts of a Court of law should make himself identifiable, and without any iota of doubt.
The 1st Appellant did not approach the Court below as an aspirant, but as representing members of State Congress of the 1st Respondent.
The argument of the 1st Appellant that one Barrister Prince A. Ukaegbu is a legal practitioner, and Prince Nnanna Ukaegbu is also a legal practitioner, does not advance the case of the 1st Appellant an inch further.
In ESENOWO v. UKPONG (1999) 6 NWLR (PART 608) 611 @ 621, ACHIKE JSC had this to say:-
?As would be recalled, the gravamen of this appeal was that the Plaintiff signed Exhibit P and P1 as ?Dr. E. J. Esenowo? whereas the name listed in the 1980 Nigeria Medical Registrar read Dr. J. E.
35
Esenowo?. There is a world of difference in the arrangement of the initials listed in Exhibit E and those stated in Exhibits P and P1 by the Plaintiff. It may well be that the Plaintiff was used to arranging the initial interchangeable for which he needed to so plead and lead credible evidence in respect thereof ? Clearly there was need to furnish some lucid explanation, otherwise it would be unacceptable to accede ? that the name Dr. E. J. Esenowo is the same as Dr. J. E. Esenowo.”
Ipso facto, it is my view that it is near impossible to believe that the names ?Prince Nnanna Ukaegbu? is the same as ?Barrister Prince A. Ukaegbu?. ?Nnanna? and ?A? are as far apart as Heaven is to Earth! As rightly observed by the 2nd Respondent?s in his brief of argument in Paragraph 4.14 thereof ?A? cannot even be the initial as ?Nnanna?.
Without belabouring this issue it is my candid view that the 1st Appellant lacked the necessary locus standi to institute the Originating Summons as he did and the Court below was right to decline jurisdiction and to uphold the
36
Preliminary Objection.
The upholding of the Preliminary Objection by the Court below, knocks the bottom off the entire reliefs sought by the Appellants (as Plaintiff) in the Court below.
Putting it succinctly, I refer to the case of CHIEF IKECHI EMENIKE v. PDP & ORS (2012) LPELR 8702 S. C. in order to appreciate the thinking of the Courts. Eneh J. S. C. in quoting the provisions of Section 87 (1) and 87 (9) of the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended) concluded as follows:-
?Construing the words of the foregoing provisions, they are clear and so a combined reading of both provisions show that the onus on the Appellant in order to properly constitute this action is firstly to bring himself within the definition of an ASPIRANT as contemplated under the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended; this is founded on the principle that he who alleges has the onus of proof, otherwise the locus to challenge an action is baseless. i. e. as in this case, the onus to challenge the party primaries leading to the choice of the 4th Respondent by the 1st Respondent. He can only do so if he has been an ASPIRANT in the con of the above provisions, in which case,
37
he must have been a person who has taken part in authentic and valid party primaries.”
I had reproduced earlier the provisions of Section 87 (9) of the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended). The 1st Appellant in all failed to establish his locus standi and his abysmal failure to establish same, is fatal to his claim. More so, his claim does not come within the Provisions of Originating Summons.
Issue no. 1 Proffered by the Appellants must necessarily be answered in the affirmative, and same is resolved in favour of the Respondents and against the Appellants.
ISSUE NO 2.
My reasoning in respect of Issue No 1 is adopted in resolving this issue.
The provisions of Section 87 (9) of the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended) can safely be reproduced for purposes of elucidation:-
SECTION 87 (10) ?Notwithstanding the provisions of this Act or rules of a political party, an aspirant who complains that any of the provisions of this Act and the guidelines of a political party has not been complied within the selection or nomination of a candidate of a political party for election, may apply to the Federal High Court or the High Court of a State for redress.”
38
The Appellants, indeed the 1st Appellant does not possess the necessary capacity to seek redress, as he has failed to meet the requirements of an ASPIRANT (even by his own showing) as required by law.
The answer to this Issue is in the affirmative, and same is hereby resolved in favour of the Respondents and against the Appellants.
ISSUE NO 3.
This issue is indicated to flow from Ground 7 of the Notice of Appeal ? refer to paragraph 3 page 3 of the Appellants? brief.
I deem it pertinent to reproduce Ground 7 of the Grounds of Appeal.
GROUND 7 ? The learned trial judge erred in law when his Lordship held that:-
?In the present suit, the Chairmanship of 1st Defendant in Abia State is steeped in deep confrontation.? Page 572 of the Record of Appeal.
In the supporting particulars iii, viii and ix it states:-
PARTICULAR III.
?The suit principally called upon the lower Court to interpret the provisions of the Electoral Act, and the 1st Respondent?s Constitution.?
PARTICULARS VIII
?Even where the Court is convinced that the suit
39
ought not to have been commenced by Originating Summons, the appropriate order it ought to have made is one directing the parties to file pleadings.”
PARTICULARS IX
The Chairmanship of the 1st Respondent?s Abia State Chapter was settled in 1st Appellant?s favour by the interlocutory order of the High Court of Abia State in Suit No. HU/82/2018.
First and foremost, it is my view that this Issue No 3 is not based on any Ground of Appeal. Although the particular viii touches on the mode of commencing the suit, the subject matter of this appeal, it cannot be said that Issue No 3 flows from Ground 7 of the Grounds of Appeal. Same is accordingly struck out.
The Court below had stated that:-
?The reliefs sought in this case can by no stretch of imagination be interpretation of the Electoral Act as submitted by Plaintiffs counsel. Contrary to this argument, it is primarily seeking to validate the 1st Defendant?s party primary results purportedly bearing the 1st Plaintiff?s name as valid and lawful as against any other list or party primary result of 1st Defendant conducted in Abia State
40
I cannot agree more. Indeed there is no call on the Court below to interpret anything.
As earlier observed Originating Summons can be brought for interpretation of deed, will, enactments and non contentious matters. But where the matter is contentious and parties had filed conflicting facts, then a Court is bound to direct that the matter be instituted by writ of summons and order pleadings.
But in the present case, by the Court below upholding the preliminary objection by declaring that, the Appellants lack locus standi, that ended the matter. At that portal the issue whether the matter was brought by Originating Summons or Writ of Summons was no long necessary.
The Answer to Issue No 3 therefore must of necessity be in the negative, and same is resolved in favour of the Respondents and against the Appellants.
ISSUE NO 4
Of course the Court was wrong to grant the reliefs sought in the Originating Summons for a variety of reasons. First of all, the Appellants had no locus standi to institute the action as they did; second of all, the reliefs sought were not those that are inviting the Courts to interpret any extant law. Third of all, the
41
suit was predicated on a Court order in respect of an incompetent Writ of Summons which had since elapsed by effluxion of time. The Abia State High Court by its order in suit No. HOB/47/2014 only said that they should involve the 1st Appellant in the conduct of the election, and not that he should conduct the elections. Why may I ask did the 1st Appellant stay from 2014 till now? It is the National Working Committee that Constitutes the Electoral panel, and not the Chairman according to the Constitution of APGA. Court orders does not come within the ambit and purview of the provisions of Section 87 (9) of the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended).
Indeed by the provisions of Section 31 of the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended), it is the political party, and not its branch chairman that submits the names of the candidates who the party proposes to sponsor at the elections.
The Reliefs sought were ones which should have been properly decided by way of Writ of Summons where all the cards of the conflict would have been put on the table. What the lower Court should have done was to order pleadings. Where the lower Court had declined jurisdiction to entertain the
42
matter, can it hear the matter on merits? Yes and No. In the alternative he can hear the matter on the merits because of the time essence inherent in pre-election and election matters. This is because where the appellate Court decides that the lower Court possesses the requisite jurisdiction, the substantive suit will be decided once and for all without remitting it for retrial. – AREWA PAPER CONVERTERS LIMITED v. N.D.I. (NIG. UNIVERSE LTD.) (2006) LPELR 548 S. C; AGBASO v. IWUNZE & ORS (2014) LPELR 24 C. A.
No, because, once a Preliminary Objection as to jurisdiction is upheld, there is nothing more that can be entertained by that Court. By declining jurisdiction the case rested on nothing and he should not have gone on to do anything.
He who comes to equity must come with clean hands. He who seeks equity must indeed do equity.
This issue is answered in the affirmative and same is resolved in favour of the Respondents and against the Appellants.
?
The Appeal fails and same is hereby dismissed. The order of the Abia State Federal High Court, upholding the Preliminary Objection and dismissing the suit in Suit No. FHC/UM/CS/96/18 is hereby affirmed.
N100,000.00 costs in favour of the Respondents. ?
43
AYOBODE OLUJIMI LOKULO-SODIPE, J.C.A.: I had read before now, the lead judgment just delivered by my learned brother Rita N. Pemu, JCA.
I agree with his opinion and reasoning.
I also dismiss the appeal. The decision of the Court below is affirmed.
I abide by the consequential order made as to costs.
IBRAHIM ALl ANDENYANGTSO, J.C.A.: I am privilege to have read in advance, the lead judgment just delivered by my learned brother HON. JUSTICE RITA NOSAKHARE PEMU, JCA. I completely agree with his reasoning and conclusion.
?I also hereby dismiss the appeal, and set the decision of the Federal High Court Umuahia Judicial Division, delivered on the 6th of January, 2019. I abide by the consequential order made as to costs.
44
Appearances:
Ademola Abimbola, Esq.For Appellant(s)
C. I. Mbaeri, Esq. for 1st Respondent’s.
Bertram Faotu, Esq. for 2nd Respondent’sFor Respondent(s)
Appearances
Ademola Abimbola, Esq.For Appellant
AND
C. I. Mbaeri, Esq. for 1st Respondent’s.
Bertram Faotu, Esq. for 2nd Respondent’sFor Respondent
