A.P.C. & ORS v. ENUGU STATE INDEPENDENT ELECTORAL COMMISSION & ORS (2020)

A.P.C. & ORS v. ENUGU STATE INDEPENDENT ELECTORAL COMMISSION & ORS

(2020)LCN/14643(CA)

In The Court Of Appeal

(ENUGU JUDICIAL DIVISION)

On Friday, September 18, 2020

CA/E/403/2019

RATIO

ESTOPPEL: WHEN WILL ISSUE ESTOPPEL ARISE

Issue estoppel arises in circumstances involving an issue of law or facts, or mixed fact and law wherein the same question earlier decided has arisen in fresh proceedings between the same parties or their privies with the earlier decision being of a final nature. This is based on the principle that a party is precluded from contending the opposite of any specific point which having been once put in issue, has with certainty been determined against him. See ODJEVWEDJE & ANOR VS. ECHANOKPE (1987) LPELR-8049 (SC) where ESO, JSC stated thus on page 42 as follows:
Issue estoppel applies whether the point involved in the earlier decision is one of fact or law or one of mixed fact and law. However, for the principle to apply, in any given proceedings, all the pre-conditions to a valid plea of estoppel inter partes or per rem judicatam must apply, that, (1) the same question must be for decision in both proceedings (which means that the question for decision in the current suit must have been decided in the earlier proceeding), (2) the decision relied upon to support the plea of issue estoppel must be final (3) the parties must be the same (which means that parties involved in both proceedings must be the same) (per se or by their privies).”
See also EBBA & ORS VS. OGODO & ORS (2000) LPELR-983 (SC) and BWACHA VS. IKENYA & ORS (2011) LPELR-8105 (SC). PER OYEWOLE, J.C.A.

RELIEF: WHEN WILL A RELIEF BE DESCRIBED AS OTIOSE AND ACADEMIC

A relief could be justifiably described as otiose and academic if the grant thereof does not affect the legal rights of any of the parties to the dispute. Where a successful party to the dispute cannot benefit from the grant of such a relief then it is spent and bereft of any life whatsoever. Such a relief has thereby become academic and is undeserving of valuable judicial attention. See PLATEAU STATE VS ATTORNEY – GENERAL OF THE FEDERATION (2006) 137 LRCN 1400 at 1478, ABUBAKAR VS YAR’ADUA (2008) 4 NWLR (PT 1078) 405 at 497, IJAODOLA VS UNIVERSITY OF ILORIN GOVERNING COUNCIL (2018) 14 NWLR (PT 1638) 32 at 45, KUBOR & ANOR VS. DICKSON & ORS (2012) LPELR-9817 (SC) at 72, TURAKI & ANOR VS. ABDULRAHAM (2019) LPELR-46866 (CA) and OKE & ANOR VS. MIMIKO & ORS (2013) LPELR-20645 (SC). PER OYEWOLE, J.C.A.
ACTION: EFFECTS OF ACADEMIC ISSUES

It is settled law that Courts should not expend valuable judicial time on academic issues which is of no practical utilitarian value to the plaintiff even if judgment is given in his favour. See CONGRESS FOR PROGRESSIVE CHANGE V. INEC (2011) LPELR-8257 (SC) AT 78-79 (G-E). DANIEL V. INEC (2015) LPELR-24566 (SC) AT 34 (E-E). BOLAJI-YUSUFF, J.C.A.

Before Our Lordships:

Misitura Omodere Bolaji-Yusuff Justice of the Court of Appeal

Joseph Olubunmi Kayode Oyewole Justice of the Court of Appeal

Abubakar Sadiq Umar Justice of the Court of Appeal

Between

ALL PROGRESSIVE CONGRESS (APC) 2. HON. HYACINTH NSUDE (Igbo-Etiti Local Government, All Progressive Congress (APC) Chairmanship Candidate) 3. CHARITY OKONKWO OKPE (Igbo-Eze South Local Government Area, All Progressive Congress (APC, Chairmanship Candidate) 4. STEPHEN OKENWA, (Uzo-Uwani Local Government Area, All Progressive Congress (APC) (Chairman Candidate) 5. OKECHUKWU OKWOR (Enugu East Local Government Area, All Progressive Congress (APC) (Chairmanship Candidate) 6. HON. PATRICK CHUKS OWO (Nkanu East Local Government Area, All Progressive Congress (APC) (Chairmanship Candidate) 7. TIMOTHY AMAH (Oji River Local Government Area, All Progressive Congress (APC) (Chairmanship Candidate) 8. HON. CHIME IFEANYI EDEH (Enugu South Local Government Area, All Progressive Congress (APC) (Chairmanship Candidate) 9. YUSUF MUSA (Enugu North Local Government Area, All Progressive Congress (APC) (Chairmanship Candidate) 10. EKETE INNOCENT (Isi Uzo Local Government Area, All Progressive Congress (APC) (Chairmanship Candidate) 11. FAITH ADUKWU (Igbo-Eze North Local Government Area, All Progressive Congress (APC) (Chairmanship Candidate) 12. EMMANUEL UKWUEZE (Udenu Local Government Area, All Progressive Congress (APC) (Chairmanship Candidate) 13. ANAYO INYIAMA (Ezeagu Local Government Area, All Progressive Congress (APC) Chairmanship Candidate). 14. MAGNUS OZONGWU (Udi Local Government Area, All Progressive Congress (APC) (Chairmanship Candidate) 15. MOSES EMEKA EZE (Aninri Local Government Area, All Progressive Congress (APC) (Chairmanship Candidate) 16. NKECHI ANIKWE (Awgu Local Government Area, All Progressive Congress (APC) (Chairmanship Candidate) 17. UCHENNA UGWU (Nkanu West Local Government Area, All Progressive Congress (APC) (Chairmanship Candidate) 18. MUSA SHERIFF URAMA (Nsukka Local Government Area, All Progressive Congress (APC) Chairmanship Candidate) (For Themselves And All The All Progressive Congress Councillorship Candidates For The 2015 Enugu State Local Government Council Election) APPELANT(S)

And

ENUGU STATE INDEPENDENT ELECTORAL COMMISSION 2. ATTORNEY-GENERAL, ENUGU STATE 3. THE EXECUTIVE GOVERNOR, ENUGU STATE 4. CHIEF EDWARD UBOSI (The Speaker, Enugu State House Of Assembly) 5. ENUGU STATE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY 6. CHIEF IKEJE ASOGWA 7. PEOPLES DEMOCRATIC PARTY (PDP) 8. VICTOR AGBO (Enugu South Local Government Council Chairman) 9. FESTUS OZIOKO (Igbo-Eze South Local Government Council Chairman) 10. CONNEL ONWUBUYA (Uzo Uwani Local Government Council Chairman) 11. NNAJI CORNELIUS (Enugu East Local Government Council Chairman) 12. IYOGWE SAMUEL (Nkanu East Local Government Council Chairman) 13. ONYEMAECHI JIDEOFOR (Oji River Local Government Council Chairman) 14. FESTUS OZOEMENA (Igbo-Etiti Local Government Council Chairman) 15. EMEKA EDEH (Enugu North Local Government Council Chairman) 16. NNAMANI AUGUSTINE (Isi Uzo Local Government Council Chairman) 17. CELESTINE EZEUGWU (Igbo-Eze North Local Government Council Chairman) 18. AMAECHI NWODO (Udenu Local Government Council Chairman) 19. EMEKA OZOAGU (Ezeagu Local Government Council Chairman) 20. ILOEJE CHINEDU (Udi Local Government Council Chairman) 21. CHRISTOPHER NWOBODO (Aninri Local Government Council Chairman) 22. NNANNA NZE (Awgu Local Government Council Chairman) 23. AFAM OKEREKE Nkanu West Local Government Council Chairman) 24. CHARLES UGWU (Nsukka Local Government Council Chairman) (Sued As Outgoing Elected Chairman And Representatives Of Outgoing Elected Councillors Of The Seventeen Local Government Councils In Enugu State) RESPONDENT(S)

JOSEPH OLUBUNMI KAYODE OYEWOLE, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): This is an appeal against the decision of the High Court of Enugu State, Enugu Judicial Division, holden at Enugu delivered on the 24th January, 2019 by NGWU, J.

The Appellants approached the trial Court via an originating summons wherein they sought a determination of the questions and consequently the reliefs set out as follows:
For the determination of the following questions:-
1. Whether upon a proper interpretation of the provisions of Section 7(1) and (4) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, (as amended) and Section 3(1) and Section 4(3) of the Local Government Law, CAP 109 Revised Laws of Enugu State, 2004; the existence of a democratically elected government system in the Seventeen Local Government in Enugu State is guaranteed.
2. Whether the provisions of Section 2(1)(2) of the Local Government Law CAP 109, Revised Laws of Enugu State 2004 and Section 6(1) of the Local Government Areas (Creation and Transition) Provision Law, CAP 110, Revised Laws of Enugu State 2004 which allows the defendants to appoint a caretaker Committee or

Transition Committee or howsoever called for a defined or undefined period of time, to the position of chairman of each of the Seventeen (17) Local Government councils in Enugu State are inconsistent with Section 7(1) (4) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) and are therefore unconstitutional, null and void.
3. Whether by the provisions of the Constitution of Nigeria, 1999, the 1st set of defendants have powers to appoint or select, a transition committee or Caretaker Committee to the position of the Chairmen of each of the Seventeen (17) Local Government Councils in Enugu State without conducting a Local Government election.
4. Whether the defendant have powers to extend and elongate the tenure or term of 9th to 25th democratically elected Seventeen Local Government Council in Enugu State without a law validly passed by the 5th and 6th defendants.
5. Whether the 1st and 2nd defendants are in violation of Section 11(1),(2) of the Local Government Law (Supra) as amended Section 2 of the Local Government Law (amendment No. 5) Law No. 6, Supplement to the Revised Laws of Enugu State, 2010 published in the Enugu

State of Nigeria Official Gazzette No. 3, Vol. 19, 2010 for failure to appoint a date for Local Government Election.
6. Whether the claimants are entitled to an Order of Injunction against the Defendants in this case.
7. Whether the 2nd to 18th claimants are entitled to be issued a Certificate of Return as the deemed elected Candidates at the close of period of nomination for the 2015 Local Government Council election for the Seventeen Local Government Areas in Enugu State.

Upon which they sought the following reliefs:
1. A DECLARATION that by virtue of the provisions of Section 7(1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), Section 3(1) and 4(3) of the Local Government laws CAP. 109, Revised Laws of Enugu State, 2004, the system of Local Government including the 17 (seventeen) Local Government Councils in Enugu State, by democratically elected Local Government Councils is guaranteed.
2. A DECLARATION that the provisions of Section 12(1), (2) of the Local Government Law, CAP. 102, Revised Laws of Enugu State, 2004 and Sections 6(1) of the Local Government Area (Creation and Transition) Provisions Law, CAP 110, Revised Laws of Enugu state, 2004

which allows the defendants to appoint a CARETAKER Committee, Transition Committee or howsoever called an arbitrary period of time, to the position of Chairman of the Seventeen (17) Local Government Councils in Enugu State are inconsistent with Section 7(1),(4) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) and are therefore unconstitutional, null and void.
3. A DECLARATION that the defendants appointment, and selection, or plans, arrangements to appoint or select a Transition Committee and/or a Caretaker Committee to the position of the chairman of the Seventeen (17) Local Government Councils in Enugu State is a violation of Section 7(1) and (4) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 and Section 3(1) and 4(3) of the Local Government Law, Cap. 129, Revised Laws of Enugu State of Nigeria, 2004.
4. A DECLARATION that by virtue of Section 4(1),(2) and Section 18(3) of the Local Government Law, CAP. 109, Revised Laws of Enugu State of Nigeria, 2004 as amended by Section 2 of Local Government Area (Amendment No. 5), Law of Enugu State, 2010 published in Enugu State

of Nigeria Official Gazzette No. 3 Vol. 19, 2010, the tenure of office of a Local Government Council Chairman is two (2) years commencing from the date of the first sitting of the council.
5. A DECLARATION that the defendants have no power to elongate/extend the tenure or term of office of the 9th to 25th Defendants being a democratically elected Local Government Chairman without a law validly passed by the 5th and 6th Defendants.
6. A DECLARATION that the plans, arrangement and preparations to continue the occupation of the office of the Chairman of the Seventeen (17) Local Government Councils by the 9th to 25th Defendants after January 4th, 2016 is illegal and a violation of Section 4(1),(2) and 18(3) of the Local Government Law, Cap 109, Revised Law of Enugu State of Nigeria, 2004 as amended by Section 2 of the Local Government Law (amendment No. 5) Law No. 6, Supplement to the Revised Laws of Enugu State, 2010 published in Enugu State of Nigeria official Gazzette No. 3 Vol. 19, 2010.
7. A DECLARATION that the 5th and 6th defendants have no powers to confirm the appointment of Transitional committees or caretaker Committee appointed by the 3rd

and 4th defendants for the Seventeen Local Government Councils in Enugu State.
8. AN ORDER OF PERPETUAL INJUNCTION restraining the 9th to 25th defendants or any other person appointed by the 7th, 8th and 9th defendants from further occupation of the office of the Chairman of the Seventeen (17) Local Governments after the expiration of their tenure/term of office on 4th January, 2016.
9. A DECLARATION that the failure, refusal and neglect of the 1st and 2nd Defendants to appoint a date for the 2015 Seventeen (17) Local Government election and to conduct the said election is a breach of Section 11(1),(2) of the Local Government Laws, CAP 109, Revised Law of Enugu State, 2004 and Section 1(1)(a),(b),(2) of the Fifth Schedule thereto and Section 2 of the Local Government law (amendment No. 5) Law No. 6, Supplement to the Revised Laws of Enugu State, 2010 published in Enugu State of Nigeria Official Gazzette No. 3 Vol. 19, 2010.
10. A DECLARATION that the 1st and 2nd defendants have no powers to lawfully conduct the 2015 elections into the Local Government Chairmanship Council of the Seventeen Local Government Councils in Enugu State outside the

statutory period provided in Section 11(1) of the Local Government Law, CAP 109, Revised Laws of Enugu State, 2004 and Section 1 of the Fifth Schedule made thereto.
11. AN ORDER OF PERPETUAL INJUNCTION restraining the 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th Defendants (1st set of defendants) whether by themselves, their servants, agents, privies, surrogates, staff, appointees, officers, of the Peoples Democratic Party and Members thereof or howsoever called or any person acting through the Defendants and/or on the instructions or directives of the Defendants from appointing or selecting, any person as Chairman and Members of the purported transition committee or caretaker committee to occupy the office of the chairman of the seventeen (17) Local Government Councils in Enugu State.
12. AN ORDER of Court directing and compelling the 1st and 2nd defendants to Issue Certificate of Return to the 2nd to 18th claimants being the deemed elected candidates at the close of period of nomination for the 2015 Local Government Council Election for the Seventeen Local Government Areas in Enugu State.
13. AN ORDER directing that the 2nd to 18th claimants tenure/term of

office as the deemed elected Candidates at the close of period of nomination for the 2015 Local Government council election for the Seventeen Local Government Areas in Enugu State shall be two (2) years commencing from the date of the first sitting of the council in compliance with Section 4(2) of the Local Government Law, CAP. 109, Revised Laws of Enugu State 2004 (as amended) by Section 2 of the Local Government Law (Amendment No. 5) Law No. 6, 2004, Enugu State of Nigeria Official Gazette No. 1 Supplements to the Revised Laws of Enugu State, 2010.
14. AN ORDER OF PERPETUAL INJUNCTION restraining the 1st and 2nd defendants, whether by themselves, their servants, agents, privies, surrogates, staff, appointees, officers, adhoc staff or howsoever called or any person acting on their behalf on their instructions or directive from conducting any other 2015 Local Government Council election outside the statutory period provided in Section 11(1) of the Local Government Law, CAP 109 Revised Laws of Enugu State, 2004 and Section 1 of the Fifth Schedule made thereof.

The Respondents on being served, joined issues and contested various aspects of the action

thereby creating interlocutory appeals, avoidable delays and hiccups. Eventually, the substantive action was heard and the learned Trial Judge (now of blessed memory) delivered a considered judgment as earlier stated, on the 24th January, 2019, dismissing the action.

Dissatisfied the Appellant invoked the appellate jurisdiction of this Court via a Notice of Appeal filed on the 15th March, 2019 containing five grounds.

At the hearing of the appeal Mr. Ogara adopted the Appellants’ brief filed on 22nd July, 2019 but deemed properly filed and served on the 10th September, 2019, the Reply brief filed on the 20th January, 2020 and the written brief in respect of the issue posed to the parties by the Court, filed on the same 20th January, 2020 as the arguments of the Appellants in this appeal. He urged the Court to allow the appeal.

Mr. Okafor, SAN adopted the 1st Respondents’ brief filed on the 12th December, 2019 but deemed properly filed and served on the 23rd June, 2020 as well as the written address in respect of the issue posed by the Court, filed on the 28th October, 2019 as the arguments of the 1st Respondent in this appeal. He

urged the Court to either strike out the appeal or dismiss it as may be appropriate.

For the 2nd-5th and 8th-24th Respondents, Mr. Ngene, Deputy Director, Legal in the Enugu State Ministry of Justice adopted their brief filed on the 18th December, 2019 but deemed properly filed and served on the 23rd June, 2020 as well as the written address on the issue posed to the parties by the Court filed on the same 18th December, 2019 as the arguments of the said Respondents in this appeal. He urged the Court to either strike out the appeal or dismiss it as may be considered appropriate.

For the 6th and 7th Respondents who did not file any brief, their learned counsel, Mr. Chime adopted their written address on the issue posed by the Court filed on the 21st February, 2020 and urged that the appeal be struck out.

Expectedly, the takeoff point is the issue posed to the parties by the Court which potentially could dispose of the appeal. The said issue essentially is whether the Court still has jurisdiction to hear this appeal which arose from the 2015 Enugu State Local Government Election long after the expiration of the tenure of those elected.

The position taken by the Appellants was that the suit which led to this appeal took its root from Section 12(1),(2) and (3) of the Local Government Law Cap 109, Revised Laws of Enugu State 2004 (hereinafter referred to as the Enugu Local Government Law and that upon the declaration by the lower Court that the Caretaker Committee appointed during the pendency of this suit was illegal, the jurisdiction of the Court to determine the date of commencement and tenure of the 2nd to 18th Appellants as the deemed elected candidates of the 1st Appellant, was subsisting.

It was further submitted that the Court has jurisdiction to determine the extent and implications of various extant provisions of the Enugu Local Government Law and that having decided in an earlier appeal arising from the same subject-matter in CA/E/558/2016 that there was a proper cause of action and that it had jurisdiction to determine the appeal, this Court cannot revisit the issue as now posed suo motu as it constitutes issue estoppel and that this Court is bound by its previous decision. Learned counsel referred to NWOPARA OGBOGU & ORS VS NWORUMA NDIRIBE & ORS (1992) LPELR-2283(SC), SHARING CROSS EDUCATIONAL SERVICE LTD VS UMARU ADAMU ENTERPRISES LTD & ORS (2015) LPELR-24661(CA)

NIGERIAN AGIP OIL COMPANY LTD VS CHIEF GIFT NKWEKE & ANOR (2016) ALL FWLR (PT 845) 1, CHUKWUMA OGWE & ANOR VS INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE & ORS (2015) LPELR-24322 (SC) and (BARR) OZONMA CHIDI NOBIS-ELENDU VS INEC & ORS (2015) LPELR-25127 (SC).

It was contended further that the subject-matter relates to a pre-election matter which cannot be an academic exercise and that all steps taken subsequent to the commencement of the litigation exercise of the Appellants violated the doctrine of lispendens and should be discountenanced. Learned counsel referred to several judicial authorities including CHARLES CHINWENDU ODEDO VS INEC & ORS (2008) LPELR-2204 (SC), HON. DELE ABIODUN VS THE HON. CHIEF JUDGE OF KWARA STATE (2008) ALL FWLR (PT 448) 340 at 373, RT. HON. ROTIMI CHIBUIKE AMAECHI VS INEC & ORS (2008) ALL FWLR (PT 407) 1 at 119 and ADARAN OGUNDIANI VS O.A.L. ARABA & ANOR (2009) ALL FWLR (PT 482) 1012 at 1037.

The position of the 1st Respondent was that only reliefs 1, 2 and 4 of the reliefs sought by the Appellants had life but then

they were academic in nature and unrelated to any live controversy among the parties. Learned counsel referred to PPA VS INEC (2012) 12 NWLR (PT 1317) 413.

It was pointed out that in realization that the suit had lost its relevance, the 1st Appellant participated in the subsequent election organized by the 1st Respondent and lost. The 1st Respondent further outlined the other reliefs of the Appellants to buttress the contention that none of the said reliefs had life.

The 1st Appellant also argued that the Appellants did not win any victory for them to have subsisting terms and that the specified term of two years of the 6th, 8th – 24th Respondents had lapsed before subsequent elections were held putting in offices persons who are not parties to this appeal and which would render any outcome in favour of the Appellants unenforceable. Learned counsel submitted that there was no live issues in the appeal and referred to OGBOLOSINGHA VS BSIEC & 11 ORS (2015) 6 NWLR (PT 1455) 311 at 355-356, LADOJA VS INEC (2007) 12 NWLR (PT 1047) 119, OMIYALE VS MACAULAY (2009) 7 NWLR (PT 1141) 597 at 621, ODEDO VS INEC (supra) at 616, OSOJA VS ODU (2015) 5 NWLR (PT

1453) 503 at 603, NJABA L.G.C. VS CHIGOZIE (2010) 16 NWLR (PT 1218) 166 at 194 and OKE VS MIMIKO (2014) 1 NWLR (PT 1388) 225 at 264.

Making specific responses to the submissions of the Appellants, Mr. Okafor, SAN submitted that cases cited by the Appellants’ counsel were inapplicable and that the earlier decision of this Court in Appeal No: CA/E/558/2016 related to a totally different issue as the decided issue on jurisdiction related to the preliminary objection in that appeal therefore negating all imputations of issue estoppel canvassed. He referred to SHARING CROSS EDUCATIONAL SERVICES LTD VS UMARU ADAMU ENTERPRISES LTD & ORS (supra), ODIASE VS AGHO (1972) 3 SC 73 and OGUNSEINDE VS SOCIETE GENERAL BANK LTD (2018) 9 NWLR (PT 1674) 230 at 242.

It was further submitted that the local government election held in 2017 was not held in defiance of any injunction and that this Court did not make any prior pronouncement on the validity of the reliefs sought and that action was not a pre-election matter.

Finally, learned senior counsel submitted that lis pendens does not apply in this case as the cases cited were inapplicable while the present

Local Government Chairmen were not privy to the suit and cannot be bound by the orders therein. He referred to ODEDO VS INEC (supra).

On the part of the 2nd -5th, 8th-24th Respondents, Mr. Ngene equally submitted that the appeal had become academic and hypothetical as the dispute related to the alleged failure to conduct local government elections in 2015 while elections had been conducted in 2017 with the full participation of the 1st Appellant and that there is no Transition Committee in existence in Enugu State but duly elected local government Chairmen. Learned counsel submitted that where a decision in an appeal would not confer any right or benefit on an appellant such an appeal had become academic and referred to UGBA & ANOR VS SUSWAM & ORS (2012) LPELR-8635 (CA), AC VS INEC (2007) LPELR-8988(CA) and OKOYE VS TOBECHUKWU (2016) LPELR-4150 (CA).

For the 6th and 7th Respondents, Mr. Chime similarly contended that the appeal was spent and had become academic as there was no possibility of the Appellants reaping any fruits therefrom. He referred to UGOCHUKWU VS FRN (2016) LPELR-40785 (CA) and CPC VS INEC & ORS (2011) LPELR-8257.<br< p=”” style=”box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;”>

</br<>

The learned counsel examined the questions for determination, reliefs sought as well as the affidavit deposition in support thereof and submitted that there was no longer any live issue to be resolved in the appeal as the facts were moribund and the reliefs extinguished. He also submitted that granting the reliefs sought will not affect the rights or interests of any of the parties. He referred to UYAEMENAM NWORA & ORS VS NWEKE NWABUNZE & ORS (2011) 12 SC (PT 111) 1 and HON. ABUBAKAR SADIQ SAIDU YAR’ADUA & ORS VS CPC & ORS (2011) 10 SC.

It was further contended that the capacities of parties had changed and that any order made would affect parties who are not parties to the dispute which gave rise to the action. Learned counsel further submitted that the earlier appeal determined by this Court was interlocutory while the present one involved the final judgment and that the issue of jurisdiction remained live. He submitted that there was no injunction restraining the conduct of elections and reiterated that no live issue remained in the appeal. He referred to OSOJA VS ODU (2015) 5 NWLR (PT 1453) 503.

The Appellants raised the

propriety of the issue of jurisdiction being raised by the Court having earlier disposed of the same issue in Appeal No. CA/E/558/2016, which was contested between the same parties.

must have been decided in the earlier proceeding), (2) the decision relied upon to support the plea of issue estoppel must be final (3) the parties must be the same (which means that parties involved in both proceedings must be the same) (per se or by their privies).”
See also EBBA & ORS VS. OGODO & ORS (2000) LPELR-983 (SC) and BWACHA VS. IKENYA & ORS (2011) LPELR-8105 (SC).

The said Appeal No. CA/E/558/2016 was an interlocutory appeal challenging the decision of the trial Court to strike out the names of the 7th and 8th Defendants in the said suit together with the reliefs sought against them. The learned counsel for the Appellants in page 9 of his address quoted the earlier decision of this Court in the said earlier appeal, said to constitute issue estoppel without drawing attention to the specific page of the record of appeal and further failed to complete the portion quoted to fully show the reasoning referred to. This is most unhelpful and unethical of counsel. The portion referred to is on pages 37-38 of Vol. 11 of the record of appeal wherein this Court per PEMU, JCA, stated as follows:
In this case where the 7th and 8th

respondents had failed to react to the facts deposed to in support of the originating summons, the Court should have gleaned from the facts deposed to in support of the originating summons whether a cause of action exists against the 7th and 8th Defendants (which in fact exists) before striking out their names. ADEYEMI VS OPEYORI (1976) 9 -10 SC 31 at 43; SHELL PETROLEUM DEV. VS ONASANYA (1976) 6 SC 89 at 94. I dare say that the decision to strike out the names of the 7th and 8th Respondents at this interlocutory stage, the Court not having decided the notice of preliminary objection filed challenging jurisdiction by the 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 9th-25th Defendants is perverse, as it amounts to miscarriage of justice. – BARIDAM VS STATE (1994) 1 NWLR (PT 320) 250; ADIMORA VS AJUFO (1988) 3 NWLR (PT 80) 1.
By striking out the names of the 7th and 8th Respondents at this stage, in my view amounts to the Court delving into the substantive matter and would occasion miscarriage of justice to the adverse party. The issues already decided in the Ruling have not been argued in the main suit by the parties.

At the risk of sounding repetitive, the issue

presently framed by the Court is basically whether the Court still has jurisdiction to hear this appeal which arose from the 2015 Enugu State Local Government Election long after the expiration of the tenure of those elected. This issue is totally unrelated to the interlocutory decision of the Court earlier appealed against in respect of which the disclosure of a cause of action against the 7th and 8th Defendants in that case, arose. This is totally unrelated to the present issue which whether the Court still has jurisdiction to hear this appeal which arose from the 2015 Enugu State Local Government Election long after the expiration of the tenure of those elected. Issue estoppel cannot therefore be inferred or dragged into the issue of jurisdiction placed before the parties, by this Court and I shall therefore proceed to the arguments canvassed substantively on the issue.

At the commencement of the action which led to this appeal, the Appellants sought a determination of the questions earlier set out and upon which they sought the reliefs equally set out in full at the beginning of this judgment.

A perusal of the entire originating processes

discloses that the dispute arose from the 2015 Local Government Elections in Enugu State. It is undisputable between the parties that the tenure of Local Government Chairmen is two years pursuant to the extant Local Government law, that candidates to Local Government elections must be sponsored by registered political parties and that on 4th November, 2017, the 1st Respondent successfully conducted an election into the Local Government Councils of Enugu State in which the 1st Appellant took part and sponsored candidates different from the 2nd-18th Appellants as contained in the deposition of the 1st Respondent and attached exhibits on pages 703-803 of the record of appeal. This development implies that the situation in Enugu State as regards Local Government Chairmen has moved beyond the Local Government Elections of 2015 and that instead of Caretaker Committees complained against, democratically elected Local Government Chairmen have been put in place since 2017.

The Respondents without exception canvassed the position that majority of the questions sought for determination by the Appellants as well as the reliefs sought had become otiose while the

remaining ones had become academic, thereby undeserving of further judicial attention.

A relief could be justifiably described as otiose and academic if the grant thereof does not affect the legal rights of any of the parties to the dispute. Where a successful party to the dispute cannot benefit from the grant of such a relief then it is spent and bereft of any life whatsoever. Such a relief has thereby become academic and is undeserving of valuable judicial attention. See PLATEAU STATE VS ATTORNEY – GENERAL OF THE FEDERATION (2006) 137 LRCN 1400 at 1478, ABUBAKAR VS YAR’ADUA (2008) 4 NWLR (PT 1078) 405 at 497, IJAODOLA VS UNIVERSITY OF ILORIN GOVERNING COUNCIL (2018) 14 NWLR (PT 1638) 32 at 45, KUBOR & ANOR VS. DICKSON & ORS (2012) LPELR-9817 (SC) at 72, TURAKI & ANOR VS. ABDULRAHAM (2019) LPELR-46866 (CA) and OKE & ANOR VS. MIMIKO & ORS (2013) LPELR-20645 (SC).
A dispassionate appraisal of the questions sought for determination in the originating summons of the Appellants as well as the reliefs sought by them leave the inescapable conclusion that they have been rendered otiose and academic. They are accordingly undeserving

of further judicial attention and it is my strong view that this Court has no jurisdiction to proceed further with this appeal.
In the entire circumstances therefore, this appeal is struck out.
Parties shall bear their respective costs.

MISITURA OMODERE BOLAJI-YUSUFF, J.C.A.: I have read the draft of the judgment delivered by my learned brother, JOSEPH OLUBUNMI KAYODE OYEWOLE, JCA. I agree with his reasoning and conclusion that even if the questions presented for determination by the appellants are answered in their favour, no right or benefit will enure to the appellants. It is settled law that Courts should not expend valuable judicial time on academic issues which is of no practical utilitarian value to the plaintiff even if judgment is given in his favour. See CONGRESS FOR PROGRESSIVE CHANGE V. INEC (2011) LPELR-8257 (SC) AT 78-79 (G-E). DANIEL V. INEC (2015) LPELR-24566 (SC) AT 34 (E-E). I too find no merit in this appeal. It is dismissed.

ABUBAKAR SADIQ UMAR, J.C.A.: I have read before now, the judgment of my learned brother, JOSEPH OLUBUNMI KAYODE OYEWOLE, JCA, just delivered.

I agree with the reasoning and conclusion therein.

The relief sought by the applicant is academic.
In the case of ATTORNEY GENERAL OF PLATEAU STATE V. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF FEDERATION (2006) 3 NWLR (PT 967) 346 @ 419 where Tobi JSC stated the law as follows:- “a suit is academic where it is merely theoretical, makes empty sound out of no practical utilitarian value to the plaintiff even if the judgment is given in his favour. A suit is academic if it is no related to practical situation of human nature and humanity…”
Applying the above to the established facts of this appeal qualifies as an academic, an exercise in futility and consequentially liable to be struck out.
No order to cost.

Appearances:

Mr. G. Ogara For Appellant(s)

Mr. G. O. Okafor, SAN with him, Mr. J. C. Diara for the 1st Respondent

Mr. T. A. Ngene with him, Mr. S. U. Madu for the 2nd-5th and 8th-21st Respondents

Mr. C. J. Chime for the 6th and 7th Respondents For Respondent(s)