ALL NIGERIAN PEOPLES PARTY V. THE RETURNING OFFICER ABIA STATE & ORS
In The Supreme Court of Nigeria
On Thursday, the 22nd day of February, 2007
SC.78/2005
RATIO
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: WHY THE WRITS OF CERTORI AND MANDAMUS ARE COMMON LAW REMEDIES
The writs of certori and mandamus, being common law remedies, could not be invoked in a purely election matter in the Federal High Court. Election matters are in a class of their own and are entirely statutory. PER TOBI, J.S.C
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: ELECTION MATTERS
Section 285(1) of the 1999 Constitution vests exclusive jurisdiction in an election matter in the Election Tribunals. There is no doubt that the time limit imposed by law for bringing such election related suits can impose grave injustice on a person where the results are not declared before the expiry of the time limit. Such was the case in this matter. The solution to such mischief lies in reforming law. Not in giving the High Court a jurisdiction it does not possess. PER G. A. OGUNTADE, J.S.C.
JUSTICES
SYLVESTER UMARU ONU Justice of The Supreme Court of Nigeria
NIKI TOBI Justice of The Supreme Court of Nigeria
DAHIRU MUSDAPHER Justice of The Supreme Court of Nigeria
GEORGE ADESOLA OGUNTADE Justice of The Supreme Court of Nigeria
SUNDAY AKINOLA AKINTAN Justice of The Supreme Court of Nigeria
ALOMA MARIAM MUKHTAR Justice of The Supreme Court of Nigeria
IKECHI FRANCIS OGBUAGU Justice of The Supreme Court of Nigeria
Between
ALL NIGERIAN PEOPLES PARTY Appellant(s)
AND
THE RETURNING OFFICER ABIA STATE & ORS Respondent(s)
- TOBI, J.S.C (Delivering the Leading Judgment): In the nature of the reliefs sought, and on the arguments of counsel in their briefs, I have no difficulty in coming to the conclusion that this is an election matter clearly outside the jurisdiction of High Courts. In my humble view, the Federal High Court lacks the jurisdiction to entertain the appellant’s suit and the Court of Appeal was Correct in so holding. A relief on certiori smuggled into this matter cannot change the character of the matter as an election matter clearly belongs to the appropriate Election Tribunal. Section 285 of the Constitution is clear on this. In the light of the above, I do not see any need for this court to ask counsel for the respondents to reply. The appeal lacks merit and it is dismissed. I award N 10,000.00 costs to each set of respondents.S. U. ONU, J.S.C: We do not intend to call on the other side to reply. Having been privileged to read the judgment of my learned brother Niki Tobi, JSC, I agree with him that this appeal lacks merit. I will not hesitate to dismiss the appeal as it lacks any iota of merit vide section 285(1) of the 1999 Constitution with N 10,000.00 costs to each set of respondents. I too affirm the judgment of the court below:D. MUSDAPHER, J.S.C: We do not deem it necessary to call the respondents to reply to the argument of counsel for the appellant in this matter. Clearly in my view the proper forum for the appellant to vindicate his complaint is the tribunal established for the purposes of the election, that is the National Assembly Election Tribunal established for Abia State. I entirely agree with the lower courts election matter as filed by the appellant. The writs of certori and mandamus, being common law remedies, could not be invoked in a purely election matter in the Federal High Court. Election matters are in a class of their own and are entirely statutory. I affirm the decisions of the courts below and accordingly dismiss the appeal as lacking in merit and award the sum of N10,000.00 costs to each set of the respondents.
G. A. OGUNTADE, J.S.C.: Court A perusal of the reliefs which the appellant as plaintiff had claimed from the High Court, Abuja amply reveals that this suit was to query the return made by the respondents in the 2003 Senatorial Election. Section 285(1) of the 1999 Constitution vests exclusive jurisdiction in an election matter in the Election Tribunals. There is no doubt that the time limit imposed by law for bringing such election related suits can impose grave injustice
on a person where the results are not declared before the expiry of the time limit. Such was the case in this matter. The solution to such mischief lies in reforming law. Not in giving the High Court a jurisdiction it does not possess. I affirm the judgment of the court below. I also dismissed the appeal. I affirm the order for costs as stated in the lead judgment.S. A. AKINTAN, J.S.C.: The appeal is against the judgment of the court below declining jurisdiction to entertain a matter that should have been commenced in an election tribunal, the dispute purely an election matter. There is therefore totally no merit in the appeal and it is accordingly dismissed. N10,000.00 costs is awarded to each set of respondents.
Appeal dismissed
Appearances
Chief M.l. Ahamba, SAN (with him,VI. Ikeonu) For Appellant
AND
R.O. Yusuf –
Chief A. Idigbe, SAN (with him, K.c. Nwufo, Ralph
Uwechue, Esq., Tochi Nwosu, Bunmi Ope-Agbe, (Miss). N.J. Kamuche (Miss)) For Respondent
