APC & ANOR v. GODPOWER & ORS (2021)

APC & ANOR v. GODPOWER & ORS

(2021)LCN/15043(CA)

In The Court Of Appeal

(ABUJA JUDICIAL DIVISION)

On Friday, February 19, 2021

CA/ABJ/CV/80/2021

RATIO

ATTITUDE OF THE COURTS REGARDING SPECULATION OR ACADEMIC SUITS

The law is elementary that the Courts should not act on speculations and the same goes also to parties who are to state clearly the nature of their claims. In ALADESIUN V FADAHUNSI & ORS (2013) LPELR – 21852, it was held inter alia that a Court should not decide a case on mere conjecture or speculation with regard to what might have happened. See DANIEL V INEC & ORS (2015) LPELR – 24566 (SC). In SALIK V IDRIS & ORS (2014) LPELR – 22909 (SC), the question of what the words “speculative and hypothetic action/questions connote were considered. See ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF PLATEAU STATE V ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF THE FEDERATION (2006) 3 NWLR (PT. 967) 346 AT 419 where TOBI, JSC postulated thus:- “A suit is academic where it is merely theoretical, makes empty sound, and of no practical utilitarian value to the Plaintiff even if judgment is given in his favour. A suit is academic if it is not related to practical situation of human nature and humanity. A suit is speculative if it is based on speculation. A suit is speculative if it is not supported by facts or very low on facts but very high on guesses…” PER RITA NOSAKHARE PEMU, J.C.A.

Before Our Lordships:

Rita Nosakhare Pemu Justice of the Court of Appeal

Hamma Akawu Barka Justice of the Court of Appeal

Ebiowei Tobi Justice of the Court of Appeal

Between

ALL PROGRESSIVES CONGRESS 2. MAI MALA BUNI (Chairman Caretaker Committee And Extra Ordinary Convention Planning Committee Of The All Progressives Congress) APPELANT(S)

And

DR. IPEGHAN GODPOWER (Member, Rivers State Caretaker Committee Of The All Progressives Congress) 2. JEFFERSON BOB (Member, Caretaker Committee, Ahoada-East Local Government Area Of The All Progressives Congress, Rivers State) 3. IKASHI MILLER ORLU (Member, Caretaker Committee, Ahoada-East Local Government Area Of The All Progressives Congress, Rivers State) 4. OWOHONDA HENRY MEHORUM (Member, Ward 10 Caretaker Committee, Port Harcourt Local Government Area Of The All Progressives Congress, Rivers State) 5. SAMUEL HANETU (Member, Ward 2 Caretaker Committee, Port Harcourt Local Government Area Of The All Progressives Congress, Rivers State) 6. JOHN LEKOVA KOOTTEE (Member, Caretaker Committee, Gokana Local Government Area Of The All Progressives Congress, River State) 7. GONI FRIDAY BARINAAIYALOMEN (Member, Ward 4 Caretaker Committee, Gokana Local Government Area Of The All Progressives Congress, Rivers State) 8. PASTOR PROMISE GIABARI GEREGERE (Chairman, Tai Local Government Area Caretaker Committee Of The All Progressives Congress, Rivers State) 9. NKANE NPAPA (Member, Ward 7, All Progressives Congress Caretaker Committee In Tai Local Government Area, Rivers State) RESPONDENT(S)

RITA NOSAKHARE PEMU, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): This is an appeal against the judgment of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory sitting in Abuja in Suit No: FHC/HC/BW/CV/07/2021, delivered on the 21st of January, 2021.

SYNOPSIS OF FACTS
The Claimants (Respondents in this present appeal) took out an Originating Summons filed on the 7th day of January, 2021, seeking some declarative reliefs and the interpretation of certain sections of the 1st Appellant’s Constitution as it relates to the functions, duties and powers of the Respondents as Committee Members of the Rivers State Chapter of the 1st Appellant.

The Claimants also filed an ex parte application seeking an Order of Substituted Service of the originating process on the Appellants (as Defendants) without adducing evidence before the Court below of their inability to effect personal service of the said originating process on the Appellants.

The Appellants opposed the originating process of the Respondents (as Claimants) by filing a 10 paragraphs Counter Affidavit on the 14th of January, 2021. Upon service of same of the Appellants’ Counter

Affidavit on the Respondents, they filed a Reply on point of law on the 15th of January, 2021.

On the 18th of January, 2021, the parties adopted their processes in support of their respective cases.
Judgment was delivered on the 21st day of January, 2021.
The Claimants’ reliefs were granted as prayed.
The Appellants are dissatisfied with the Judgment and has appealed it.

Pursuant to the Practice Direction of this Honourable Court, the Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal on the 28th day of January, 2021 encapsulating nine (9) Grounds of Appeal – Pages 227 – 235 of the Record of Appeal.

The Appellants filed their Brief of Argument on the 3rd of February, 2021. It is settled by TUDURU U. EDE, SAN.
The Respondents filed their Brief of Argument on the 9th of February, 2021. It is settled by T. J. AONDO, ESQ.

The Appellants had proffered two (2) issues for determination which is:
1. WHETHER THE SUIT OF THE RESPONDENT AS CONSTRUED AT THE COURT BELOW IS NOT IN ITS ENTIRETY SPECULATIVE AND LACKING IN ANY REASONABLE CAUSE OF ACTION WORTHY OF CONSIDERATION BY THE COURT BELOW. (DISTILLED FROM GROUNDS 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7 AND 9).

WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT BELOW WAS RIGHT TO MAKE FINDINGS ON ISSUE NOT PLACED BEFORE IT BY PARTIES. (DISTILLED FROM GROUND 5).The Respondent on their part proffered four (4) issues for determination which are:
A. WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT WAS RIGHT IN HOLDING THAT THE RESPONDENTS AS CARETAKER COMMITTEE MEMBERS AT THE STATE, LOCAL AND WARD LEVELS OF THE 1ST APPELLANT’S RIVER STATE CHAPTER WERE DULY APPOINTED AS SUCH SHOULD BE GIVEN THE UNFETTERED POWERS TO EXERCISE AND PERFORM THE FUNCTIONS ASSIGNED TO THEM BY THE CONSTITUTION OF THE 1ST APPELLANT WHICH INCLUDES BUT NOT LIMITED TO REGISTRATION/REVALIDATION OF MEMBERS AND CONDUCT OF WARD CONGRESSES.
B. WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT RIGHTLY ASSUMED JURISDICTION WHEN IT HEARD AND DETERMINED THE SUIT OF THE RESPONDENTS BASED ON THEIR ORIGIANTING SUMMONS AFFIDAVIT EVDIENCE IN SUPPORT, EXHIBITS AITACHED THEREWITH AND THE WRITTEN ADDRESS.
C. WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT VIOLATED THE APPELLANTS’ RIGHT OF FAIR HEARING WHEN IT ORDERED THE SERVICE OF THE ORIGINATING PROCESSES IN THE SUIT AT THE TRIAL COURT ON THE APPELLANTS BY SUBSTITUTED MEANS AND ALSO ORDERED AN ABRIDGMENT OF TIME FOR FILING

OF PROCESSES BY THE APPELLANTS AND THE RESPONDENTS.
D. WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT WAS NOT RIGHT TO HAVE ADOPTED THE LITERAL CANON OF INTERPRETATION IN THE INTERPRETATION OF THE 1ST APPELLANT’S CONSTITUTION.

On the 16th day of February, 2021 the parties adopted their respective Briefs of Argument.

The Respondents also applied to withdraw the Preliminary Objection filed by the Respondent which was subsumed in their brief. Same was accordingly struck out on the 16th of February, 2021.

I shall consider this appeal predicated upon the facts as adumbrated in the Affidavit in Support of the Originating Summons, the Counter Affidavit of the Defendants (Appellants) and Reply, and indeed issues formulated.

The Claimants are members of the Caretaker Committee Members of the 1st Appellant in Rivers State. The Claimants as Members of the Caretaker Committee, cut across the Ward, Local and State levels in Rivers State.

A cursory perusal of the issues being vented by the respective parties premise on the fact of the standing of the Respondents vis-a-vis the Constitution of the All Progressive Congress to which they belong. Furthermore whether

the State Executive Committee for the Rivers State Chapter is autonomous. In other words, whether the State Executive Committee for the Rivers State Chapter of the party can carry out any duties without being assigned to it by the National Executive Committee?

ISSUE NO. 1: It is apparent that the Appellants proffered two (2) issues for determination, but it seems that he may have argued both issues together. It is the submission of the Appellants that the case of the Respondents (as Claimants) in the Court below is speculative and discloses no reasonable cause of action. That a look at the originating processes of the Respondent at the Court below discloses no live issues for adjudication. They submit that the case of the Respondents (as Claimants) was premised on future occurrence, though rendering the case of the Respondents, and indeed the judgment of the Court below theoretical, conjectural, academic, otiose and without any utilitarian value. That the erroneous findings of the Court below appealed against were solely premised on the belief by the Respondent that their rights were about to be breached, and violated, hence the need to seek redress.

That the Court below did not identify which of the rights of the Respondents, (as members of the 1st Appellant) was in danger of being violated. That the Court did not say how the proposed exercise of members registration and/or revalidation which is yet to be conducted by the 1st Appellant amounts to a breach of the rights of the respective Respondents.

They submit that the Court below ought to have struck out the suit – citing OLUFEAGBA V ABDULRAHEEM (2009) 18 NWLR (PT. 1173) 384 AT 439 PARA H where the Apex Court held inter alia:
“That the Court of law cannot speculate or conjecture. It is dangerous to do so in the absence of evidence.

They submit that the Constitution of the 1st Appellant is binding on all its members, including the Respondents.

They submit that the Respondents relied so heavily on Article 13.3(vi) of the Constitution of the 1st Appellant which empowers the National Executive Committee led by the 2nd Appellant to “create, elect and appoint” any Committee it may deem necessary, desirable or expedient and assign to them such powers and functions as it may deem fit and proper. That in compliance with the above

provisions, the National Executive Committee of the 1st Appellant constituted the State Executive Committee for the Rivers State Chapter of the party.

But that having so appointed the Committee, it is only the duties assigned or delegated to the State Executive Committee by the National Executive Committee that it is permitted to undertake.

They submit that the State and Local Government Executive Members can only perform the duties assigned to them by the National body which is now led by the 2nd Appellant, as the Respondents herein cannot ascribe or charge themselves with duties other than that assigned to them.

They submit vehemently that the State, Local and Ward Executive Committees lack the powers to undertake or perform duties not assigned to it by the National body. That any act or action carried out in contravention of their constitutional provision would amount to a nullity. They submit that the Respondents and the entire Caretaker Committee of the 1st Appellant in Rivers State, lacks the vires to proceed with the registration and/or revalidation of members of the 1st Appellant, without the express authorization from the National

Leadership of the 1st Appellant. That the authority to proceed or commence the exercise must emanate from the National Leadership of the 1st Appellant. That the conduct of the Congresses cannot lawfully take place in any State of the Federation without the approval and authorization from the National Leadership of the 1st Appellant.

They submit that the issue presented and submitted by the Respondents herein before the Court below bordered on the function, duties and powers of the Respondents herein as Committee Members of the Rivers State Chapter of the 1st Appellant and not on issue of whether or not the Respondents herein were duly appointed by the 1st Appellant.

That the Court below made findings on issues not put before it by the parties.

RESOLUTION OF ISSUES PROFERRED BY THE APPELLANT
The Originating Summons filed by the Respondents (as Claimants) in the Court below is reflected at Pages 1 – 14 of the Record of Appeal:
“1. A DECLARATION that upon an interpretation of the provisions of Article 2, Article 9.1 (ii), Article 9.4, Article 13.3, Article 13.4, Article 13.8, Article 13.10, 13.11, 13.13 of the 1st Defendant’s

Constitution and based on the decision of the National Executive Committee of the 1st Defendant in its 8th December, 2020 meeting and a fortiori the implementation of the said decision by the Caretaker Committee and Extra ordinary Convention Planning Committee now acting in the stead of the National Working Committee of the 1st Defendant wherein Caretaker Committees for the Rivers State Chapter of the 1st Defendant were constituted at the State, Local Government and Ward. Levels, the Claimants and all the caretaker committee members of the 1st Defendant in the Rivers State Chapter at the State, Local Government and Ward Levels can, without any inhibition, perform their duties as contained in the 1st Defendant’s Constitution.
2. A DECLARATION that National Executive Committee of the 1st Defendant having duly extended the tenure of the Caretaker Committee and Extra ordinary Convention Planning Committee, now acting in the stead of the National Working Committee of the 1st Defendant, which Committee in turn constituted Caretaker Committees for the Rivers State Chapter of the 1st Defendant at the State, Local Government and Ward Levels; the Claimants and all

the members of the caretaker committees of the 1st Defendant’s Rivers State Chapter at the State, Local Government and Ward Levels can, without inhibition, proceed to perform their functions such as receiving applications for membership from prospective/intending members, registration and revalidation of members, conduct of congresses and running the affairs of the 1st Defendant in Rivers State.
3. A DECLARATION that upon the interpretation of the provisions of Article 13.3 (vi), Article 13.4 (xvi) and (xvii) of the Constitution of the All Progressives Congress, 2014 (as amended), and in furtherance of the Resolution/Decisions of the National Executive Committee (NEC) of 8th December, 2020, and a fortiori the implementation of the said decision by the Caretaker Committee and Extra ordinary Convention Planning Committee now acting in the stead of the National Working Committee of the 1st Defendant wherein Caretaker Committees for the Rivers State Chapter of the 1st Defendant were constituted at the State, Local Government and Ward Levels; the Claimants and other members of the caretaker committee in the 1st Defendant’s River State Chapter are the only

persons authorised in law to perform all the functions of the Elected Executive Officers of the All Progressives Congress at the State, Local Government Areas and Ward levels in its Rivers State chapter.
4. AN ORDER OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT directing the Defendants and any person(s) acting through them to allow the Claimants and all the members of the Rivers State Chapter of the care taker committees at the State, Local Government and Ward Levels to, without inhibition, perform their functions such as registration and revalidation of members, conduct of congresses and running the affairs of the 1st Defendant in Rivers State; the 1st Defendant through its Caretaker Committee and Extra, ordinary Convention Planning Committee now acting in the stead its National Working Committee, having duly constituted Caretaker Committees for its Rivers State Chapter at the State, Local Government and Ward Levels.
5. AN ORDER OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT restraining the Defendants and any person(s) acting through them or claiming to be members of the 1st Defendant in the Rivers State chapter or howsoever described, howsoever called from inhibiting the Claimants and all

the members of the Rivers State Chapter Caretaker Committees at the State, Local Government and Ward Levels from performing their functions such as registration and revalidation of members, conduct of congresses and running the affairs of the 1st Defendant in Rivers State; the 1st Defendant through its Caretaker Committee and Extra ordinary Convention Planning Committee now acting in the stead its National Working Committee, having duly constituted Caretaker Committees for its Rivers State Chapter at the State, Local Government and Ward Levels.
6. AND FOR SUCH FURTHER ORDER OR OTHER RELIEF(S) AS THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY DEEM JUST AND EXPEDIENT TO MAKE IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES.”

Paragraphs 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 29, 30 and 31 of the Affidavit in Support of the Originating Summons buttresses the case of the Respondents. Let me reproduce same verbatim.
“15. Thereafter, Caretaker Committee and Extra ordinary Convention Planning Committee now acting in the stead of National Working Committee of the 1st Defendant constituted Caretaker Committees for all the State Chapters of the 1st Defendant as well as Caretaker Committee for

Local Government and Ward Levels.
17. That in respect of its Rivers State Chapter, a seventeen-member caretaker committee was constituted with Mr. Isaac Abbot Ogbobula as its Chairman.
18. That the Caretaker Committee and Extra ordinary Convention Planning Committee of the 1st Defendant also appointed Caretaker Committees at the Local Government and Ward Levels in respect of its Rivers State Chapter.
19. That I know that the 1st Defendant has since announced its intention to proceed with the registration and revalidation of new members with a view to creating a proper data base for the recognition of its members and the conduct of congresses to elect party structures at the National, State, Local Government, Ward, Polling Unit and Zonal levels.
20. That I know that on 10th December, 2020, the 2nd Defendant announced a suspension of the registration and revalidation of new members and mentioned that same would commence around the 2nd week in January, 2021.
22. That I am aware that the 1st and 2nd Defendants are under pressure from unknown and unseen persons to suspend the registration and revalidation of new members of the 1st

Defendant in Rivers State and to also stall any congress for Rivers State structures at the State, Local Government and Ward levels.
23. That I also know that the 1st and 2nd Defendants are also under pressure to, in the event they decide to proceed with the registration and revalidation exercise as well as the ward, Local Government and State Congresses in Rivers State; same will proceed without the involvement of the Caretaker Committees appointed at the State, Local Government and Ward levels.
24. That I verily believe that it is based on the said pressure that the initial date for the conduct of the registration exercise was suspended even though the 2nd Defendant claimed that the suspension was to allow members enjoy the yuletide.
25. That our concerns have become heightened by the fact that the 1st Defendant who is planning the aforementioned activities all over the country has not, till date, communicated to us or the rest of the caretaker committee members on how it intends to proceed with Rivers State.
26. That I know as a fact that our counterparts in the other parts of the country are being routinely informed by the 1st

Defendant on the planned activities.
27. That as a long-standing member of the 1st Defendant, who is very familiar with its constitution, I am aware that the Caretaker Committee having been appointed at the State Local Government and Ward levels are empowered to exercise the functions of their offices.
29. That in the light of the above facts, the rights of the Caretaker committees set up at the various levels of the State, Local Government and Wards, stand at the risk of being violated.
30. That I have been informed by my counsel, T. J. Aondo, Esq. at his chambers at No. 5, B.O. Nafaga Close, Bazango, Kubwa, Abuja on 4th January, 2021 at about 1.00pm of the following facts and I verily believe him to be true as follows:
(a) That the Defendants are bound by the provisions of the Constitution of the 1st Defendant;
(b) That the Claimants are right to proceed to Court to avoid a violation of their rights.
(c) That a person must not wait until his right is violated before he approaches the Court for redress.
31. That as registered members of the 1st Defendant, I am aware that membership cards were issued to us.<br< p=”” style=”box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;”>

</br<>

Attached and marked as Exhibit E1-E8 are copies of the membership cards of the 1st Defendant.”

Pertinent to note is that the Appellants (as Defendants) did not react to paragraphs 28, 30 and 31 of the Affidavit in Support of the Originating Summons. The facts therein are therefore deemed admitted by the Appellants.

Let me reproduce verbatim the facts deposed to in Paragraphs 30 and 31 of the Affidavit in Support of the Originating Summons:
Paragraph 30
“That I have been informed by my counsel, T. J. Aondo, Esq., at his chambers at No. 5, B. O. Nafaga Close, Bazango, Kubwa, Abuja on 4th January, 2021 at about 1.00pm of the following facts and I verily believe him to be true as follows:
(b) That the Defendants are bound by the provisions of the Constitution of the 1st Defendant.
(b) That the Claimants are right to proceed to Court to avoid a violation of their rights.
(c) That a person must not wait until his right is violated before he approaches the Court for redress.”
Paragraph 31
“That as registered members of the 1st Defendant, I am aware that membership cards were issued to us.
Attached and

marked as Exhibit E1-E8 are copies of the membership cards of the 1st Defendant.”

The tacit refusal and/or failure of the Appellants (as Defendants) to react to these paragraphs in their Counter Affidavit, connotes admission of the facts in the aforementioned paragraphs. Indeed, their admission to the fact that the Respondents have a right to approach the Court to avoid violation of their rights. The Appellants cannot now be heard or seen to make a U-turn by alluding to the fact that the Respondents Suit was premature and based on conjecture.

The Appellants have vehemently argued that the State, Local and Ward Executive Committees lack the powers to undertake or perform duties not assigned to it by the National body. And that any act or action carried out in contravention of constitutional provisions would amount to a nullity.

It seems to me that all organs of a political party derive their powers from the Constitution of the party which by law is supreme.

A cursory look at the Constitution of the All Progressive Congress, shows that in its Article 13.3, the functions of the National Executive are mentioned therein, while in Article

13.7, the functions of the State Executive Committee are mentioned in the same Constitution. The role of the State Executive Committee is autonomous.

In Paragraph 6(g)(i – iii) of the Defendants Counter Affidavit, they had deposed in reaction to Paragraphs 17 and 18 of the Affidavit in Support of the Originating Summons thus:-
“6g(i) That in compliance with the dissolution of the party executives at across the States of the Federation, Mr. Isaac Abbot Ogbobula was appointed by the 2nd Defendant as the Chairman Caretaker Committee, Rivers State chapter.
(ii) That the said Caretaker Chairman and other members of the committee having been inaugurated, have commenced work at the Rivers State Chapter of the APC.
(iii) That the committee members appointed by the 1st Defendant in Rivers State are registered members of the party.”

Thus the Appellants have admitted themselves that they appointed and constituted the Respondents as the Caretaker Committee Members of the party in Rivers State.

If, by the very words of their mouths, the Appellants have appointed the Respondents, why are they been deprived from performing their functions

as stipulated by the Constitution?

It is the story of the Respondents who are all party members, and are familiar with the tenets of the party, that the Appellants have concluded plans not to involve then in the registration exercise for new members that is already ongoing in other States in the Federation of Nigeria. That the Appellants have failed to communicate their plans, schedules and activities to enable them execute the plans with respect to their State (Rivers State). The Respondents in essence had questioned whether the trial Court was right in holding that the Respondents as Caretaker Committee members at the State, Local and Wards levels of the 1st Appellant’s Rivers State Chapter were duly appointed and should be given the unfettered powers to exercise and perform the functions assigned to them by the Constitution of the 1st Appellant.

As rightly observed by the Court below by the very Constitution of the 1st Appellant, this includes but not limited to registration/revalidation of members and conduct of Ward Congresses.

The averments of the Respondents in paragraphs 14, 15, 17 and 18 with respect to their appointment by the

Caretaker Committee and Extra Ordinary Convention Planning Committee were not controverted nor denied by the Appellants.

As argued by the Appellants, the State and Local Government Executive Members can only perform the duties assigned to them by the National body which is now led by the 2nd Appellant. That may be so, but the Constitution of the party being its grundnorm is what regulates both the National and State and Local Government Executive Members.
If the party’s Constitution by its provisions had authorized the Respondents to carry out certain functions e.g. registration, revalidation of members and conduct of Ward Congresses in the States, then any attempt to frustrate such functions becomes arbitrary and smacks of an infringement of the rights of the persons concerned.

The Respondents (as Claimants) were vigilant enough, and had smelt a rat, from the behavior of the Appellants. This necessitated their rushing to Court to avoid chaos. The Latin Maxim “vigilantibus et non dormientibus jurasubvenient (Equity aids the vigilant and not the indolent) is what informs the Respondents. The Respondents were smart enough not to sleep on their

rights – CRUTECH V OBETEN (2011) 15 NWLR (PT. 1271) 588. In A-G. ANAMBRA STATE & 9 ORS V EBOH (1992) 1 NWLR (PT. 218) 491, this Court had this to say inter alia;
“Laws do get broken. A vigilant person does not wait for inevasible steps to be taken against him before he takes pre-empty actions.”
To allude to the fact that there was no live issue in the Originating Summons and that the suit was based on conjecture is misconceived and I so hold.

In Paragraph 28 of the Affidavit in Support of the Originating Summons, the Claimants (now Respondents) had deposed thus:-
Paragraph 28
“That from my depth of knowledge in the 1st Defendant’s Constitution and party workings, I also know that:
(a) Registration of new members in the 1st Defendant is to be made and cleared by its Ward Executives, save for online registration;
(b) Register of members of the 1st Defendant is compiled and maintained at its Ward level and a copy transmitted to the Local Government which is also transmitted to the State Level and thereafter the National level.
(c) That any update of the register of members of the 1st Defendant is also in the

manner set in paragraphs (a) and (b) above.
(d) That the agenda for State congresses is prepared by the State Working Committee to which I am a member.”

Curiously, the Appellants made no traverse to this all important paragraph in their Counter Affidavit. The facts in Paragraph 28 of the Affidavit in Support of the Originating Summons are deemed admitted by the Appellants.

no practical utilitarian value to the Plaintiff even if judgment is given in his favour. A suit is academic if it is not related to practical situation of human nature and humanity. A suit is speculative if it is based on speculation. A suit is speculative if it is not supported by facts or very low on facts but very high on guesses…”
Upon a painstaking perusal of the facts inherent in the Claimants’ Originating Summons which is the subject matter of this appeal, there is no doubt that there are live issues therein, and contains issues fit for determination by a Court of competent jurisdiction.

One of the requirements for a Court to assume jurisdiction, as enunciated in MADUKOLU V NKEMDILIM (1962) NSCC P. 374 AT 375 is that in determining whether or not the trial Court rightly assumes jurisdiction, the subject matter of the action is within its jurisdiction. The action also must be initiated by due process of law.
The suit, the subject matter of this appeal was initiated by Originating Summons, which in law is one of the modes to institute suits. The provisions of Order 2 Rule 1 of the FCT High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2018 makes

provision for commencement of action by way of Originating Summons.
The Respondents (as Claimants) in my view initiated their action by due process of law.

The provisions of Article 9.1(ii) of AP.C. Party’s Constitution is apt. I shall reproduce same verbatim:
“Application for membership shall be made to and cleared by the Ward Executives of the party in the Ward of the Local Government Area where the person was born, resides, works or originates…”
Article 9.4 of the Party’s Constitution has this to say:
“A register of members shall be compiled and maintained at the Ward level and be transmitted to the Secretariat of the Party at the Local Government Area, which shall transmit a copy to the State Headquarters, which in turn shall transmit a copy to the National Secretariat…”

It seems to me that a reading of these provisions makes the intendment of the drafters of the provisions very clear and unambiguous.

It is my view that the Respondents are lawfully empowered to conduct the exercise of registration of new members and any attempt by the Appellants to stop them would clearly amount to a violation of their rights

and that of the Constitution that appointed them, and guides them.

In a plethora of cases, the Apex Court had emphasized on the need for political parties to adhere to the provisions of the Constitution guarding the party – LAU V PDP (2018) 4 NWLR (PT. 1608) 60 AT 123 where the Court below observed that “the rights of the Claimants as duly registered and appointed members of the 1st Defendant must be protected…” – he was right.
Again when the Court below observed that “from the findings earlier stated in this judgment, the actions of the Defendants, stated in paragraphs 23, 25 and 29 and which the Defendants did not contradict or challenge clearly constitute violation of their rights – he was right.
There is no doubt that the Respondents were duly appointed as Caretaker Committee Members at the State, Local and Ward Levels of the 1st Appellant in Rivers State. They are therefore at liberty to perform their duties unfettered as contained in the Party’s Constitution. They are the only persons authorized in law to perform the functions assigned to executive officers of the 1st Appellant as constitutionally provided. Any acts done to and

calculated to frustrate the functions of the Respondents would be illegal, null and void.
I cannot disturb the reasoning and findings of the Court below as I find no reason to.
The Political Strata in this Country is gathering momentum. The political parties are learning from their mistakes, and that quietly. And if this is sustained, the glory of the Political Parties shall be incalculable.
Any actions or inactions that is calculated to cause confusion in the party must be avoided.
Whenever any Constitution commands, discretion terminates. It is always wise to look at the possibility and the purpose of the law, before taking any action. The political parties must reason accordingly, reject any acts that is calculated to cause disarray in their party. Every political party must embrace the core values of prudence, honesty, equality and transparency.

The two issues proffered by the Appellants are resolved in favour of the Respondents and against the Appellants. The Appellants had submitted that the Court below made findings on issues not placed before it by parties. What are these issues?

The Court below had (rightly in my

view) alluded to the fact that the issue in this matter is a narrow one. The Court below was right.

It is incumbent on the Appellants to identify with specificity what findings the Court below made and in respect of which issues which were not placed before it. But they did not. That makes their argument misconceived.

The appeal fails and same is hereby dismissed. The Judgment of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja delivered on the 21st of January, 2621 in suit No. FHC/HC/BW/CV/07/2021 is hereby affirmed by me

For purpose of elucidation, I hereby make the following Orders:-
1. A DECLARATION that upon an interpretation of the provisions of Article 2, Article 9.1 (ii), Article 9.4, Article 13.3, Article 13.4, Article 13.8, Article 13.10, 13.11, 13.13 of the 1st Appellant’s Constitution and based on the decision of the National Executive Committee of the 1st Appellant in its 8th December, 2020 meeting and a fortiori the implementation of the said decision by the Caretaker Committee and Extra ordinary Convention Planning Committee now acting in the stead of the National Working Committee of the 1st Appellant wherein

Caretaker Committees for the Rivers State Chapter of the 1st Appellant were constituted at the State, Local Government and Ward Levels, the Respondents and all the caretaker committee members of the 1st Defendant in the Rivers State Chapter at the State, Local Government and Ward Levels can, without any inhibition, perform their duties as contained in the 1st Appellant’s Constitution.
2. A DECLARATION that National Executive Committee of the 1st Appellant having duly extended the tenure of the Caretaker Committee and Extra ordinary Convention Planning Committee, now acting in the stead of the National Working Committee of the 1st Appellant, which Committee in turn constituted Caretaker Committees for the Rivers State Chapter of the 1st Appellant at the State, Local Government and Ward Levels; the Claimants and all the members of the caretaker committees of the 1st Appellant Rivers State Chapter at the State, Local Government and Ward Levels can, without inhibition, proceed to perform their functions such as receiving applications for membership from prospective/intending members, registration and revalidation of members, conduct of congresses and running

the affairs of the 1st Appellant in Rivers State.
3. A DECLARATION that upon the interpretation of the provisions of Article 13.3 (vi), Article 13.4 (xvi) and (xvii) of the Constitution of the All Progressives Congress, 2014 (as amended), and in furtherance of the Resolution/Decisions of the National Executive Committee (NEC) of 8th December, 2020, and a fortiori the implementation of the said decision by the Caretaker Committee and Extra ordinary Convention Planning Committee now acting in the stead of the National Working Committee of the 1st Appellant wherein Caretaker Committees for the Rivers State Chapter of the 1st Appellant were constituted at the State, Local Government and Ward Levels; the Claimants and other members of the caretaker committee in the 1st Appellant’s River State Chapter are the only persons authorised in law to perform all the functions of the Elected Executive Officers of the All Progressives Congress at the State, Local Government Areas and Ward levels in its Rivers State chapter.
4. BY ORDER OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT, the Appellants and any person(s) acting through them are hereby directed to allow the Respondents and

all the members of the Rivers State Chapter of the Caretaker Committee of the State, Local Government and Ward Levels to, without inhibition, perform their functions such as registration and revalidation of members, conduct of congresses and running the affairs of the 1st Appellant in Rivers State; the 1st Appellant through its Caretaker Committee and Extra ordinary Convention Planning Committee now acting in the stead its National Working Committee, having duly constituted Caretaker Committees for its Rivers State Chapter at the State, Local Government and Ward Levels.
5. The Appellants, and any person(s) acting through them or claiming to be members of the 1st Appellant in the Rivers State Chapter or howsoever described, howsoever called, are hereby restrained from inhibiting the Respondents and all the members of the Rivers State Chapter Caretaker Committees at the State, Local Government and Ward Levels from performing their functions such as registration and revalidation of members, conduct of congresses and running the affairs of the 1st Appellant in Rivers State; the 1st Appellant through its Caretaker Committee and Extra ordinary Convention

Planning Committee now acting in the stead its National Working Committee, having duly constituted Caretaker Committees for its Rivers State Chapter at the State, Local Government and Ward Levels.
Parties shall bear their own costs.

HAMMA AKAWU BARKA, J.C.A.: My learned brother RITA N. PEMU JCA graciously made available to me the judgment just read in draft before now.
I agree with the reasoning as well as the conclusion reached therein. I also agree with the order made on costs.

EBIOWEI TOBI, J.C.A.: I agree.

Appearances:

SHERIFF ADUKE, ESQ. For Appellant(s)

J. AONDO, ESQ. with him, FREDRICK C. OLISA, ESQ. For Respondent(s)