LawCare Nigeria

Nigeria Legal Information & Law Reports

BETTER NIGERIA PROGRESSIVE PARTY v. A-G OF THE FEDERATION & ANOR (2022)

BETTER NIGERIA PROGRESSIVE PARTY v. A-G OF THE FEDERATION & ANOR

(2022)LCN/16027(CA) 

In The Court Of Appeal

(ABUJA JUDICIAL DIVISION)

On Friday, June 17, 2022

CA/ABJ/CV/716/2020

Before Our Lordships:

Peter Olabisi Ige Justice of the Court of Appeal

Biobele Abraham Georgewill Justice of the Court of Appeal

Danlami Zama Senchi Justice of the Court of Appeal

Between

BETTER NIGERIA PROGRESSIVE PARTY APPELANT(S)

And

1. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE FEDERATION 2. INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION RESPONDENT(S)

 

RATIO:

THE INTERPRETATION TO BE GIVEN BY THE COURT TO THE PROVISION OF THE CONSTITUTION

The trial Court in that case held as follows:-
“The crux of the plaintiff’s case is that Section 225 A (b) and (c) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) by the fourth alteration Act No 9 of 2017 are to be construed conjunctively while the 2nd Defendant is of the view that the said provision is to be construed disjunctively.
The main issue therefore in this present case, is the interpretation to be given by the Court to Section 225 A (b) and (c) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) by the fourth Alteration Act No 9 of 2017.” DANLAMI ZAMA SENCHI, J.C.A. 

THE CONSIDERATION OF THE PLACE OF SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE AND TECHNICAL JUSTICE

In African Songs Limited & Anor V. King Sunday Adeniyi Adegeye (2019) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1656) 335 at p. 365 – 366, this Court had cause to consider the place of ‘substantial justice’ and ‘technical justice’ in the due administration of justice in this Country and had per Sir Biobele Abraham Georgewill JCA, opined inter alia thus:
“My Lords, while in today’s jurisprudence of ‘substantial justice’ the issue of ‘mere technicality’ no longer holds sway, yet it is truism that competence is the soul of adjudication. It is in this sense the issue of competence can no longer in law truly be regarded as ‘mere technicality’ but rather be seen as substantial issue of law. ln other words, while eschewing technicality for its sake, a Court can only exercise jurisdiction where all conditions precedent to the exercise of its powers have been fulfilled.”
I do not think I can improve on the statement of law I made above and thus, I cannot but bow to it. I fully subscribe to its truism and so it is with the Appellant’s appeal. BIOBELE ABRAHAM GEORGEWILL, J.C.A.

THE ISSUE OF JURISDICTION AND COMPETENCE ARE FUNDAMENTAL IN A MATTER

In law, issue of jurisdiction and of competence are fundamental and constitute the life blood of every cause or action and thus where the requisite jurisdiction is found to be lacking, that is indeed the end of the matter. See Madukolu V. Nkemdilim (1962) 2 All NLR 581. See also Petro Jessica Ent. Ltd V. Leventis Trading Co. Ltd. (1992) 5 NWLR (Pt. 244) 132, Okereke V. Yar’Adua (2008) All FWLR (Pt. 430) 25, AG. Lagos State V. Dosunmu (1989) 3 NWLR (Pt. 111) 552, Umanah V. Attah (2006) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1009) 503 at p. 525. BIOBELE ABRAHAM GEORGEWILL, J.C.A.

THE GENERAL ATTITUDE OF THE COURT IS THAT THEY ARE LOATHE IN MAKING PRONOUNCEMENT ON HYPOTHETICAL ISSUES

Indeed, the Courts are loath to and do not saddle themselves with the consideration or matters which had become merely academic and therefore, of no utilitarian value to either of the parties. To embark on such exercise of jurisdiction of the Courts over matters which are no longer live would clearly amount to nothing but sheer waste of the very precious and, if I may say scarce, judicial time. In Charles Oke & Anor V. Dr. Rahman Mimiko & Ors (2013) All FWLR (Pt. 693) 1853, the full Court of the Supreme Court per Muhammad JSC, had this to say on this issue:
“It is a principle of law long settled that the general attitude of the Courts of law is that they are loathe in making pronouncements on academic/hypothetical issues as it does not serve any useful purpose.”
See also Uba Plc V. Dana Drugs Ltd (2018) LPELR – 44103 (CA), per Sir Biobele Abraham Georgewill JCA, Mbachu V. Anambra – Imo Rivers Basin Development Authority, Owerri (2006) All FWLR (Pt. 342) 1482 at p 1497. BIOBELE ABRAHAM GEORGEWILL, J.C.A. 

DANLAMI ZAMA SENCHI, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): This appeal is against the Judgment of the Federal High Court, Abuja in Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/444/2019 delivered on the 11th day of June, 2020 by A. I. CHIKERE J.

The Appellant and others, as Plaintiffs before the lower Court, commenced this action via an Originating Summons dated and filed on 18th April, 2019. The Originating Summons was amended by the order of the lower Court and filed on 29th October, 2019 where in the following questions were raised for determination:
(i) Whether the provisions of Section 225A b(i), b(ii), c(i), c(ii) and c(iii) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 introduced by the 4th Alteration Act No. 9 of 2017 are to be construed disjunctively/alternatively or whether they are to be construed conjunctively.
(ii) Whether the 2nd Defendant can exercise any power under Section 225A (b) and (c) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 without conclusive and democratic elections being first held and concluded into all electoral constituencies of the federation.

(iii) Whether having regard to the lack of authority by the 2nd Defendant to conduct and determine the winners for Chairmanship and Councillorship election into Local Government and Wards in the Federation, the 2nd Defendant should be allowed to exercise power to deregister Political parties for failure to win elections into such seats.
(iv) Whether given the notorious widespread and pervasive irregularities and cancellation of results in many polling units, wards and local governments in the 2019 Presidential, National Assembly Governorship and State Assembly elections, the 2nd Defendant ought to be allowed to deregister political parties for failure to win seats when these parties could have won but for the irregularities and cancellations of results which were perpetrated by persons other than their agents.
(See pages 104 and 105 of the Record of Appeal)

The Plaintiff/Appellant, in the event that the forgoing questions are answered in its favour, sought the following Reliefs:
1. A Declaration that the provisions of Section 225A b(i), b(ii), c(i) and c(iii) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria introduced by the 4th Alteration Act No. 9 of 2017 are intended to be construed disjunctively.
2. A Declaration that the power conferred on the 2nd Defendant by Section 225A (b) and (c) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 to deregister political parties could not have been intended to have any retroactive effect and as such elections into all electoral constituencies must first be held and as such elections into all electoral constituencies must first be held before the power of the 2nd Defendant under this section can accrue.
3. A Declaration that the 2nd Defendant cannot exercise power to deregister political parties for failure to win Chairmanship and Councillorship elections as the 2nd Defendant is not the body responsible for conducting elections into these positions, more so that the 2nd Defendant has no control over the various states electoral bodies responsible for the conduct of these elections.
4. A Declaration that having regard to the notorious, widespread and pervasive irregularities and cancellation of results in many polling units, ward, local governments during the 2019 Presidential National Assembly, Governorship and State Assembly elections, the 2nd Defendant cannot be allowed to deregister political parties for failure to win seats or certain percentages of the votes cast at the 2019 general election as these political parties could have won but for irregularities and cancellations     perpetrated by persons who are not agents of the political parties.
5. An Order of Injunction restraining the 2nd Defendant from exercising the powers conferred on it by Section 225A (b) and (c) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 until conclusive and democratic elections are held into the presidency, all Governorship, National Assembly, State Assembly, Local Government Chairmanship and Councillorship positions in the Federation, which elections must have been held after this section was introduced.
6. An order of Injunction restraining the 2nd Defendant from exercising its powers to deregister the plaintiffs or any political party for that matter as the 2nd Defendant does not have the power to conduct elections into all the positions listed in Section 225A (b) and (c) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999.
7. An order of Injunction restraining the 2nd Defendant from deregistering the Plaintiffs or any political party for that matter for failure to win seats or certain percentages of the vote cast at the 2019 general election as these political parties could have won but for irregularities and cancellations perpetrated by persons who are not agents of the political parties.
(See pages 105 and 106 of the Record of Appeal)

A forty-five paragraphs Affidavit and a Written Address were filed in support of the Amended Originating Summons. (See pages 109 – 114 and 115 – 123 of the Record of Appeal respectively).

On 30th October, 2019, the Appellant and others filed a Motion on Notice seeking an Order of Interlocutory injunction restraining the 2nd Defendant from deregistering the Plaintiffs or any other Political party. By the order of the lower Court made on 17th February, 2020, the prayer of the  Appellant was granted to the effect that the 2nd Respondent was restrained from deregistering the Plaintiffs pending the determination of the substantive suit.

The 2nd Respondent, as 2nd Defendant before the lower Court, filed an eleven paragraphs Counter-Affidavit to the Originating Summons on 24th February, 2020. (See pages 160 – 163 of the Record of Appeal).

On 6th March, 2020, the Appellant filed a Reply on Points of Law to the Counter-Affidavit and Written Address of the 2nd Respondent. (See pages 212 – 216 of the Record of Appeal). On 1st June, 2020, the Appellant filed a twenty-three paragraphs Further-Affidavit in support of amended summons. (See pages 217 – 220 of the Record of Appeal).

The facts of this case bother on the 2nd Respondent’s deregistration of the Appellant and other political parties pursuant to the provisions of Section 225A of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) introduced by the 4th Alteration Act No. 9 of 2017 and the Appellant’s dissatisfaction with the said deregistration process.

Delivering his judgment, the trial Court held as follows:
”In conclusion, I hold as follows:
(1) That the provision of Section 225A, (b) and (c) in the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as Amended) Fourth Alteration Act No. 7 of 2017 is to be interpreted disjunctively.
(2) That the 2nd Defendant has powers under the said Section 225A, (b) and (c) to de-register the Plaintiffs for non-compliance with the provisions of the said Section.
(3) That reliefs 4 and 7 are not within the jurisdiction of this Court to entertain/or grant.
(4) That since the coming into effect of Section 225A, (b) and (c) elections have been held throughout Nigeria. Plaintiffs did not win any seat, if they did, they would have shown material facts to that effect i.e. exhibiting their ‘Certificate of Return’.
(5) Finally, it is the considered view of this Court that Plaintiffs failed to prove their case. ”
(See pages 283 – 306 of the Record of Appeal, particularly at page 305).

Dissatisfied with the judgment of the trial Court, the Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal on 24th July, 2020, and another Notice of Appeal on 27th August, 2020. As stated in paragraph 1.07 of the Appellant’s Brief of Argument, the Appellant relies on the latter Notice of Appeal filed on 27th August, 2020. The Grounds of Appeal as contained in the Notice of Appeal filed on 27th August, 2020 are hereby reproduced (without their particulars) as follows:
GROUND 1
The learned trial Judge erred in law and came to a wrong decision when it held that:
”It is clear that the provisions of the Constitution especially Section 225A (b) and (c) cannot be dependent on purported conduct of all local government or Area council Elections, as presently those seats are occupied Also Plaintiffs failed to show to this Court time table for the purported elections. This Court cannot speculate as Courts deal with hard facts.”
GROUND 2
The learned trial Judge erred in law and came to the wrong decision when Court held that the word “OR” as used in Section 225A of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) connotes that the provisions are disjunctive.
GROUND 3
The learned trial Judge erred in law and came to a wrong conclusion when it held thus:
“the plaintiffs who asserts that elections have not held in the states mentioned ought to have supported same by exhibiting the time table of the election they are participating, the dates the elections will hold e.t.c., mere allegation/assertion that election did not hold is not sufficient as the Court cannot embark on speculation. The Court deal with hard facts placed before it ”
GROUND 4
The learned trial Judge erred in law and came to a wrong decision when it held that:
”Paragraph 39-41 of the plaintiffs’ Affidavit does not fall within the ambit of the Jurisdiction of the Court. The Electoral Act makes provision for conduct of election petitions. See Section 138 of Electoral Act.”
GROUND 5
The learned trial Judge erred in law and thereby came to a wrong decision which resulted to miscarriage of justice when the Court held thus:
i. That the provision of Section 225A, (b) and (c) in the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as Amended) Fourth Alteration Act No. 7 of 2017 is to be interpreted disjunctively.
ii. That the 2nd Defendant has powers under the said Section 225A, (b) and (c) to de-register the Plaintiffs for non-compliance with the provisions of the said Section.
iii. That reliefs 4 and 7 are not within the jurisdiction of this Court to entertain/or grant.
iv. That since the coming into effect of Section 225A, (b) and (c) elections have been held throughout Nigeria. Plaintiffs did not win any seat, if they did, they would have shown material facts to that effect i.e. exhibiting their ‘Certificate of Return’.
v. Finally, it is the considered view of this Court that Plaintiffs failed to prove their case.”
GROUND 6
The learned trial Court erred in law when it held that INEC complied with the due process of law in deregistering the appellant despite the fact that appellant’s suit was pending in Court challenging the power of the INEC to deregister it, when it was deregistered by INEC.

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION
In the Appellant’s Brief of Argument which was settled by Chibuzor C. Ezike Esq., the following issues were distilled for the determination of this Appeal:
1. Whether the honourable trial Court was not wrong to have not determined and ruled on Appellant’s motion dated 14h day of February, 2020 which questioned the contemptuous act of 2nd Respondent in deregistering the Appellant during the pendency of the suit. (Ground 6)
2. Whether the honourable trial Judge was not wrong in dismissing the case of the Appellant on the ground that the 2nd Respondent has power to deregister the Appellant vis-a-vis the clear provision of Section 225A of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as Amended) and the facts of the case? (Ground 1 to 5).

In the 2nd Respondent’s Brief of Argument which was settled by T. M. Inuwa SAN, a lone issue was distilled for the determination of this Appeal thus:
“Whether the trial Court correctly held that the 2nd Respondent rightly exercised its power provided in Section 225A of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (4th Alteration No. 9) Act of 2017 and whether the 2nd Respondent lawfully deregistered the Appellant (Grounds 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the Notice of Appeal).”

On 7th July, 2021, the 2nd Respondent filed a Motion on Notice praying this Court for an order striking out Ground 6 of the Appellant’s Notice of Appeal filed on the 27th day of August, 2020 and an order striking out issue 1 formulated by the Appellant in its Brief of Argument filed on the 1st day of September, 2020. The Motion on Notice was supported by a four paragraphs Affidavit and a Written Address.

On 8th October, 2021, the Appellant filed a seventeen paragraphs Counter-Affidavit and a Written Address in opposition to the 2nd Respondent’s Motion on Notice.

ARGUMENTS OF COUNSEL
APPELLANT’S SUBMISSIONS
APPELLANT’S ISSUE ONE
At paragraphs 3.01-3.04 of the Appellant’s Brief of Argument, learned Counsel to the Appellant submitted to the effect that the trial Court was wrong in not considering the Appellant’s Motion on Notice dated 12th February, 2020 and filed on the 14th day of February, 2020 despite the fact that parties joined issues on the issue raised in the said Motion. He referred this Court to pages 124 -155 of the Records of Appeal). He submitted further that after the Motion was argued and parties awaited the Court’s ruling, the 2nd Respondent proceeded to deregister the Appellant, thereby foisting a fait accompli on the Court, and the action of the 2nd Respondent was deliberate and targeted to render the Ruling of the Court on the Motion academic and illusory, which was the case on 17th February, 2020 when the Court restrained the 2nd Respondent from deregistering the Appellant pending the determination of the suit. Counsel cited the cases of OBI V. INEC (2007) LPELR-2166. Counsel urged this Court to adopt the decision in APPEAL NO. CA/ABJ/CV/507/2020. ADVANCED CONGRESS OF DEMOCRATS (ACD) & 21 ORS V. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE FEDERATION & ANOR (UNREPORTED) delivered by this Court on 10th August, 2020, as the Appellant was the 5th Plaintiff at the trial Court in Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/444/2019, the judgment of which was set aside by this Court on 10th August, 2020.

APPELLANT’S ISSUE TWO
At paragraphs 4.01- 4.18 of the Appellant’s Brief of Argument, Counsel submitted to the effect that the interpretation given to Section 225A (b) and (c) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (Fourth Alteration No. 9) by the lower Court is erroneous and contrary to the intendment of the legislature. He submitted further that from the provision of Section 225A of the Constitution, it is clear that the fulfilment of any of the alternate options as enumerated in Sub-section (b) and (c) of Section 225A will sustain the existence of any political party under the section. Counsel submitted further that the power of the 2nd Respondent to act under Section 225A of the Constitution remains inchoate until completion of the election circles into various elective offices, and the 2nd Respondents must have communicated to the Appellant in writing the reason for its deregistration as the 2nd Respondent cannot deregister the Appellant without affording it the opportunity of knowing the reason for its deregistration. He relied on the case of ARARUME V. INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION & 2 ORS (2007) 9 NWLR (PART 1038) 127, 157 F-H, NDOMA-EGBA V. CHUKWUOGOR & ORS (2004) LPELR-1974 (SC).

The Appellant’s Counsel submitted that the purported disjunctive interpretation arose from the legal opinion of the learned trial Judge and cannot take the place of the express provisions of the Constitution on the process of deregistration of the Appellant as a political party, as the law is trite that Judges do not make law, rather they only interpret the law as it is and not what it ought to be. He relied on the case of OKULAJA & 6 ORS V. ADEFULU & 17 ORS (1992) 5 NWLR (PT. 224) 752. Counsel to the Appellants contended that in line with the requirement of the Constitutional provisions, the Appellant placed sufficient material evidence before the lower Court that Local Government Chairmanship and Councillorship elections as well as the Governorship election across the country are yet to be completed, and this is also a matter of common knowledge.
2ND RESPONDENT’S SUBMISSIONS
ARGUMENT ON MOTION ON NOTICE
At paragraph 4.1 of the 2nd Respondent’s Brief of Argument, learned senior Counsel to the 2nd Respondent raised a lone issue for the determination of the Motion on Notice, to wit:
“Whether Ground 6 of the Appellant’s Notice of Appeal and issue 1 formulated therefrom in the Appellant’s Brief of Argument are competent.”

At paragraphs 4.2-4.6 of the 2nd Respondent’s Brief of Argument, learned Senior Counsel submitted to the effect that an appeal is by way of rehearing and a continuation of hearing; thus, an appellate Court will only have jurisdiction to determine an appeal within the confines of the issues canvassed at and determined by the trial Court. He submitted further that the issue of pendency of action by the Appellant was not raised at the trial Court and therefore no decision was given on same by the trial Court, hence, the Appellant cannot without leave of Court make the issue a Ground of Appeal before this Court. He relied on the case of OREDOYIN V. AROWOLO (1989)4 NWLR (PT. 114) 172 at 192. Learned Senior Counsel contended that Ground 6 of the Notice of Appeal is a question of fact not borne out from the Record of Appeal, therefore, it is incompetent and liable to be struck out. He relied on the case of ADEKUNLE AKINLADE & ANOR V. INEC & 2 ORS (2020)17 NWLR PT. 1754 at PAGE 457-458, PARAS H-D. He submitted further that issue 1 formulated from Ground 6 is an incompetent issue and cannot sustain any argument in view of the fact that you cannot put something on nothing. He relied on the case of ILIYASU v. SHUWAKI (2009) LPELR-4305. Learned Senior Counsel urged this Court to discountenance and strike out the Appellant’s arguments.

2ND RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENT OF APPEAL
At paragraphs 6.1 of the 2nd Respondent’s Brief of Argument, learned Senior Counsel to the 2nd Respondent submitted to the effect that the provisions of Section 225A of the Constitution are very clear as to the power of the 2nd Respondent to be duly exercised upon violation of any of the subheads of the provisions, and the position of the law is that where a particular section of the law has many subsections; all such subsections should be read together for the purpose of discovering the intention of the law maker. He relied on the case of DICKSON v. SYLVA (2017)8 NWLR PT. 1567, PAGE 167

Learned Senior Counsel contended that the Appellant’s argument at paragraph 4.5 of its Brief of Argument is baseless and ought to be discountenanced as it is clear on record that the 2nd Respondent conducted the general elections in 2019, which included the elections into all the positions listed in Section 225A of the Constitution. He contended further that contrary to the submission of the Appellant that the 2nd Respondent cannot deregister it without affording it the opportunity of knowing the reason for its deregistration, it is clear on record that the 2nd Respondent wrote letters to all the political parties, including the Appellant, that were deregistered on 6th February, 2020, thus the Appellant’s argument is misplaced. He referred this Court to pages 188 and 193 of the Record of Appeal. Learned Counsel to the 2nd Respondent contended that contrary to the submission of the Appellant, the doctrine of lispendis is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this cast, it applies only to a case in which the object is to recover or assert title to a specific property and same must be real property. He relied on the case of ENEKWE V. IMB (NIG) LTD (2007) ALL FWLR (PT 349) PAGE 1053 AT 1073 PARAS A-B. He submitted further that the Appellant’s reliance on OBI V. INEC (2007) LPELR 2166 and LIYAFA & ANOR V. ZUBAIRU& ORS (2015) LPELR-24660 is misplaced, as the facts and circumstances of those cases are distinguishable from the facts and circumstances of the instant appeal. Learned senior Counsel to the 2nd Respondent submitted that the decision of this Court in ACD & 21 ORS v. AGF & ANOR heavily relied upon by the Appellant regarding the pendency of suit before the deregistration exercise was delivered per incuriam in that the Court did not accord the 2nd Respondent herein the opportunity to be heard on the trite legal submission at paragraphs 6.12 and 6.13 of the 2nd Respondent’s Brief of Argument in the instant appeal, otherwise, it would have definitely arrived at a correct conclusion on the issue. He submitted further that the facts of the case and that of the instant appeal are distinguishable. It is the contention of learned senior Counsel to the 2nd Respondent that contrary to the Appellant’s contention at paragraph 4.08- 4.19 of its brief, it is trite that by virtue of Section 168(1) of the Evidence Act, 2011, actions of the 2nd Respondent enjoy presumption of regularity which can only be rebutted by cogent and credible evidence. He relied on the cases of MUHAMMED SANI TAKORI & ANOR v. BELLO MATAWALLE & ORS (2020)17 NWLR PT. 1752, PAGE 181, PARA G and UDOM V. UMANA (NO.1) (2016)12 NWLR (PT. 1526) 179 PAGE 185, PARAS A-B. He urged this Court to dismiss the Appeal as lacking in merit and uphold the findings of the Trial Court that the deregistration of the Appellant as a political party was lawfully done in exercise of the vested constitutional powers of the Respondents in accordance with the provisions of Section 225A of the 1999 Constitution.

APPELLANT’S REPLY TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT’S BRIEF
In reply to the 2nd Respondent’s Brief of Argument, Counsel to the Appellant contended that Ground 6 of the Appellant’s Notice of Appeal and issue one in its Brief of Argument emanated from the decision of the trial Court as particularly contained at pages 273-282 and 283-306 of the Record of Appeal. He submitted further that it is erroneous to argue that the issue of les pendis was never raised at the trial Court, whereas the Appellant filed a Motion on Notice which is contained in pages 124-130 of the Record of Appeal. Counsel submitted that a Court of law has a duty to dispense with all pending application and process before reaching a final decision in a cause or matter, and the failure of a Court to do so without a valid reason would amount to a violation of the right to fair hearing of the party not heard. He relied on the cases of P.D.P. v. EZEONWUKA (2019) ALL FWLR PT. 987 PG . 807, PARAS G-A and DASOFUNJO v. AJIBOYE (2017) ALL FWLR PT. 911 PAGE 537 PARAS F-G. He contended that Ground 6 of the Appellant’s Notice of Appeal emanated from the commission of the 2nd Respondent in deregistering the Appellant on 6th February, 2020 during the pendency of the suit at the trial Court and the omission of the trial Court to make any pronouncement on the Appellant’s Application dated 12th February, 2020, hence, Ground 6 did not raise a fresh issue; therefore, the cases cited by the learned Counsel to the 2nd Respondent on the issue of raising a fresh issue on appeal with the leave of Court are not applicable to the instant case.

In conclusion, he urged this Court to discountenance the entire argument of the 2nd Respondent as contained at paragraph 4.0 – 4.06 of the Respondent’s brief.

RESOLUTION OF ISSUES
The Appellant in this appeal distilled two issues for determination. I have gone through the submissions of learned counsel to the Appellant as contained in his brief of argument and her reply brief. I have equally perused the arguments of the 2nd Respondent’s counsel in their brief of argument. Then a close perusal of the Notice of Appeal and the grounds, the complaint is against the judgment of A. I Chikere, J., delivered on 11th June, 2020 wherein the Appellant was the 5th Defendant at the trial Court in Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/444/2019. The trial Court in that case held as follows:-
“The crux of the plaintiff’s case is that Section 225 A (b) and (c) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) by the fourth alteration Act No 9 of 2017 are to be construed conjunctively while the 2nd Defendant is of the view that the said provision is to be construed disjunctively.
The main issue therefore in this present case, is the interpretation to be given by the Court to Section 225 A (b) and (c) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) by the fourth Alteration Act No 9 of 2017.”

The trial Court then held that S. 225 A of the 1999 Constitution (as altered) is to be construed disjunctively and that the 2nd Defendant (Inec) has the power under S. 225A to deregister any political party that did not meet up with the requirements of S.225A of the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended).

Dissatisfied with the decision of the trial Court, the Appellant appeal to this Court.

On appeal to this Court, this Court set aside the judgment of the trial Court. On further appeal to the Apex Court in appeal no. SC/CV/485/2020, the Supreme Court held as follows:-
“With all deference to the lower Court the trial Court granted that relief. It held that Section 225 A (b) & (c) of the Constitution should be construed disjunctively. The lower Court at page 534 of the record in affirming the position of the trial Court on this stated emphatically that it.
“Uphold (s) the decision of the learned trial Court that the words or (provisions) in Section 225A of the 1999 Constitution should be recorded disjunctively.”
The Supreme Court then held thus:-
“On the whole, I find substance in the appeal of the Appellant (Inec) particularly on issues 1-5 argued. The appeal on those issues is allowed. The decision of the lower Court setting aside, in part the decision of the trial Court is hereby substituted with an order affirming the totality of the trial Court decision.”

Thus, by the decision of the Apex Court in the unreported case of INEC V ADVANCE CONGRESS OF DEMOCRATS {ACD} & 17 ORS, Appeal No. SC/CV/485/2020 delivered on 25th March, 2022, it has put to rest the question of interpretation of Section 225 A of the Constitution (as amended) as regards the power of INEC to deregister any political party that contravened S.225A of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) The instant appeal just like Appeal No. CA/ABJ/CV/38/2022 between PEOPLE DEMOCRATIC MOVEMENT {PDM} V. INDEPENDENT ELECTORAL COMMISSION & ANOR, that seeks the interpretation and determination of the questions as to whether the provisions of Section 225A (b) and (c) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) introduced by the 4th Alteration Act No 9 of 2017 are to be construed disjunctively or whether they are to be construed conjunctively, this appeal must abide Appeal No.CA/ABJ/CV/38/2022 and further, by the principle of stare decisis, the Apex Court had in the unreported case of INEC v ADVANCE CONGRESS OF DEMOCRATS {ACD} & 17 ORS, (supra) in which the present Appellant was the 5th plaintiff in suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/444/2019 at the trial Court, the decision of the Apex Court binds this instant appeal and the appeal ipso facto lacks merit, the judgment of the Federal High Court in Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/444/2019 delivered on the 11th day of June, 2020 by A. I CHIKERE, J is hereby affirmed.
No award as to cost.

PETER OLABISI IGE, J.C.A.: I had the privilege of reading in advance the draft judgment of my learned brother, DANLAMI ZAMA SENCHI, JCA.

I agree with his reasoning and conclusion that the appeal lacks merit. The judgment of the lower Court delivered on the 11th day of June, 2020 in Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/444/2019 by A. I. CHIKERE, J., is also hereby affirmed by me.

I abide with order on costs as contained in the lead judgment.

BIOBELE ABRAHAM GEORGEWILL, J.C.A.: My learned brother, Danlami Zama Senchi JCA, has, in the leading judgment just delivered and with which I am in complete agreement, exhaustively considered and most admirably resolved the very narrow issue calling for determination in the appeal against the Appellant in favor of the Respondents and the appeal consequently found to be lacking in merit.

My Lords, the real crux of this appeal borders on the powers of the 2nd Respondent the Independent National Electoral Commission, to deregister any Political Party in Nigeria in accordance with the laws of the land. The Supreme Court of Nigeria, being the apex Court in the law, whose decision binds all other Courts in the land, including this penultimate intermediate Court, the Court of Appeal of Nigeria, has spoken loud and clear on the issue of deregistration of any Political Party in Nigeria and we, sitting at this level of hierarchy of Courts in Nigeria, have also heard it loud and clear that the 2nd Respondent, INEC, has the enormous powers to deregister any Political Party by virtue or Section 225A of the Constitution of Nigeria 1999 (as amended by the Fourth Alteration Act No. 9 of 2017) and which power once exercised in line with the laws of the land cannot be invalidated by the Courts. See the unreported decision or the Supreme Court in Appeal No. SC/CV/485/2020: INEC V. Congress of Democrats & 17 Ors delivered on Friday, 25th day of March 2022.

My Lords, having arrived at the inescapable conclusion that the crux of this appeal as well as the entire essence of the Appellant’s Suit, had been rendered merely academic and therefore, no longer of an utilitarian value in the light of the finality of the pronouncement of the apex Court on the powers of INEC to deregister any Political Party in accordance with Section 225A of the Constitution of Nigeria 1999 (as amended by the Fourth Alteration Act No. 9 of 2017), and which power once exercised in line with the laws of the land cannot be invalidated by the Courts. the issue or the perennial battle for supremacy between ‘substantial justice’ and ‘technical justice’ reared up its head at once to play on the conscience of the Court should we jettison and discountenance technicality bordering on incompetence of the Appellant’s appeal and consider this appeal on the merit or should we give effect to the settled principle or law that nothing worth anything can ever come out from an incompetent Suit? In African Songs Limited & Anor V. King Sunday Adeniyi Adegeye (2019) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1656) 335 at p. 365 – 366, this Court had cause to consider the place of ‘substantial justice’ and ‘technical justice’ in the due administration of justice in this Country and had per Sir Biobele Abraham Georgewill JCA, opined inter alia thus:
“My Lords, while in today’s jurisprudence of ‘substantial justice’ the issue of ‘mere technicality’ no longer holds sway, yet it is truism that competence is the soul of adjudication. It is in this sense the issue of competence can no longer in law truly be regarded as ‘mere technicality’ but rather be seen as substantial issue of law. ln other words, while eschewing technicality for its sake, a Court can only exercise jurisdiction where all conditions precedent to the exercise of its powers have been fulfilled.”
I do not think I can improve on the statement of law I made above and thus, I cannot but bow to it. I fully subscribe to its truism and so it is with the Appellant’s appeal.

In law, issue of jurisdiction and of competence are fundamental and constitute the life blood of every cause or action and thus where the requisite jurisdiction is found to be lacking, that is indeed the end of the matter. See Madukolu V. Nkemdilim (1962) 2 All NLR 581. See also Petro Jessica Ent. Ltd V. Leventis Trading Co. Ltd. (1992) 5 NWLR (Pt. 244) 132, Okereke V. Yar’Adua (2008) All FWLR (Pt. 430) 25, AG. Lagos State V. Dosunmu (1989) 3 NWLR (Pt. 111) 552, Umanah V. Attah (2006) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1009) 503 at p. 525.

Indeed, the Courts are loath to and do not saddle themselves with the consideration or matters which had become merely academic and therefore, of no utilitarian value to either of the parties. To embark on such exercise of jurisdiction of the Courts over matters which are no longer live would clearly amount to nothing but sheer waste of the very precious and, if I may say scarce, judicial time. In Charles Oke & Anor V. Dr. Rahman Mimiko & Ors (2013) All FWLR (Pt. 693) 1853, the full Court of the Supreme Court per Muhammad JSC, had this to say on this issue:
“It is a principle of law long settled that the general attitude of the Courts of law is that they are loathe in making pronouncements on academic/hypothetical issues as it does not serve any useful purpose.”
See also Uba Plc V. Dana Drugs Ltd (2018) LPELR – 44103 (CA), per Sir Biobele Abraham Georgewill JCA, Mbachu V. Anambra – Imo Rivers Basin Development Authority, Owerri (2006) All FWLR (Pt. 342) 1482 at p 1497.

It is in the light of the above comments of mine and for the fuller reasons contained in the leading judgment that I too hold that the appeal lacks merit and is thus liable to be dismissed. I too hereby dismiss the appeal. l shall abide by the consequential orders made in the leading judgment, including the order as to no cost.

Appearances:

Chibuzor C. Ezike, Esq, with him, Mary Nneoma Elizah, Esq. For Appellant(s)

Wendy Kuku, Esq, for the 2nd Respondent/Applicant. For Respondent(s)