CHIEF GREAT OVEDJE OGBORU v. CHIEF CYRIL OGODO & ORS
(2019)LCN/13104(CA)
In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
On Monday, the 15th day of April, 2019
CA/B/198/2019
JUSTICES
CHIOMA EGONDU NWOSU-IHEME Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
PHILOMENA MBUA EKPE Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
MOORE ASEIMO ABRAHAM ADUMEIN Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
Between
CHIEF GREAT OVEDJE OGBORU Appellant(s)
AND
1. CHIEF CYRIL OGODO
(Chairman, All progressive Congress (APC), Delta State) for himself and on behalf of members of the Executive Committee of APC Delta State.
2. CHIEF MOSES ADJARHO
(Chairman, APC Ethiope East Local Government Area, Delta State) for himself and on behalf of all the members of the Executive Committee of APC in the 25 Local Government Area of Delta State)
3. MR. KAYODE JIMOH
(Chairman, APC ward 5, Sapele Local Government Area Delta State) for himself and on behalf of all the members of the Executive Committee of APC in all the 270 Wards in Delta State)
4. ALL PROGRESSIVES CONGRESS
5. COMRADE ADAMS OSHIOMHOLE
(the national Chairman, All Progressive Congress, for himself and on behalf of members of the National Working Committee of the All Progressive Congress)
6. INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION (INEC)
7. PROPHET JONES ERUE
(Purported Chairman of the Delta State Chapter of the All Progressive Congress) Respondent(s)
RATIO
WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT CAN DETERMINE ACADEMIC ISSUES
A Court of law does not waste its precious judicial time in delving into an academic exercise, which invariably is an exercise in futility. See FRN v. Wabara (2013) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1347) 331; Oniah v. Onyia (1989) 1 NWLR (Pt. 99) 514 and Senator Umaru Dahiru v. All Progressives Congress (2017) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1555) 248. PER ADUMEIN, J.C.A.
CHIOMA EGONDU NWOSU-IHEME, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): The 1st, 2nd and 3rd Respondents, as Plaintiffs at the trial Court, filed this Suit on the 26th of September, 2018 seeking declarations that they are the lawful State Executive Officers of the 4th Respondent, All Progressive Congress (APC) in Delta State.
The Plaintiffs sought an injunction restraining the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) from recognizing the outcome of the Primary Election of the 4th Respondent, except they are allowed to participate as delegates therein, as the lawful Delta State Executive Officers of the Respondent therein.
Few days after the filing of the Suit, the 4th Respondent conducted its Primary election for the selection of its Gubernatorial and other candidates in Delta State on the 30th of September, 2018 and other days on which Primary elections were conducted. The Appellant emerged the winner of the Primary election and thus became the candidate of the 4th Respondent in Delta State for the Gubernatorial election.
?Following the relief sought that the Appellant should not be
1
recognized as the candidate of the 4th Respondent, the Appellant applied to be joined as a defendant in the Suit vide a motion on Notice filed on the 21st of January, 2019. The Plaintiffs (now Respondents) opposed the application.
The trial Court heard the application for joinder, and on the 20th of February, 2019 in a considered Ruling dismissed the application for joinder.
The Appellant on the 21/2/19 filed an application for leave to appeal on grounds other than law, the application was fixed for hearing on the 12th of March, 2019.
On the said 12th of March, 2019 when the application was called, the learned trial Court dismissed it for the reason that the motion had exceeded 14 days after filing.
The trial Court proceeded to deliver Judgment in the substantive matter declaring the Appellant not properly nominated as the Gubernatorial candidate of the 4th Respondent.
This Appeal is against the Ruling of the trial Court delivered on the 20th of February, 2019 refusing the application to join the Appellant as a Defendant in Suit No. FHC/ASB/76/2018.
Learned Counsel for the Appellant Ebuka Nwaeze Esq.
2
formulated four issues for determination, while learned counsel for the 1st ? 3rd Respondents distilled a sole issue for determination.
Before going into the issues formulated in this Appeal and the arguments of counsel, it is pertinent to look at relevant provisions of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended). This will determine whether or not there is need to go into the merits of this Appeal or otherwise.
It is on Record that the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Respondents herein as Plaintiffs at the Court below filed the Suit that gave rise to this appeal on the 26th of September, 2018. Section 285(10) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) provides as follows:
?A Court in every pre-election matter shall deliver its judgment in writing within 180 days from the date of the filing of the Suit.?
Section 285(12) of the same Constitution provides thus:
?An appeal from a decision of a Court in a pre-election matter shall be heard and disposed of within 60 days from the date of filing the appeal.?
?Considering the fact that this appeal is on the Ruling of the
3
trial Court dismissing the application by the Appellant herein to join as a Defendant at the Court below which Ruling was delivered on the 20/2/19, the question that calls for a quick answer is in view of the provisions of Section 285(10) already reproduced above whether this appeal is still a live issue?
The 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Respondents filed the Suit that gave rise to this appeal on the 26th of September, 2018 i.e. about seven months ago. Already the 180 days provided for in Section 285(10) has lapsed. The same Constitution did not give room for extension of time. It is my view that it will serve no useful purpose going into the merits of this appeal, bearing in mind that the 180 days had expired already.
In view of this development i.e. that the period allowed the trial Court had lapsed even before the hearing of this appeal, it will be unnecessary and purely academic to go into the merits of this appeal knowing that it would be null and void and serve no useful purpose embarking on this exercise in futility.
?It is also on Record that judgment has been delivered in the substantive appeal. It will be impossible to resurrect
4
this matter as it is dead. It has therefore become purely academic and Courts of law do not entertain academic exercise, only universities do.
Accordingly, this appeal is struck out for being a mere academic exercise.
I make no order as to costs.
PHILOMENA MBUA EKPE, J.C.A.: I have had the benefit of reading in draft the lead Judgment of my learned brother. CHIOMA EGONDU NWOSU-IHEME (Ph.D) JCA just delivered. I agree entirely with the reasoning and the conclusion reached. I do not have anything more useful to add.
This appeal is struck out accordingly by me for being a mere academic exercise.
I make no order as to costs in the lead Judgment.
MOORE ASEIMO ABRAHAM ADUMEIN, J.C.A.: I had a preview of the judgment just delivered by my learned brother, Chioma Egondu Nwosu-lheme, JCA.
I agree that this appeal has become academic and it should be struck out. A Court of law does not waste its precious judicial time in delving into an academic exercise, which invariably is an exercise in futility. See FRN v. Wabara (2013) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1347) 331; Oniah v. Onyia (1989) 1
5
NWLR (Pt. 99) 514 and Senator Umaru Dahiru v. All Progressives Congress (2017) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1555) 248.
?It is for the above reason and the fuller reasons given by my learned brother that I also strike out this appeal.
I abide by the order as to costs.
6
Appearances:
Ebuka NwaezeFor Appellant(s)
O.J. Oghenejakpor with him, R. A. Ekpe, K. K. Iseru and S.O. Adamu for the 1st-3rd Respondents.
O. Olusiyi for the 6th Respondent.
J.O. Gbakeji for the 4th, 5th and 7th RespondentFor Respondent(s)
Appearances
Ebuka NwaezeFor Appellant
AND
O.J. Oghenejakpor with him, R. A. Ekpe, K. K. Iseru and S.O. Adamu for the 1st-3rd Respondents.
O. Olusiyi for the 6th Respondent.
J.O. Gbakeji for the 4th, 5th and 7th RespondentFor Respondent
