CHIEF IKECHI EMENIKE v. DR. UCHECHUKWU SAMPSON OGAH & ORS
(2019)LCN/13873(CA)
In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
On Thursday, the 28th day of March, 2019
CA/A/86/2019
RATIO
THE DOCTRINE OF ESTOPPEL: WHEN DOES IT APPLY
The law on this point has been restated in an unending line of judicial decisions. In Ugo v. Ugo (2017) 18 NWLR (Pt 1597) 225 at 238-239 cited by Mr. Ajara for the 1st respondent, the Supreme Court, per Eko JSC restated the conditions thusly-
i. The parties and/or their privies must be the same;
ii. Issue(s) in both the previous and the present cases must be the same;
iii. The decision in the previous case must be valid, subsisting and final;
iv. The res or the subject matter in the two cases must be the same;
v. The Court that gave or rendered the previous decision must be competent.” PER EMMANUEL AKOMAYE AGIM, J.C.A.
A PLEA OF RES JUDICATA
A plea of res judicata can only be based on an earlier judgment of a Court of competent jurisdiction. If the Court that rendered the judgment lacked the jurisdiction to entertain and determine that case, then it is not a Court of competent jurisdiction and its judgment cannot be relied on to raise a plea of res judicata in subsequent proceedings. In our present case, the High Court of Federal Capital Territory that rendered the judgment in Suit No FCT/CV/3097/2018, relied on by the appellant here to raise the plea of res judicata, lacked the territorial jurisdiction to entertain and determine this suit as held by this Court in appeal No. CA/A/48/2019 (Ogah v. Emenike & Ors) against the said judgment and by the Supreme Court in the further appeal in SC/116/2019 (Emenike v. Ogah & Ors). For this reason, this Court and the Supreme Court set aside the said judgment. The said decision of the Supreme Court delivered on 5-3-2019 has rendered this issue No. 1 academic. No useful purpose would be served considering this issue as the proceedings being relied on to raise this issue has been set aside for lack of jurisdiction. PER EMMANUEL AKOMAYE AGIM, J.C.A.
JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL HIGH COURTS EXPLAINED
There is only one Federal High Court for the whole country. It is created by S.249 of the 1999 Constitution as a Federal High Court. There is nothing in the said Constitution, limiting its jurisdiction to any particular part of Nigeria. Therefore its territorial jurisdiction is nationwide.
The establishment of divisions of the Federal High Court in each State of the country is an administrative arrangement to facilitate access to those Courts by persons in the various states of the Federation and thereby reduce the costs and time of obtaining justice in that Court and does not curtail the nationwide territorial jurisdiction of that court wherever it is sitting. This view is supported by the decision of the Supreme Court in Akeredolu v. Abraham & Ors (supra) thusly ? ?in the present case, the originating processes were issued under the Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rule 2009 whose jurisdiction covers the entire country and the various divisions of the Court are for administrative convenience only. Section 19(1) of the Federal High Court Act provides as follows: ?19(1) the Court shall have and exercise jurisdiction throughout the Federation and for that purpose the whole area of the Federation shall be divided by the Chief Judge into such number of Judicial Divisions or part thereof by such name as he may think fit.? Also Order 6 Rule 31 of the Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2009 defines ?Out of jurisdiction? to mean out of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. See: Agip (Nig) Ltd v. Agip Petrol International & Ors (2010) NWLR (Pt. 1187) 348.?
Ss. 19(1), (2) and (3) of the Federal High Court Act provides as follows-
1. The Court shall have and exercise jurisdiction throughout the Federation and for that purpose the whole area of the Federation shall be divided by the Chief Judge into such number of Judicial Divisions or part thereof by such name as he may think fit.
2. For the more convenient dispatch of business, the more judicial division as the Chief Judge may direct, and he may also direct one or more Judges to sit in anyone or more of the judicial division.
3. The Chief Judge shall determine the distribution of the business before the Court amongst the Judges thereof and may assign any judicial function to any Judge or Judges or in respect of any particular cause or matter in a judicial division.
4. Subject to directions of the Chief Judge, every Judge of the Court shall sit for the trial of civil and criminal cases or matters and for the disposal of other legal business the Chief Judge may think fit.
PER EMMANUEL AKOMAYE AGIM, J.C.A.
JUSTICES
TINUADE AKOMOLAFE-WILSON Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
PETER OLABISI IGE Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
EMMANUEL AKOMAYE AGIM Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
Between
CHIEF IKECHI EMENIKE Appellant(s)
AND
1. DR. UCHECHUKWU SAMPSON OGAH
2.ALL PROGRESSIVES CONGRESS (APC)
3.INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION (INEC) Respondent(s)
EMMANUEL AKOMAYE AGIM, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): This appeal No. CA/A/86/2019 was commenced on 28-1-2019 when the appellant herein filed a notice of appeal against the judgment of the Federal High Court at Abuja delivered on 25-1-2019 in Suit No FHC/ABJ/CS/1478/2018 by A.I. Chikere J. The notice of appeal contains 6 grounds of appeal.
The appellant, 1st and 2nd respondents have filed, exchanged and adopted their respective briefs as follows- appellant?s brief, 1st respondent?s brief, 2nd respondent?s brief.
The appellant?s brief raised the following issues for determination-
1. Was the Court below right when it held that the 1st respondent?s suit before it was not caught by the doctrine of estoppels in view of Exhibit Ikechi ?5 (Distilled from Grounds One and Five)
2. Was the Court below right when it held that the case of MAILANTARKI Vs TONGO (2017) LPELR 42467 SC was not applicable to the 1st respondent?s suit before it? (Distilled from Ground Three)
3. Was the Court below right when it held that the 1st respondent?s suit before it was not statute-barred? (Distilled from Ground Four)
4. Was the Court below right when it held that the 1st respondent?s suit was not an abuse of Court process? (Distilled from Ground 6)
5. Was the Court below right when it proceeded to sit on appeal over the judgment of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory as reflected in Exhibit ?Ikechi 5 (Distilled from Ground 2)
The 1st and 2nd respondents in their respective briefs adopted the above issues raised for determination in the appellant?s brief.
I will determine this appeal on the basis of the issues raised for determination in the appellant?s brief.
Before I delve into the merits of the said issues raised for determination in the appellants brief, let me determine an issue that touches on the jurisdiction of this Court to entertain this appeal. This Court, on 13-3-2019, when this appeal was heard, asked the parties thusly – who won the 9th March 2019 general election of Governor of Abia State? They all answered that Dr Okezie Ikpeazu of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) won the election. This Court then asked the parties to address it on whether this appeal had not become academic since it is not the 1st respondent as the candidate of the 2nd respondent for the election that won the election.
Learned SAN for the appellant argued that notwithstanding that the general election of Governor Abia State had taken place and was won by PDP, the issues raised in the suit leading to this appeal and in this appeal are still alive in view of the privilege enjoyed as a candidate of the 2nd respondent, especially as the result of the said election may be challenged in the Election Tribunal, and as held inBoko v. Nungwa (2019) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1654) 895 at 424 a pre-election case outlives the general election and any petition arising therefrom.
Learned Counsel for the 1st respondent argued that this appeal is spent and is now an academic exercise because the general election of Abia State Governor was won by Dr Okezie Ikpeazu of PDP, that the 1st and 2nd responde
