GIADOM v. MOSES & ORS (2020)

GIADOM v. MOSES & ORS

(2020)LCN/14853(CA)

In The Court Of Appeal

(ABUJA JUDICIAL DIVISION)

On Tuesday, December 29, 2020

CA/PH/226/2020

RATIO

APPEAL: ESSENCE OF ORDER 10 RULE (1) OF THE COURT OF APPEAL RULES 2016

JURISDICTION: NATURE OF JURISDICTION OF THE COURT OF APPEAL

Jurisdiction to entertain an appeal in this Court is pivotal to Appellant judicial adjudication, wherever jurisdiction of an Appellant Court is so challenged the Court must defer to it and determine the merit or otherwise of the objection. Where the objection is sustained that ends the appeal and where the objection is found to be frivolous, it will be dismissed to clear the way for adjudication on the appeal on the merit.
SEE: (1) MKPEN TIZA & ANOR V. IORAKPEN (2005) 15 NWLR (PART 949) 616 ALSO REPORTED AS LPELR 3251 (SC) 1 AT 18 PER MVSDAPHER, JSC LATER CJN RTD who said:-
“Now, the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal to entertain or to adjudicate on any matter brought before it, is statutory. Thus there may be circumstances which the Court would have no Constitutional jurisdiction to deal with a matter, So when the competence of an appeal is raised. So when the competence of an appeal is raised, the Court is duty bound first to determine whether the appeal is competent before taking any further step in the appeal. The decision of the Court of Appeal in this case that “But whether the said grounds are valid or not will be left to the Court to decide at the end and not at the beginning…” cannot, with respect, be correct. The failure to file an appeal within the ambit of the statutory or constitutional provisions would deprive the Court of the Jurisdiction to entertain the matter:- SEE OPANYE VS JIBOWU (1950) 13 WACA 41; OHIN MOORE V. AKESSEH TAYE E. 1 WACA 242 in which case the privy Council was concerned with the failure of the Appellant to fulfill certain statutory conditions requisite for the purposes of appeal. Lord ATKIN delivering the judgment of the Court said on page 454:
“…like any other Court (we) are bound by the statute law, and if the statute law says there shall be no jurisdiction in certain event, and that event has occurred, then it is impossible for their Lordships or for any other Court to have jurisdiction.”
2. NONYE IWUNZE V. F.R.N (2014) 6 NWLR (PT.1404) 500 AT 596 D – E where the apex Court per OLABODE RHODES-VIVOUR, JSC said:-
“The Constitution confers on the Court of Appeal jurisdiction to hear and determine appeals. The jurisdiction is statutory and also controlled by rules of Court. The Court of Appeal would lack jurisdiction to hear an appeal if an appellant fails to comply with statutory provisions or the relevant rules of the Court.” PER OLABISI IGE, J.C.A.

JURISDICTION: EFFECT OF FAILURE OF A PARTY TO OBTAIN LEAVE OF COURT TO APPEAL WHERE IT IS REQUIRED

It is the law that where leave is required for a party to competently exercise his right of appeal against a decision of a Court failure to first seek and obtain leave of Court to appeal will make the appeal incompetent and the Appellate Court will also be bereft of jurisdiction to entertain the appeal.
See:
1.BI-COURTNEY LIMITED V. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE FEDERATION & ANOR. (2019) 10 NWLR (PART 1679) 112 AT 125 C PER SANUSI JSC.
2. HON. Z. I. GARUBA & ORS V. HON. BRIGHT OMOKHODION & ORS (2011) 15 NWLR (PT. 1269) 145 AT 182 PER CHUKWUMA-ENEH, JSC who said:

“Finally, it has been argued in this matter that this appeal has been struck out by the lower Court for failing to seek and obtain leave of Court before filing the appeal as prescribed by Section 242 of the 1999 Constitution as amended having raised grounds of mixed law and facts therein. It is also common ground that the trial Court’s directive to deal first with the preliminary objections amounts to an interlocutory order based on the exercise of its discretion. It is trite law that an appeal against an interlocutory decision other than on grounds of law requires leave of Court. The provisions of Sections 241(1) and 242 (supra) have clearly set out when appeals will be presented as the right or with leave respectively of the Federal High Court or State High Court or, the Court of Appeal as the case may be. And so it is settled law that right to appeal is statutory.” PER OLABISI IGE, J.C.A.
APPEAL: WHEN WILL AN APPEAL LIE TO THE COURT OF APPEAL AS OF RIGHT

Now Section 241 of Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 as amended provides:
“241 An appeal shall lie from decisions of the Federal High Court or a High Court the Court of Appeal as of right in the following cases-
(a) final decisions in any civil or criminal proceedings before the Federal High Court or a High Court sitting at first instance;
(b) where the ground of appeal involves questions of law alone, decisions in any civil or criminal proceedings;
(c) decisions in any civil or criminal proceedings on questions as to the interpretation or application of this Constitution;
(d) decisions in any civil or criminal proceedings on questions as to whether any of the provisions of Chapter IV of this Constitution has been, is being or is likely to be, contravened in relation to any person;
(e) decisions in any criminal proceedings in which the Federal High Court or a High Court has imposed a sentence of death;
(f) decisions made or given by the Federal High Court or a High Court-
(i) where the liberty of a person or the custody of an infant is concerned.
(ii) where an injunction or the appointment of a receiver is granted or refused.
(iii) in the case of a decision determining the ease of a creditor or the liability or a contributory of other officer under any enactment relating to companies in respect of misfeasance or otherwise.
(iv) in the case of a decree nisi in a matrimonial cause or a decision in an Admiralty action determining liability, and
(v) in such other cases as may be prescribed by an Act of the National Assembly.
(2) Nothing in this section shall confer any right of appeal –
(a) from a decision of the Federal High Court or any High Court granting unconditional leave to defend an action;
(b) from an order absolute for the dissolution or nullity of marriage in favour of any party who, having had time and opportunity to appeal from the decree nisi on which the order was founded had not appealed from that decree nisi; and
(c) without the leave of the Federal High Court or a High Court or of the Court of Appeal from a decision of the Federal High Court or High Court made with the consent of the parties or as to costs only”
The above situations provide for appeals as of right from the Federal High Court or High Court of a State or the Federal Capital Territory. Nothing can curtail the right of appeal without leave accorded any party falling within the enumerated cases listed in Section 241 of the Constitution. PER OLABISI IGE, J.C.A.

JURISDICTION: IMPORTANCE OF JURISDICTION

The importance of jurisdiction of a Court or Tribunal cannot be overemphasized. Jurisdictional issue or point is always pivotal in adjudication over cause or matter instituted before a Court or Tribunal. Jurisdiction is the heartbeat of every litigation or suit. Any proceeding or trial embarked upon or undertaken without necessary jurisdiction by a Court or Tribunal will be a nullity. A Defendant needs not file a Statement of Defence formally raising issue of jurisdiction or to challenge the competence of a Court to entertain a cause or matter. It can be raised at any stage of the proceedings and the Court seised of the cause or matter can also raise it suo motu. It is the engine room of any Court or Tribunal.
1. CHIEF DANIEL A. OLOBA VS ISAAC OLUBODUN AKEREJA (1988) 3 NWLR (PT. 84) 508 AT 520 B – E per OBASEKI, JSC who said:-
“The issue or jurisdiction is very fundamental as it goes to the competence or the Court or Tribunal. If a Court or Tribunal is not competent to entertain a matter or claim or suit, it is a waste of valuable time for the Court to embark on the hearing and determination of the suit, matter or claim, it is therefore an exhibition of wisdom to have the issue or jurisdiction determined before embarking on the hearing and determination of the substantive matter. The issue of jurisdiction being a fundamental issue. It can be raised at any stage of the proceedings in the Court, or first instance or in the Appeal Courts.”
This issue can be raised by any of the parties or by the Court itself suo motu. When there are sufficient facts ex facie on the record establishing a want of competence or jurisdiction in the Court, it is the duty of the Judge or Justices to raise the issue suo motu if the parties fail to draw the Court’s attention to it, see Odiase v. Agho (supra). There is no justice in exercising jurisdiction where there is none. It is injustice to the law, to the Court and to the parties so to do.
A suit or action must be initiated by due process and upon fulfillment of any condition precedent to exercise of jurisdiction otherwise the action will be adjudged incompetent and thus rob the Court of jurisdiction.
See PRINCESS STELLA ADAEZE ODUAH VS SENATOR MARGERY CHUBA OKADIGBO & ORS (2019) 3 NWLR (PART 1660) 433 AT 460 B – F per JSC who said:-
“There is no doubt that jurisdiction is a threshold matter. It is the bedrock of any judicial proceeding. It is the legal capacity, power or authority to adjudicate vested in a Court by the Constitution or statute which created it. The absence of jurisdiction or any defect therein renders the entire proceedings a nullity, no matter how well conducted. The fundamental essence of jurisdiction was eloquently captured by His Lordship, Bello, CJN in Utih v. Onoyivwe (1991) SC (Pt. 1) 65 @ 96 – 97: (1991) 1 NWLR (Pt. 166) 166, where he stated thus:

“Jurisdiction is the blood that gives life to the survival of an action in a Court of law and without jurisdiction, the action will be like an animal that has been drained of its blood. It will cease to have life and any attempt to resuscitate it without infusing blood in it would be an abortive exercise.”
In the locus classicus, Madukolu v. Nkemdilim (1962) 2 SCNLR 341, it was held that a Court is competent adjudicate when:
i. it is properly constituted as regards numbers and qualifications of the members of the bench, and no member is disqualified for one reason or the other; and
ii. the subject matter of the case is within its jurisdiction and there is no feature in the case which prevents the Court from exercising its jurisdiction; and
iii. the case comes before the Court initiated by due process of law and upon the fulfillment of any condition precedent to the exercise of jurisdiction. Any defect in competence is fatal, for the proceedings are a nullity, however well conducted and decided: the defect is extrinsic to the adjudication.”
See also: Skenconsult (Nig.) Ltd. v. Ukeh (1981) 1 S.C. 6 at 62; Inakoju v. Adeleke (2007) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1025) 427 at 588 F; Dingyadi v. INEC (2010) LPELR-40142 (SC), (2010) (No.1) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1224) 1; NNPC v. Clifco (Nig.) Ltd. (2011) 4 SC (Pt. 1) 108, (2011) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1255) 29; Shitta-Bey v. A.-G. Federation & Anor. (1998) 10 NWLR (Pt.570) 392.”
Where it is thus shown that the lower Court lacks the jurisdiction to adjudicate on a cause or matter, an Appellate Court will declare the relief and orders made therein a nullity. ALHAJI JIBRIN BALA HASSAN VS. DR. MUAZU BABANGIDA ALIYU & OTHERS (2010) 11 SCM 69 at 93 E per ONNOGHEN JSC, now Ag. CJN who said:
“It is trite that jurisdiction is very fundamental to adjudication and that where a Court lacks the competence to hear and determine a matter but proceeds to do so, an appellate Court is duty bound to nullify a decision resulting therefrom.” PER OLABISI IGE, J.C.A.

Before Our Lordships:

Peter Olabisi Ige Justice of the Court of Appeal

Yargata Byenchit Nimpar Justice of the Court of Appeal

Elfrieda Oluwayemisi Williams-Dawodu Justice of the Court of Appeal

Between

HON. VICTOR GIADOM APPELANT(S)

And

DELE MOSES 2. AZUNDA WORI 3. ALL PROGRESSIVES CONGRESS (APC) 4. COMRADE ADAMS OSHIOMEHOLE 5. RT. HONOURABLE IGO AGUMA (Acting Chairman Of All Progressives Congress Rivers State) 6. BABATUNDE OGALA, ESQ. (National Legal Adviser, All Progressives Congress) RESPONDENT(S)

PETER OLABISI IGE, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): By their Originating Summons dated 18th June 2020 and filed on 19th June 2020 in the High Court of Rivers State of Nigerian holden at Port Harcourt, the 1st and 2nd Respondent as claimants sought for the following reliefs:
1. A DECLARATION that sequel to the resignation of the 3rd Defendant (Hon. Victor Giadom) as the Deputy National Secretary of the 1st Defendant in 2018, for the purposes of contesting in the 2019 general elections as the Deputy Governor of Rivers State, the 3rd Defendant is no longer the Deputy National Secretary of the 1st Defendant.
2. A DECLARATION that the 3rd Defendant (Hon. Victor Giadom) is not a member of the National Working Committee (NWC) of the 1st Defendant having resigned his membership of the National Working Committee (NWC) of the 1st Defendant for the purposes of contesting in the 2019 general elections as the Deputy Governor of Rivers State.
3. A DECLARATION that the resignation of the 3rd Defendant (Hon. Victor Giadom) as the Deputy National Secretary of the 1st Defendant in 2018 is valid and effective from 2018 till date.

A DECLARATION that the 3rd Defendant (Hon. Victor Giadom) is not the National Chairman, or Acting National Chairman, or Deputy National Secretary or otherwise howsoever a member of the National Working Committee of the 1st Defendant.
5. AN ORDER restraining the 3rd Defendant (Hon. Victor Giadom) from issuing, signing or endorsing any document or correspondent to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) or any other body or institution in the capacity of the National Chairman or Acting National Chairman of the 1st Defendant or howsoever as an officer of the 1st Defendant.
6. AN ORDER of perpetual injunction restraining the 1st, 2nd, 4th, and 5th Defendants from recognizing or regarding the 3rd Defendant as either; a member of the National Working Committee (NWC), the Deputy National Secretary, National Chairman or Acting National Chairman of the 1st Defendant.
7. And for such Order(s) as the Honourable Court may deem fit to make in the circumstance.

The reliefs are predicated on anticipated favourable answers to the following questions posed for determination of lower Court:
THE CLAIMANTS SEEK THE DETERMINATION OF THE FOLLOWING

QUESTION(S):
1. Whether by the careful reading of Article 31, (1), (iii) of the All Progressives Congress Constitution, an officer of the 1st Defendant or a member of the National Working Committee can contest an election without first resigning such position in the absence of a waiver properly applied for and validly granted.
2. Whether having resigned as the Deputy National Secretary and member of the National Working Committee of the 1st Defendant, in accordance with Article 31 (1), (III) which makes such resignation compulsory, the 3rd Defendant is still entitled to parade himself or act as either the National Chairman, Acting National Chairman, Deputy National Secretary or member of a National Working Committee of the 1st Defendant?
3. Considering the provisions of Article 31 (1), (iii) of the All Progressives Congress’ Constitution 2014 (as amended), whether the said resignation of the 3rd Defendant as the Deputy National Secretary and member of the National Working Committee of the 1st Defendant is valid and effective?

The said Originating Summons was accompanied by verifying affidavit and affidavit in support consisting of 20

paragraphs which are as follows:
“AFFIDAVIT SETTING OUT THE FACTS RELIED UPON IN THE ORIGINATING SUMMONS
I, Dele Moses, Nigerian, Christian, Adult, Male citizen of No. 28 Gbarabani Close Baa Lueku, Khana Local Government of River State, Nigeria do herby make oath and state as follows:
1. I am the 1st Claimant on record and I am very conversant with the facts of this case.
2. I have the consent and authority of the 2nd Claimant in this suit to depose to this affidavit for myself and on behalf of him.
3. The 1st Defendant is a registered political party here in Nigeria, the 2nd Defendant is the current National Chairman of the 1st Defendant. Also, the 3rd Defendant is a former Deputy National Secretary of the 1st Defendant, the 4th Defendant is the Acting Chairman of All Progressives Congress, Rivers State Chapter while the 5th Defendant is the National Legal Adviser of the 1st Defendant.
4. The Claimants are all fully registered and financial members of the All Progressives Congress (the 1st Defendant) from different Wards of the 319 Wards of Rivers State as delineated by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).

Copies of the Claimants membership registration slips are hereby attached and marked as exhibits A and A1.
5. Sometime in 2018, the 3rd Defendant who was the Deputy National Secretary and member of the 1st Defendant’s National Working Committee (NWC) resigned his said positions as national officer of the 1st Defendant in order to contest as the deputy governor of Rivers State in the 2019 general elections.
6. The Constitution of the 1st Defendant specifically provided for resignation of any party officer who is interested in contesting for an elective office (whether party office or office in a general election). A copy of the 1st Defendant Constitution is herewith exhibited and marked as Exhibit B.
7. That upon the said resignation of the 3rd Defendant which is in compliance with the 1st Defendant’s Constitution, the 1st Defendant transmitted the 3rd Defendant’s name to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), as the Rivers State Deputy Governorship candidate of the party.
8. The 3rd Defendant printed campaign posters, engaged and fully participated in campaign activities for the 1st Defendant’s primaries in 2018.

I know that the resignation of the 3rd Defendant as the Deputy National Secretary and member of the National Working Committee of the 1st Defendant in order to contest as the Deputy governor of Rivers State in the 2019 general elections is valid, effective and in compliance with the 1st Defendant’s Constitution.
10. I know the resignation of the 3rd Defendant as the Deputy National Secretary and member of the National Working Committee the 1st Defendant took effect from the date the notice of resignation was received by the 1st Defendant in 2018.
11. I know that having resigned as the Deputy National and member of the National Working Committee of the 1st Defendant, the 3rd Defendant is not entitled to parade himself or act as either the National Chairman, Acting National Chairman, Deputy National Secretary or member of the National Working Committee of the 1st Defendant being no longer an officer of the 1st Defendant.
12. I know as of fact that there is no provision of the 1st Defendant’s Constitution that stipulates that any member of the 1st Defendant who resigns as an officer of the 1st Defendant to contest an election can come back to

re-occupy the same office after the election.
13. I also know that the 3rd Defendant does not have the powers to re-occupy or purport to re-occupy the same office that he has, by force of the party constitution resigned from without the party’s congress through which the 1st Defendant’s officers are elected.
14. If the Defendants are not restrained, and the 3rd Defendant is allowed to act as either an officer, a member of the National Working committee (NWC), Deputy National Secretary, National Chairman or Acting National Chairman of the 1st Defendant, the Constitution of the 1st Defendant will be grossly violated and the Claimants will be irreparably prejudiced.
15. I verily believe that the 3rd Defendant has chosen to proclaim himself as the Acting National Chairman of the 1st Defendant in order to destroy all the legacies of the 1st Defendant, which I have as a bonafide card carrying member of the 1st Defendant tirelessly worked for since its formation.
16. I know that the intervention of the Honourable Court is needed to stop the Defendants especially the 3rd Defendant from perpetrating injustice and to avoid break down of law and

order.
17. I know that the Defendants will not be prejudices by the grant of this application.
18. I undertake to pay any damage if this suit is found to be frivolous.
19. That it is in the interest of justice for this application to be granted to prevent the Defendants from violating the Constitution of the 1st Defendant.
20. I make this affidavit in utmost good faith believing the contents to be true and correct in accordance with the Oaths Act.”

The 1st and 2nd Respondents also filed processes seeking for injunction reliefs on the same date. Page 87-88 of the record shows that the 1st and 2nd Respondents learned counsel moved motion exparte seeking for various orders for injunction. Ruling on the said motion, the lower Court said:
“COURT RULING
I have carefully considered the submissions of Counsel and the processes filed in this application and I found that there is an urgent need to consider the reliefs sought by the Applicant.
Accordingly:
(1) An order of interim injunction is hereby made granted the reliefs contained in the Exparte Motion.
(2) The Applicants are to enter into an undertaking in

damages to the Respondents should this application turn out to be frivolous or if this order ought not to have been made.
(3) The enrolled order and the Motion on Notice are to be served on the Defendants/Respondents.”

The enrolled order can be found on page 90-92 of the record and it reads:
“IN THE HIGH COURT OF RIVERS STATE OF NIGERIA
IN THE PORT HARCOURT JUDICIAL DIVISION
HOLDEN AT PORT HARCOURT
SUIT NO: PHC/360/2020
BETWEEN
1. Dele Moses
2. Azunda Wori – CLAIMANTS/APPLICANTS
AND
All Progressives Congress (APC)
Comrade Adams Oshimole
Hon. Victor Giadom
Rt. Honourable Igo Aguma
(Acting Chairman of All Progressives Congress River State)
Babatunde Ogala, Esq.
(National Legal Adviser, All Progress Congress) – DEFENDANTS/RESPONDENTS
INTERIM ORDER
Upon this motion exparte coming upon for hearing and determination before His Lordship Hon. Justice F.A Fiberesima, Judge sitting at Court No. 23 and AFTER hearing the submissions of F.C. Nwafor with B. W. Georgewill of counsel for the Claimants/ Applicants.
F. A. FIBERESIMA: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AS FOLLOWS:

JUDGE
1. That an Interim Injunction be and is hereby made restraining the 3rd Defendant/Respondent acting by himself or through his privies or agent however described, from parading himself as the National Chairman of the 1st Defendant/Respondent or Deputy National Secretary of the 1st Defendant/ Respondent or member of the National Working Committee (NWC) of the 1st Defendant/Respondent pending the determination of the motion on Notice.
2. That an interim injunction be and is hereby made restraining the 3rd Defendant/Respondent from issuing, signing or endorsing any document to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) or any other body or Institution in the capacity the National Chairman, or Action National Chairman of the 1st Defendant/Respondent, or officer of the 1st Defendant/Respondent, or whatsoever capacity pending the hearing and determination of the motion on notice.
3. THAT an Order of Interim Injunction be and hereby made restraining the 1st, 2nd, 4th and 5th Defendants, acting by themselves or through any of their officers, agents, or privies from recognizing or regarding the Defendant/Respondent as the

National Chairman of the 1st Defendant/Respondent or Acting National chairman of the Defendant/Respondent or Deputy National Secretary of the 1st National Working Committee (NWC) of the 1st Defendant/Respondent pending the hearing and determination on the Motion on Notice.
4. THAT every order in this suit including Originating processes and other subsequent processes be served on Defendants/Respondent’s at the Defendants/Respondent’s Secretariat at No. 65A Road, Port Harcourt, Rivers State by pasting same on the notice board.
5. THAT the Applicants are to enter into undertaking in damages to the respondents should this application turn out to be frivolous if this Order ought not to have been made.
6. THAT the enrolled Order and the Motion on Notice are to be served on the Defendants/Respondents.
7. THAT this matter is adjourned to the 1st of July 2020 for hearing of the motion on Notice.
GIVEN AT PORT HARCOURT, under the seal of the Court, and the hand of the Presiding Judge, this 19th day of June, 2020.
PATRICIA N. VICTOR NWOKA, E.
Assistant Chief Registrar (Lit).”

On 29th June, 2020 the Appellant entered

conditional appearance in this suit. See page 85 of the record.

The appellants appealed against the aforesaid ruling of the lower Court vide his Notice of Appeal dated and filed 22nd day of June 2020 to this Court on six grounds which with their particulars are as follows:
“2. PART OF DECISION COMPLAINED OF:
The entire decision of the trial Court contained in the Ruling on the Exparte Order of Interim Injunction dated the 19th day of June, 2020.
1. GROUND 1
The learned trial judge erred in law which he proceeded to entertain Suit No. PHC/360/2020 and granting interim orders thereon when the trial Court lacked the jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
PARTICULARS OF ERROR
(a) The practice Directions issued by the Courts are accorded the same status as Rules of Court and ought to be mandatorily complied with.
(b) The Honourable Chief Judge of Rivers State issued Practice Directions known as High Court of Rivers State Practice Directions, No. 2 of 2020 to regulate the conduct of Court proceedings during the Covid- 19 pandemic period.
(c) The said Practice Directions stipulate that all processes to be filed at

the High Court of Rivers State must be filed online.
(d) The said Practice Direction at Rule 4(a),(i) stipulates that:
(i) All E-filing in the Rivers State judicial shall continue in accordance with Practice Direction No. 1 of 2019 through the RivComis platform.
(e) The present Suit and all accompanying processes were all filed manually at the Registry of the High Court of Rivers State in flagrant breach of the Rules of Court/Practice Direction.
2. GROUND 2
The learned trial judge erred when he proceeded to grant an interim order restraining the Appellant from exercising the functions of the Chairman of the 3rd Respondent thereby setting aside the earlier orders of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja in Suit No: FCT/HC/6447/2020.
PARTICULARS OF ERROR
(a) The High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (Coram: The Honourable Justice S. U Bature, Judge) on the 16th March, 2020 made an interim order mandating the Appellant to preside over the affairs of the 3rd Respondent.
(b) The 1st, 2nd and 3rd Respondents did not take steps to set aside, vary or challenge the said order in any way.
(c) The

Interim orders granted by the learned tried Judge in Suit No: PHC/360/2020 on the 19/06/2020 are at variance with the orders granted by the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja aforesaid.
(d) That the learned trial Judge lacks the jurisdiction to exercise appellate powers over the decisions and orders of a Court of co-ordinate jurisdiction.
3. GROUND THREE
The learned trial Judge erred in law when he granted at ex-parte stage, the substantive relies claimed in the Originating Summons.
PARTICULARS OF ERROR
(a) The 1st and 2nd Respondents’ Originating Summons seeks a total of seven (7) reliefs.
(b) Prayers numbered 1, 2 and 3 granted by the learned trial Judge at ex-parte stage are principally the same relief contained in the Originating Summons.
(c) The learned trial Judge pre-determined the substantive case in the Originating Summons at interlocutory stage.
(d) The learned trial Judge was without jurisdiction to grant the prayers at ex-parte stage.
4. GROUND FOUR
The learned trial Judge lacked jurisdiction to entertain the instant suit it being an internal affairs of a political

party.
PARTICULARS OF ERROR
(a) The Originating Summons seeks to determine the issue of membership of the Appellant and leadership of the 3rd Respondent political party.
(b) The issue of membership of the National Working Committee (NWC) of the 3rd Respondent’s political party is a political question.
(c) The internal affairs of a political party namely the 3rd Respondent are not justiciable, before the law Court.
(d) The learned trial Judge was without the jurisdiction when he entertained the suit and heard and made the ex-parte order of interim injunction.
5. GROUND FIVE
The learned trial Judge lacked jurisdiction to make the interim Order of injunction ex-parte.
PARTICULARS OF ERROR
(a) The jurisdiction to make Order in a suit is derivable from the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain the suit.
(b) Order made by a Court without jurisdiction is a nullity.
(c) The interim Order of injunction made ex-parte by the learned trial Judge in the instant suit on the 19th June, 2020 is nullity.
(d) The trial Court was altogether incompetent when it assumed jurisdiction.
<br< p=”” style=”box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;”>
</br<>

GROUND SIX
The learned trial Judge lacked the jurisdiction to entertain the suit and make the ex-parte Order of interim injunction when the 1st and 2nd Respondents as Claimants lacked the locus standi to institute the suit.
Particulars of Error
(a) The 1st and 2nd Respondents are not members of the National Working Committee (NWC) of the 3rd Respondent.
(b) The 1st and 2nd Respondents are not laying claim to the National Chairmanship or Acting National Chairmanship position or deputy national Secretary position of the 3rd Respondent.
(c) The 1st and 2nd Respondents have not fulfilled the condition precedent to institute the action.
5. RELIEFS SOUGHT FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL:
(i) AN ORDER allowing the appeal
(ii) AN ORDER setting aside the Ruling and Orders of the trial Court made Ex-parte on the 19th day of June, 2020 for want of jurisdiction
(iii) an order that the High Court of Rivers State presided over by Honourable Justice F.A. Fibersima, Judge, lacks the jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
(iv) an order of this Honourable Court striking out Suit No: PHC/360/2020 – Dele Moses & Anor Vs. All Progressives

Congress (APC) & 4 Ors for lack of jurisdiction.

The Appellant’s Brief of argument dated 23rd July 2020 was filed on 24th July 2020. It was deemed properly filed on 4th November, 2020. The 1st and 2nd Respondents Brief of Argument was dated 9th November, 2020 and filed on 11th November, 2020. It was deemed properly filed and served on 12th November, 2020 while the 4th Respondent filed his brief of argument on 11th Nov 2020. It is dated 10th November, 2020 and deemed filed on 12th November, 2020. The 5th Respondent’s brief of arguments was dated and filed 11th November, 2020 but deemed filed on 12/11/2020 while the 6th Respondent filed his own brief of Argument on 2nd December, 2020.

The Appellant on 20th November, 2020 filed Appellant’s reply brief of argument to each of the 1st and 2nd Respondents brief of argument, 4th Respondent’s brief of argument and 5th Respondent’s brief of argument, the said respective Appellant’ reply brief aforesaid were deemed properly filed on 30/11/2020. Appellant filed Appellant’s reply brief to 6th Respondent’s Brief of Argument on 4th December, 2020. Before the adoption of the briefs of argument on 4th

December, 2020 when the appeal was heard, the learned counsel to the 1st and 2nd Respondents informed the Court on the Notice of Preliminary Objection Incorporated into the 1st and 2nd Respondents brief of Argument and Legal Argument thereon contained on pages 2-7 (paragraphs 3.0 – 3.16) thereof. The said objection reads:
“3.0. NOTICE OF PRELIMINARY OBJECTION
3.1 TAKE NOTICE that the 1st and 2nd Respondents shall at the hearing of the appeal rely on this Notice of Preliminary Objection to contend that Appellant’s appeal is incompetent.
3.2 TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that the grounds for this objection are as follows:
(a) The subject-matter of this appeal are Orders of the High Court of Rivers State made ex parte over which the Appellant does not have any right of appeal by virtue of Section 14 of the Court of Appeal Act.
(b) The extant appeal being an interlocutory appeal, whose grounds of Court or this Court ought to be sought before the filing of the appeal.
(c) The failure to seek either the leave of the High Court or this Court before filing this Notice of Appeal renders the extant appeal incompetent and incurably bad in law.

(d) The Originating process in this appeal, the Notice of Appeal was not served on the 1st and 2nd Respondents personally.
(e) Indeed, the 1st and 2nd Respondents were not served with the Notice of Appeal whether personally or by substituted means.
(f) The appeal is deserving only of an order of dismissal.”

The 5th Respondent also filed Notice of Preliminary Objection which is on all four as that of the 1st and 2nd Respondents. It reads:
“3.0 NOTICE OF PRELIMINARY OBJECTION
3.1. The 5th Respondent shall at the hearing of this appeal rely on this Notice of Preliminary Objection to contend that the Appellant’s appeal is incompetent.
3.2. TAKE NOTICE that the grounds for this objection are as follows:
(a) This appeal arose from an Order of the lower Court made ex parte.
(b) The Appellant does not have any right of appeal to this Court over an order made ex parte by the lower Court by virtue of Section 14 of the Court of Appeal Act.
(c) The Notice of Appeal was not served on the 5th Respondent in this appeal personally or by substituted means.
(d) The appeal is deserving only of an order

of dismissal.”

In the same vein, the 6th Respondent filed Notice of Preliminary Objection against the hearing of the appeal. It reads:
“NOTICE OF PRELIMINARY OBJECTION BROUGHT PURSUANT TO ORDER 6 RULE 1, ORDER 10 RULE 1 OF THE COURT OF APPEAL RULES 2016, SECTION 14(1) OF THE COURT OF APPEAL ACT, 2004 AND UNDER THE INHERENT POWERS OF HIS HONOURABLE COURT.
TAKE NOTICE that this Honourable Court shall be moved on the … day of … 2020 at the hour of 9 O’ clock in the forenoon or so soon thereafter as Counsel to the 6th Respondent/Applicant may be heard praying this Honourable Court the following reliefs:
a. AN ORDER striking out or dismissing this appeal for being grossly incompetent and for total lack of jurisdiction.
b. AND FOR SUCH FURTHER ORDER(S) as the Honourable Court may deem fit to make in the circumstances of this unit.
TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that the grounds upon which this Application is brought are as follows:
a. This Honourable Court lacks jurisdiction to hear and determine this appeal.
b. Appellant/Respondent does not have a right to appeal against an Order made exparte pursuant to

Section 14 of the Court of Appeal Act, 2004.
c. This appeal is an interlocutory appeal for which the leave of the lower Court or this Court is required before the commencement.
d. The Appellant/Respondent did not seek the leave of the lower Court or this Honourable Court before the filling of the extant appeal.
e. The Appeal has become like an academic exercise.
f. The appeal is grossly incompetent and irreparably defective and ought to be struck out in limine or at best dismissed.”

Order 10 Rule (1) of the Court of Appeal, Rules 2016 has been put in place to enable a Respondent in an appeal who conceives or believes that an appeal is afflicted with fundamental defect making it incompetent and ought to be terminated in limine without wasting of stupendous time of going into the merit of the appeal can file Notice of Preliminary Objection. Jurisdiction to entertain an appeal in this Court is pivotal to Appellant judicial adjudication, wherever jurisdiction of an Appellant Court is so challenged the Court must defer to it and determine the merit or otherwise of the objection. Where the objection is sustained that ends the appeal and

where the objection is found to be frivolous, it will be dismissed to clear the way for adjudication on the appeal on the merit.
SEE: (1) MKPEN TIZA & ANOR V. IORAKPEN (2005) 15 NWLR (PART 949) 616 ALSO REPORTED AS LPELR 3251 (SC) 1 AT 18 PER MVSDAPHER, JSC LATER CJN RTD who said:-
“Now, the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal to entertain or to adjudicate on any matter brought before it, is statutory. Thus there may be circumstances which the Court would have no Constitutional jurisdiction to deal with a matter, So when the competence of an appeal is raised. So when the competence of an appeal is raised, the Court is duty bound first to determine whether the appeal is competent before taking any further step in the appeal. The decision of the Court of Appeal in this case that “But whether the said grounds are valid or not will be left to the Court to decide at the end and not at the beginning…” cannot, with respect, be correct. The failure to file an appeal within the ambit of the statutory or constitutional provisions would deprive the Court of the Jurisdiction to entertain the matter:- SEE OPANYE VS JIBOWU (1950) 13 WACA 41;

OHIN MOORE V. AKESSEH TAYE E. 1 WACA 242 in which case the privy Council was concerned with the failure of the Appellant to fulfill certain statutory conditions requisite for the purposes of appeal. Lord ATKIN delivering the judgment of the Court said on page 454:
“…like any other Court (we) are bound by the statute law, and if the statute law says there shall be no jurisdiction in certain event, and that event has occurred, then it is impossible for their Lordships or for any other Court to have jurisdiction.”
2. NONYE IWUNZE V. F.R.N (2014) 6 NWLR (PT.1404) 500 AT 596 D – E where the apex Court per OLABODE RHODES-VIVOUR, JSC said:-
“The Constitution confers on the Court of Appeal jurisdiction to hear and determine appeals. The jurisdiction is statutory and also controlled by rules of Court. The Court of Appeal would lack jurisdiction to hear an appeal if an appellant fails to comply with statutory provisions or the relevant rules of the Court.”

It is the submission of the learned counsel to the 1st and 2nd Respondents that the Appellant has no right of appeal to this Court because it is against an order of Court made Ex- parte. Secondly

according to learned counsel, the Appellant ought to have sought for leave of lower Court or this Court before commencing this appeal and thirdly that the Notice of Appeal in this appeal was not personally served on the 1st and 2nd Respondents. He relied on Section 242 (1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and Section 14 of the Court of Appeal Act 2004 and the cases of 1. SPDC v. Registrar of Business Premises Abia State (2015) LPELR-242 85 CA per MBABA JCA.

According to learned silk, this appeal being interlocutory appeal cannot be accommodated under Section 241(1) of the aforesaid Constitution. The learned counsel to the 5th Respondent also argued 5th Respondent’s objection along the same line like 1st and 2nd Respondents and urged the Court to dismiss the appeal.
He relied on the case of EKEMEZIE V. IFEANACHO & 2 ORS (2019) LPELR – 46518 (SC).

On the need to serve the Notice of Appeal personally, learned silk relied on Order 2 Rule 1 and 3 of the Court of Appeal Rules 2016. He relied on the case of IHEDIOHA V. OKOROCHA SC 660/2015 delivered on 29/10/2015 and Section 36 of the Constitution.

Learned silk for the 1st and 2nd Respondent urged this Court to uphold the objection. On his part- James C. Ude Esq. who signed the 6th Respondent’s objection and address accompanying it also argued along the same line as the learned silk to the 1st and 2nd Respondents. He too contended that the Appellant had no right of appeal against an ex-parte Order thus this Court has no jurisdiction. He relied on the cases of:
1. UMEH V. IWU (2008) 8 NWLR (PT. 1089) 225.
2. MADUKOLU VS NKEMDILIM (1962) 2 ACNLR 347.

According to him the appeal is now academic because another person has emerged as Chairman in place of 3rd Respondent’s former Chairman. That there is nothing left for the Appellant to contest when the 3rd Respondent has decided on who should be its National Chairman. He relied on the case of Odom v. PDP (2015) 61(Pt.2) NSCQR 984 at P. 1053. That the appeal is frivolous and should be dismissed.

In response to the submissions of 1st and 2nd Respondents, M. S. Ibrahim Esq. who settled the Appellant’s Reply adopted by TUDURU EDE SAN, he submitted that it was not correct to say the Appellant did not enter Appearance in the case. He submitted that

Section 14 of the Court of Appeal Act relied upon by the 1st and 2nd Respondents cannot avail them in view of Section 241 (1)(b) (f) (ii) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (1999) as amended.

He submitted that the constitutional provisions did not create any dichotomy between interim and interlocutory injunction. That the clear words used is injunction granted or refused. That Section 241(1) (f) (ii) of CFRN 1999 as amended is in pari materia with Section 220 (ii) (b) of 1979 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, and relied on the cases of 1) ATTAMAH v. ANGLICAN BISHOP OF THE NIGER (1999) 12 NWLR (PT.633) 6 AT 12 A – F.
(2) Ekwomchi v. Ukwu (2002) 1 NWLR (Pt. 749) 590 at 599 F – H and
(3) NSENG Co. Ltd. vs. O.S.M. Ltd. (2000) 3 NWLR (Pt. 649) 403 at 413 A – C.

On whether the Notice of Appeal was not personally served, the learned counsel to the Appellant submitted that the arguments of 1st and 2nd Respondents are a product of misconception in that several appearances have been made for the 1st and 2nd Respondents and they have brief of argument. He relied on Order 2 Rule 1(9) of the Court of Appeal Rules 2016

to submit that 1st and 2nd Respondents having shown by series of actions that they are fully aware of this appeal in which they have actively participated without any complaint they cannot at this stage make serious claim of non-service. He relied on the case of JULDE V. MUBARAK & ORS (2019) LPELR – 47 222 CA pages 26 – 29 A -B.

The learned counsel made the same submissions in respect of the Notice of Preliminary Objection in the Appellant’s Reply to 6th Respondent’s Brief of Argument. He urged the Court to dismiss the objection.

“Finally, it has been argued in this matter that this appeal has been struck out by the lower Court for failing to seek and obtain leave of Court before filing the appeal as prescribed by Section 242 of the 1999 Constitution as amended having raised grounds of mixed law and facts therein. It is also common ground that the trial Court’s directive to deal first with the preliminary objections amounts to an interlocutory order based on the exercise of its discretion. It is trite law that an appeal against an interlocutory decision other than on grounds of law requires leave of Court. The provisions of Sections 241(1) and 242 (supra) have clearly set out when appeals will be presented as the right or with leave respectively of the Federal High Court or State High Court or, the Court of Appeal as the case may be. And so it is settled law that right to appeal is statutory.”
Now Section 241 of Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 as amended provides:
“241 An appeal shall lie from decisions of the Federal High Court or a High Court the Court of Appeal as of right in the following cases-
(a) final decisions in any civil or criminal proceedings

before the Federal High Court or a High Court sitting at first instance;
(b) where the ground of appeal involves questions of law alone, decisions in any civil or criminal proceedings;
(c) decisions in any civil or criminal proceedings on questions as to the interpretation or application of this Constitution;
(d) decisions in any civil or criminal proceedings on questions as to whether any of the provisions of Chapter IV of this Constitution has been, is being or is likely to be, contravened in relation to any person;
(e) decisions in any criminal proceedings in which the Federal High Court or a High Court has imposed a sentence of death;
(f) decisions made or given by the Federal High Court or a High Court-
(i) where the liberty of a person or the custody of an infant is concerned.
(ii) where an injunction or the appointment of a receiver is granted or refused.
(iii) in the case of a decision determining the ease of a creditor or the liability or a contributory of other officer under any enactment relating to companies in respect of misfeasance or otherwise.
(iv) in the case of a decree nisi in a

matrimonial cause or a decision in an Admiralty action determining liability, and
(v) in such other cases as may be prescribed by an Act of the National Assembly.
(2) Nothing in this section shall confer any right of appeal –
(a) from a decision of the Federal High Court or any High Court granting unconditional leave to defend an action;
(b) from an order absolute for the dissolution or nullity of marriage in favour of any party who, having had time and opportunity to appeal from the decree nisi on which the order was founded had not appealed from that decree nisi; and
(c) without the leave of the Federal High Court or a High Court or of the Court of Appeal from a decision of the Federal High Court or High Court made with the consent of the parties or as to costs only”
The above situations provide for appeals as of right from the Federal High Court or High Court of a State or the Federal Capital Territory. Nothing can curtail the right of appeal without leave accorded any party falling within the enumerated cases listed in Section 241 of the Constitution. This is made abundantly clear by the provision of Section 242 of the said

constitution which provides:
242. – (1) Subject to the provisions of Section 241 of this Constitution, an appeal shall lie from decisions of the Federal High Court or a High Court to the Court of Appeal with the leave of the Federal High Court or that High Court or the Court of Appeal.
(2) The Court of Appeal may dispose of any application for leave to appeal from any decision of the Federal High Court or a High Court in respect of any civil or criminal proceedings in which an appeal has been brought to the Federal High Court or a High Court from any other Court after consideration of the record of the proceedings, if the Court of Appeal is of opinion that the interests of justice do not require an oral hearing of the application.”
The above provisions of the Constitution have been explained or interpreted in numerous cases suffice to refer to the cases of Chief Olisa Metuh vs. FRN & Ors (2018) 10 NWLR (Part 1628) 399 410 G – H Per M. D. Muhammed JSC who said:
“My lords. learned counsel are one, and correctly so, that Sections 241 (1) and 242 (1) of the 1999 Constitution as amended having created two rights of appeal, an appeal against the

decision of the trial Court to the lower Court may be either as of right or with leave of either of the two Courts below. See Nafiu Rabiu v. State (1981) 2 NCLR 293 and Harriman v. Harriman (1987) 3 NWLR (Pt 60) 244.
Counsel are also right in their submissions that where a party requires leave to appeal and leave is not sought and obtained, the appeal being incompetent cannot be proceeded upon by the Court of Appeal. See Nigeria National Supply v. Establissment Sima of Vaduz (SC), (1990) 7 NWLR (Pt. 164) 526 and Ikweki & Ors v. Efoele & Anor (2005) LPELR-1490 (SC), (2005) 11 NWLR (Pt. 936) 397.”
On page 412 of the report Kerere-Ekun, JSC had this to say:
“In order to competently exercise a right of appeal, the appellant must come within the provisions of the statute creating that right. See: Moses & Anor. v. Ogunlabi (1975) LPELR-1914 (SC) @ 5D; Ekunola v. C B.N & Anor (2013) 15 NWLR (Pt.13 77) 224; Bukoye & Ors. v. Adeyemo & Ors. (2016) LPELR-40852 (SC) @ 10-11 B-A, (2017) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1546) 173.
By virtue of Sections 241(1) and 242(2) of the 1999 Constitution, a right of appeal to the Court of Appeal from decisions of the Federal High Court

or a High Court to the Court of Appeal may be exercised as of right or with leave of the Federal High Court, a High Court or the Court of Appeal. Section 241(1)(a)-(f) provides for appeals as of right while Sections 241 (2) and 242 (1) provide for appeals with leave. Section 241 (1) (a) & (b) provides for appeals as of right from final decisions in an civil or criminal proceeding before the Federal High Court or a High Court sitting at first instance and from an civil or criminal proceeding where the ground of appeal involves questions of law alone.” (Underlined mine)
I am of the firm view that the Appellant does not require any leave to initiate the appeal herein. It is an appeal as of right without much ado.
More importantly the appeal herein touches and concerns only points of law and not of mixed law and fact. The provisions of the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigerian (1999) as amended clearly accorded the Appellant the right to file his appeal without leave.
See Mrs. Baby Justina Luna vs. the Commissioner of Police, Rivers State & Ors (2018) NWLR (part 1630) 269 at 295 to 296 A per AUGIE, JSC.

The Appellant’s appeal is therefore competent as no leave was/is required to initiate or file the Notice of Appeal founding the appeal herein. The Notice of Preliminary objection filed by the 1st and 2nd Respondents against the hearing of the appeal herein on the merit is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. By the same parity of reason the 5th and 6th Respondent’s Notice of Preliminary Objection are also hereby dismissed with no order as to cost.

The appeal will now be considered on the merit.
The Appellant’s learned senior counsel distilled four issues for the determination of this appeal namely:
“a. Whether the trial Court lacked jurisdiction to have entertained the Suit No: PHC/360/2020: Dele Moses & Anor v. All Progressives Congress & Ors? Ground 1, 4, 5.
b. Whether the learned trial Judge was wrong in granting substantive reliefs at Ex Parte/Interlocutory Stage? Ground 3.
c. Whether the learned trial Judge was wrong in countenancing the suit notwithstanding lack of locus standi of the 1st and 2nd Respondents?
d. Whether by assuming jurisdiction over Suit No. PHC/360/2020, the learned trial judge is sitting on

appeal over the decision of the Federal Capital Territory High Court, Abuja in suit No, FHC/HC/M/6447/2020? Ground 2.

The 1st and 2nd Respondents also formulated four issues as follows:
a. Whether the trial Court lacked jurisdiction to have entertained the Suit No: PHC/360/2020: Dele Moses & Anor v. All Progressives Congress & Ors? Ground 1, 4, 5.
b. Whether the learned trial Judge was wrong in granting substantive reliefs at Ex Parte/Interlocutory Stage? Ground 3.
c. Whether the learned trial Judge was wrong in countenancing the suit notwithstanding lack of locus standi of the 1st and 2nd Respondents?
d. Whether by assuming jurisdiction over Suit No. PHC/360/2020, the learned trial judge is sitting on appeal over the decision of The Federal Capital Territory High Court, Abuja in Suit No. FHC/HC/M/6447/2020? Ground 2.

The 4th Respondent similarly raised four issues for determination of the appeal viz:
“a. Whether the trial Court lacked jurisdiction to have entertained the suit No: PHC/360/2020: Dele Moses & Anor v. All Progressives Congress & Ors? Ground 1, 4, 5.
b. Whether the learned trial Judge

was wrong in granting substantive reliefs at Ex Parte/Interlocutory Stage? Ground 3.
c. Whether the learned trial Judge was wrong in countenancing the suit notwithstanding lack of locus standi of the 1st and 2nd Respondents?
d. Whether by assuming jurisdiction over Suit No. PHC/360/2020, the learned trial judge is sitting on appeal over the decision of the Federal Capital Territory High Court, Abuja in Suit No. FHC/HC/M/6447/2020? Ground 2.

The 5th and 6th Respondents adopted the issues formulated by the Appellant’s Learned Counsel. The appeal can be determined on the issues distilled by the Appellant and they will be taken together:
“a. Whether the trial Court lacked jurisdiction to have entertained the Suit No: PHC/360/2020: Dele Moses & Anor v. All Progressives Congress & Ors? Ground 1, 4, 5.
b. Whether the learned trial Judge was wrong in granting substantive reliefs at Ex Parte/Interlocutory Stage? Ground 3.
c. Whether the learned trial Judge was wrong in countenancing the suit notwithstanding lack of locus standi of the 1st and 2nd Respondents?
d. Whether by assuming jurisdiction over Suit No.

PHC/360/2020, the learned trial judge is sitting on appeal over the decision of the Federal Capital Territory High Court, Abuja in suit No. FHC/HC/M/6447/2020? Ground 2.

It is the submission of the Appellant’s Learned Counsel that the lower Court was manifestly wrong in assuming jurisdiction over suit No: PHC/360/2020. Dele Moses & Anor vs. ALL PROGRESSIVES CONGRESS & ORS having regard to the matter raised therein, the parties and the issues on the said originating summons. The Learned Counsel to the Appellant opined that the lower Court was wrong to have made the orders Ex-parte upon the subject matter outside his jurisdiction by granting at Ex-Parte interlocutory stage the substantive reliefs in the Motion on Notice and Originating Summons itself. That issue of jurisdiction can be raised at any stage of the proceedings via formal or viva voce procedure. He laid out the three questions setout on the originating summons on page 2 of the record of appeal. He stated that each of the questions relates to the internal affairs of the 3rd Respondent Political party. That they raised the relevance or applicability of 3rd Respondents party. He stated

that in order to bring complaints against member of 3rd Respondent, 1st and 2nd Respondents ought firstly to comply with provisions of Exhibit B (APC) Constitution, Article 21 B, 21 (vi) (d) and (2) thereof. That the 1st and 2nd Respondents ought to have first resorted to the procedure in the APC Constitution. That in this case no such procedure was followed. He reproduced the said provisions and stated they are mandatory and do not admit of discretion whatsoever on the part of 1st and 2nd Respondents. He relied on the case of UFOMBA V. INEC (2017) LPELR- 42079 (SC) per OGUNBIYI JSC.

He submitted that the only exception to the principles laid down in the said UFOMBA V. INEC supra are those contained in Sections 33 and 87 (10) of Electoral Act 2010 and Section 285 (14) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 as amended, He relied on pages 87-92 of the record containing the orders being impugned to submit that the lower Court made them without jurisdiction. He further submitted that being members of 3rd Respondents, 1st and 2nd Respondents are bound by Exhibit “C”. That orders made by the lower Court are thus nullities. He urged the

Court to resolve issue (a) in Appellant’s favour.

On issue (b) as to whether the lower Court was wrong in granting substantive reliefs at Ex-Parte interlocutory stage, the Appellant’s Learned Counsel submitted that the grant of the aforesaid orders Ex parte bordering on the main reliefs claimed in the substantive matter was wrong. He referred to the motion papers and relied on reliefs contained on pages 1 and 3 of the record of appeal. That the interim orders made would reveal that Reliefs No. 4, 5 and 6 contained on the Originating Summons were granted on the interim order made Ex Parte on 19th June, 2020 by the lower Court. That the lower Court was wrong relying on the case of NNPC V. FAMFA OIL LTD & ANOR (2009) LPELR 2023 (SC); (2012) 17 NWLR (PART 1328) 148 per Adekeye JSC. He urged the Court to resolve issue (b) in Appellant’s Favour.

Issue (c) deals with whether the lower Court was wrong in countenancing the suit notwithstanding lack of locus standi on the part of the 1st and 2nd Respondents. He submitted that all the facts deposed to in the Affidavit in support of the Originating Summons do not disclose any locus standi to enable the 1st

and 2nd Respondents institute this action. He stated that none of them is laying any claims to the office of the National Chairman or Acting National Chairman of 3rd Respondent or Deputy National Secretary of the 3rd Respondent. He reiterated his earlier submission that the 1st and 2nd Respondents failed to explore the settlement of disputes as provided by the party’s Constitution. That they have not sought any declaratory relief as to any right personal to them as provided under Order 3 Rules 5 and 6 of the High Court Rivers State (Civil Procedure) Rules 2010. That the trial Court lacked jurisdiction to grant the orders. He relied on the case of WUSHISHI V. IMAM & ORS (2017) 18 NWLR (PART 1597) 175 per PETER-ODILI, JSC. He urged the Court to resolve the issue in Appellant’s favour.

On issue (d) whether the assumption of jurisdiction in this suit did not amount to the Learned trial Judge sitting on appeal over the decision of Federal Capital Territory High Courte Abuja in suit No. HC/M/6447/2020.

The Learned Counsel stated that the suit at the FCT High Court listed 3rd and 6th Respondents in this appeal as parties when the order was made in

FCT High Court suit on 18/6/2020 but that the present suit was instituted on 19th June, 2020 in Rivers State High Court seeking the reliefs and questions stated on the Originating Summons. That FCT High Court empowered the Appellant to act in office of National Chairman of APC subject matter of the suit in this appeal. That the order of FCT High Court has not been appealed against by either the 3rd and 6th Respondents or any of the Respondents in this action. That it remains valid and subsists. That the Rivers State High Court cannot inquire into order made by FCT High Court. That they are Courts of coordinate jurisdiction that cannot sit on appeal of decisions made by any of them. That the FCT Court authorized the Appellant to act as Acting chairman while being Acting National Secretary. That the Rivers State High Court ought to have taken judicial Notice of the Order vide Sections 122(2) and in 128 of Evidence Act. That the Rivers State Court and FCT have equal powers. He relied on the case of Cole v. Jibunoh (2016) 4 NWLR (PT 1503) 499. He urged the Court to resolve issue (d) in Appellant’s favour and to allow the appeal.

In response to the submissions of Learned Counsel to the Appellant, F. C Nwafor Esq. submitted that the lower Court has the jurisdiction to entertain the suit. He agreed that jurisdiction is the life wire of every proceedings as any judgment delivered by the Court without requisite jurisdiction is an exercise in futility. He relied on the case of SHITTA-BAY VS. FPSC (1981) 1 SC 26. He relied on the case of GBAGBARIGHA V. TORUEMI (2013) 6 NWLR (PART 1350) 289. He submitted that it is the claimant’s claim that determines the Court’s jurisdiction. That the Constitution of a political Party is binding on it and on the members the Political Party. He relied on the case of GANA V. SDP & ORS (2019) LPELR – 47153 per EKO JSC.

That the case of 1st and 2nd Respondents did not fall into position of non juristiciable suit. That what the 1st and 2nd Respondent sought to do is similar to what appears in UFOMBA V. INEC supra heavily relied upon by the Appellant. That the 1st and 2nd Respondents were well within their rights to seek interpretation and enforcement of 3rd Respondent’s Constitution as members of the party. He relied on PDP vs. Sherrif (2017) 15 NWLR (Part 1588) 219.<br< p=”” style=”box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;”>

</br<>

He submitted that the subject matter does not fall within the internal affairs of political party hence the lower Court has jurisdiction.

On whether the 1st and 2nd Respondents have locus standi to sue, Learned Counsel contended it is too early to determine such issue more so that the Appellant did not file any process before he hurriedly filed the appeal herein. He relied on the case of J. M. K. LTD V. TIT Mother Benedicta (2019) 12 at 346. That the issue of locus cannot be raised under the guise of lack of jurisdiction.

That a person has locus standi to sue where his Civil rights and obligations have been or are in danger of being infringed like in this case and as such the 1st and 2nd Respondents have right to approach the Court.

He drew attention to the fact that this is an interlocutory appeal over an order made ex parte. He stated that a Court will not at an interlocutory stage consider issues or make statements that are capable of affecting or determining the substantive suit.

That the locus standi of 1st and 2nd Respondents will only be decided after a full consideration of the facts deposed to in Originating Summons and not

at the stage of hearing of a motion Ex- parte. He nonetheless contended that the 1st and 2nd Respondents have locus standi to commence the suit at lower Court.

He drew attention to the Constitution of 3rd Respondent which according to him specifically provides for Rules and obligations of members of the 3rd Respondent Article 9.2. (1) thereof. That since the word as used in the said Article leaves no one in doubt that the provision shall be binding on members of the 3rd Respondents as well as the Appellant. He relied on BAMAIYI v. AG Fed. (2001) 12 NWLR (PART 727) 468 – 497 FC; EMORDI V. IGBEKE (2011) 9 NWLR (PART 125) 24 at 33 G and 35 A – B. He relied also on Article 7 of the said constitution. That it is in the light of 1st and 2nd Respondent’s Constitutional right, duties and obligations to promote 3rd Respondent’s internal Democracy under 3rd Respondent’s Constitution that gave 1st and 2nd Respondents locus standi to approach the lower Court to seek for reliefs to compel the Appellant as well as the other Respondents to stoutly abide by 3rd Respondent’s Constitution. He relied on WUSHISHI V. IMAM (2017) JSC (VOL. 66) 19 57 B – F on definition of

locus standi.

According to Learned Counsel to the 1st and 2nd Respondents, they have demonstrated that Appellants actions will adversely affect them as bona fide members of 3rd Respondent. He cited the case of EDUN V. Governor of Delta State of Nigeria & Ors (2019) LPELR – 47464 CA and PDP v. LAWAL & ORS (2012) LPELR 7972.

On whether the lower Court sat as appellate Court over FCT High Court sitting at Maitama in suit FHC/HC/M/6447/2020 as per orders the said Court made in favour of Appellant on 18/6/2020. The Learned Counsel submitted that there is nothing to suggest that the said order of FCT High Court was brought to the attention of lower Court. That attaching the said order of FCT High Court to the Appellant’s Brief of Argument cannot change what he called “the narrative or cajole this Court into holding that the lower Court sat on appeal over an order it was not aware of.” He submitted that making a preservative orders did not amount to sitting on appeal over decision in suit No. FRC/HC/M/6447/2020.

On whether the learned trial judge was right in granting substantive reliefs at Ex parte interlocutory stage, the Learned

Counsel to the 1st and 2nd Respondents submitted the lower Court did no such thing. It is his opinion that the grant of such preservative reliefs in practice is aimed at preserving the res in the interim and to establish new rights. Indeed according to Learned Counsel, the justice of the case will be defeated if a Court of law is not empowered to grant preservative reliefs relying on the cases of Ogunro v. Duke (2006) 7 NWLR (Pt 978) 130 at 142 and Aboseldehyde Laboratories PLC vs. Union Merchant Bank Ltd & Anor (2013) LPELR – 20180. He urged this Court to hold that the interim orders granted by the lower Court did not translate to determining the substantive suit. He urged the Court to dismiss the appeal as lacking in merit.

The submissions of 4th, 5th and 6th Respondents in their respective brief of argument are on all fours with submissions of Learned Counsel to the 1st and 2nd Respondents. They are all on the same page that the 1st and 2nd Respondents had capacity to institute the action as it is within their right as members of 3rd Respondents. They are also ad idem that a Court of law should not at an interlocutory stage determine substantive

suit does not apply to this appeal in that no such determination was made by the lower Court which according to the Respondents “only granted interim orders”. They all asked for the dismissal of Appellant’s appeal.

In his Appellant’s Reply to 1st and 2nd Respondent’s grief of Argument, the Learned Counsel to the Appellant stated that the case of GANA V. SDP & ORS supra is not helpful to the 1st and 2nd Respondent’s case in that it is a suit emanating from operation of Section 87 (9) of Electoral Act 2010 as amended.

He submitted that the 1st and 2nd Respondents did not proffer any answer to the submissions of Appellant to the effect that 1st and 2nd Respondents failed to exhaust internal remedies provided by the Constitution of 3rd Respondent which they claim they are trying to protect. That this rob the Court below of jurisdiction to entertain the suit. He relied on the case of SALAHUDEEN & ORS vs. AJIBOLA & ORS (2019) LPELR-47412 CA pages 33 34 C – E. That the 1st and 2nd Respondents glossed over germane issues raised in the Appellant’s Brief.

I must state that the respective Appellant’s Reply Brief to 4th, 5th and 6th Respondents are

substantially the same in terms of contents and intendment to refute the Respondents positions in their respective Respondents’ Briefs of Argument. will not repeat them.

RESOLUTION OF THE ISSUES
As can be seen from the issues distilled for determination the central theme of all the issues and submissions thereon by the Appellant is that the lower Court was bereft of jurisdiction to have entertained or adjudicated on the 1st and 2nd Respondents suit and that all the relief or orders granted in favour of the 1st and 2nd Respondent by the lower Court were granted without jurisdiction.

any stage of the proceedings and the Court seised of the cause or matter can also raise it suo motu. It is the engine room of any Court or Tribunal.
1. CHIEF DANIEL A. OLOBA VS ISAAC OLUBODUN AKEREJA (1988) 3 NWLR (PT. 84) 508 AT 520 B – E per OBASEKI, JSC who said:-
“The issue or jurisdiction is very fundamental as it goes to the competence or the Court or Tribunal. If a Court or Tribunal is not competent to entertain a matter or claim or suit, it is a waste of valuable time for the Court to embark on the hearing and determination of the suit, matter or claim, it is therefore an exhibition of wisdom to have the issue or jurisdiction determined before embarking on the hearing and determination of the substantive matter. The issue of jurisdiction being a fundamental issue. It can be raised at any stage of the proceedings in the Court, or first instance or in the Appeal Courts.”
This issue can be raised by any of the parties or by the Court itself suo motu. When there are sufficient facts ex facie on the record establishing a want of competence or jurisdiction in the Court, it is the duty of the Judge or Justices to raise the issue suo motu

if the parties fail to draw the Court’s attention to it, see Odiase v. Agho (supra). There is no justice in exercising jurisdiction where there is none. It is injustice to the law, to the Court and to the parties so to do.
A suit or action must be initiated by due process and upon fulfillment of any condition precedent to exercise of jurisdiction otherwise the action will be adjudged incompetent and thus rob the Court of jurisdiction.
See PRINCESS STELLA ADAEZE ODUAH VS SENATOR MARGERY CHUBA OKADIGBO & ORS (2019) 3 NWLR (PART 1660) 433 AT 460 B – F per JSC who said:-
“There is no doubt that jurisdiction is a threshold matter. It is the bedrock of any judicial proceeding. It is the legal capacity, power or authority to adjudicate vested in a Court by the Constitution or statute which created it. The absence of jurisdiction or any defect therein renders the entire proceedings a nullity, no matter how well conducted. The fundamental essence of jurisdiction was eloquently captured by His Lordship, Bello, CJN in Utih v. Onoyivwe (1991) SC (Pt. 1) 65 @ 96 – 97: (1991) 1 NWLR (Pt. 166) 166, where he stated thus:

427 at 588 F; Dingyadi v. INEC (2010) LPELR-40142 (SC), (2010) (No.1) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1224) 1; NNPC v. Clifco (Nig.) Ltd. (2011) 4 SC (Pt. 1) 108, (2011) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1255) 29; Shitta-Bey v. A.-G. Federation & Anor. (1998) 10 NWLR (Pt.570) 392.”
Where it is thus shown that the lower Court lacks the jurisdiction to adjudicate on a cause or matter, an Appellate Court will declare the relief and orders made therein a nullity. ALHAJI JIBRIN BALA HASSAN VS. DR. MUAZU BABANGIDA ALIYU & OTHERS (2010) 11 SCM 69 at 93 E per ONNOGHEN JSC, now Ag. CJN who said:
“It is trite that jurisdiction is very fundamental to adjudication and that where a Court lacks the competence to hear and determine a matter but proceeds to do so, an appellate Court is duty bound to nullify a decision resulting therefrom.”

The 1st and 2nd Respondent had relied on Articles 77 (viii) 9.2 (i) of the All Progressives Congress Constitution (3rd Respondent’s) or passionately submit that all members of the party are under obligations and duties to ensure the observance and enforcement of the 3rd Respondent’s Constitution in order to promote and uphold the practice of internal

democracy at all levels of party’s organization and that it was in that regard the 1st and 2nd Respondents approached the lower Court to seek interpretation and enforcement of the provisions of the 3rd Respondent’s Constitution.

The Appellant however accused the 1st and 2nd Respondents of jumping the gun by having recourse to Court on the questions and reliefs sought in the Originating Summons without first following the internal procedures and mechanisms provided by the same Constitution by which an aggrieved Party member can seek for resolution of any such grievance or disputes with Party members or organs of the Party. The point was encapsulated in the Appellant’s Brief of Argument paragraph 4.7 thereof where it is submitted as follows:
“To bring complaint against member of the 3rd Respondent, 1st and 2nd Respondents ought firstly to comply with the provisions of the Exhibit B (APC Constitution) Article 21 B, 21 (vi) (d) and (e) thereof. The 1st and 2nd Respondent ought to first resort to and exhaust the internal dispute complaint procedure and regime provided by and in the Exhibit B.”

The entire Article 21 B of the All Progressives

Congress is as follows:
B. DISCIPLINARY PROCEDURE:
The Procedure for the hearing and determination of complaints or allegations are as follows:
i. A complaint by any Member of the Party against a Public Office holder, elected or appointed, or another member or against a Party organ or officer of the Party shall be submitted to the Executive Committee of that Party at all levels concerned which shall NOT BE LATER THAN 7 days of the receipt of the complaint, appoint a fact-finding or Disciplinary Committee to examine the matter.
ii. The Executive Committee concerned shall not debate or discuss the complaint or allegation before sending it to the Disciplinary Committee or fact-finding Committee which shall hears determine and cause its decision to be transmitted to the relevant Executive Committees of the Party concerned.
iii. The Executive Committee concerned upon receipt of the report of the fact finding or Disciplinary Committee shall not later than 14 days thereof either ratify or reject the decision of the fact-finding or Disciplinary Committee. The Executive Committee of the Party at the level where a complaint or allegation is made

shall have original jurisdiction to hear and determine such complaint or allegation provided that assumption of jurisdiction by such Executive Committee shall not breach the rules of fair hearing.
iv. Where either the complainant or the Party against whom a complaint is made, makes out a prima facie case of bias, intimidation or undue influence or likelihood of same by the Executive Committee seized with original jurisdiction to hear and determine such a matter or a member thereof or where the complaint is against a Party organ at the level, making it impracticable to appoint a fact finding or Disciplinary Committee, such complaint shall be transferred to the appropriate organ seized with appellate jurisdiction to hear and determine such matter save in the case of allegation against the Principal Officer(s) in the National Executive Committee of the Party making it unjust to allow such Principal Officer(s) to participate in the appointment of a fact-finding or Disciplinary Committee, the National Executive Committee shall exclude such Principal Officer from the entire arbitral process.
v. For the purpose of ARTICLE 21 of this Constitution:

The Ward Executive shall be the adjudicatory body of first instance over complaint and or allegation from the Polling Unit level.
b. The Local Government Area Executive Committee shall be the adjudicatory body of first instance over complaints or allegations from the Ward level.
c. The State Executive Committee shall be the adjudicatory body of first instance over complaints or allegations from the Local Government Areal Area Council level.
d. The Zonal Committee shall be the adjudicatory body of first instance over complaints or allegations from the State Chapter in the zone.
e. The National Executive Committee shall be the adjudicatory body over complaints and allegations front the zones.
APPEALS
The right of appeal of aggrieved member of the Party is hereby guaranteed.
The procedure for appeals be as follows:
Where a member is not satisfied with the decision of any of the adjudicator, organs of the Party, he or she shall have the right to appeal within 7 days of the decision to the immediate appellate body in the Party as prescribed in this Constitution.”

Where as in this case the Constitution of a Political

Party or an Organization provides for methods or modes of settling disputes or grievances against Party Organs or against member qua the party member or organ complaining or is aggrieved must conform and comply with the procedure laid down by the Constitution or Regulation of the Party for the resolution of the disputes or grievances. It is an essential and indispensable condition that must be fulfilled before on aggrieved Party Members can approach the Court. It is a precondition that must be followed. It cannot be circumvented. An aggrieved Party member’s right to ventilate his grievance in Court will only inure or crystallizes when a decision reached on the grievance or dispute is resolved against the Party member complaining or aggrieved. He must have exhausted all the laid down internal procedures before recourse to Court.
I have earlier on in this judgment reproduced the entire gamut of the Affidavit of the 1st and 2nd Respondents setting out the fact relied upon in the Originating Summons. There is nothing in the entire 20 paragraphs Affidavit in support of the Originating Summons (stating or suggesting that the 1st and 2nd Respondent Claimants

in the lower Court) utilized any of the provisions of Article 21 B to channel their grievances against the Appellant to any of the Organs of the Constitution of the 3rd Respondents containing the layers of disputes resolution between Party Members or organs of the 3rd Respondent. Thus it is glaring that the suit herein instituted by the 1st and 2nd Respondents (suit No. PHC/360/2020) was NOT instituted or commenced in accordance with due process of law and upon the fulfillment of vital condition precedent. It is a grave defect and it is irredeemable. The said action by the 1st and 2nd Respondent is grossly incompetent and the lower Court lacks the jurisdiction to entertain or adjudicate upon it. See
1. FESTUS IBIDAPO ADESANOYE & ORS VS. PRINCE FRANCIS GBADEBO ADEWOLE (2006) 14 NWLR (PART 1000) 2423 LPELR – 143 SC 1 at 21 – 22 per NIKI TOBI JSC
2. AG KWARA STATE & ANOR VS. ALHAJI SALA ADEYEMO & ORS (2017) 1 NWLR (PART 1546) 219 at 241 B – H per RHODES-VIVOUR, JSC who said:
Where a party in a suit complains that there was non- compliance with provisions of a statute, in this case Section 3(3) of the Chiefs (Appointment and Deposition) Law

the interpretation of the provision becomes an issue and it is the duty of the Court to examine relevant evidence to see if there was compliance or non- compliance.
Section 3(3) supra reads as follows:
In the case of any dispute the Governor after due inquiry and consultation with persons concerned in the selection shall have the final say as to whether the appointment of any chief has been made in accordance with customary law and practice.
It is long settled that words provisions in a statute that are clear and free from ambiguity should be construed as they are and given their ordinary meaning without any embellishments. See Mobil v. FBIR (1977) 3 SC p. 53: Toriola v. Williams (1982) 7 SC. p. 27: In Keyili v. Yilbuk (2015) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1457) p. 26 p. 33, paras. E-F Kekere-Ekun, JSC interpreting and explaining a similar provision in the Chiefs (Appointment and Deposition) Law, Cap. 20 Laws of Northern Nigeria 1963 said that:
“By making provision for the resolution of disputes by the prescribed authority a condition precedent to approaching the Court for redress. the intention of the lawmakers is to reduce the number of

such disputes that eventually find their way into Court. It is a means of alternative dispute resolution to reduce congestion of cases before the Court. Such provision cannot however oust the jurisdiction of the Court and confer judicial powers on the Governor or prescribed authority.
I am in complete agreement with the above. After the kingmakers select and appoint a candidate to be the Olofa of Offa and a candidate from the other ruling house is not satisfied with that decision then there is a dispute. It is the duty of the aggrieved ruling house to bring their grievance to the attention of the Governor to be resolved. It is only if the Governor is unable to settle the dispute to the aggrieved candidate’s satisfaction that he can file an action in Court for the Court to decide who is the right person to be the Olofa of Offa.”
At pages 243 H to 244 A – D His lordship of Supreme Court also said:
It is so obvious that the 1st – 3rd claimants/respondents were wrong not to have complied with Section 3(3) supra. Indeed this Court in Eguamwense v. Amaghizemwen (1993) 9 NWLR (Pt. 315) p. 1 at p. 25, para. A considered the provisions of

Sections 21 and 22(1)-(6) of the Traditional Rulers and Chief Edict No (16) of 1979 Bendel State which is similar to the Chief (Appointment and Deposition) Law of Kwara State. His Lordship Belgore JSC (as he then was) observed that:
“Where a statute prescribes a legal line of action for determination of an issue, be that issue an administrative matter, chieftaincy matter or matter of taxation, the aggrieved party must exhaust all the remedies in that law before going to Court.”
The provisions of the Chief (Appointment and Deposition) Law of Kwara State are clear on the steps to be taken. The 1st-3rd claimants/respondents avoided the provisions of the law (supra) laid down for settlement of disputes and rushed to Court. This is clearly wrong. The provisions of Section 3(3) supra must be complied with before a suit can be filed in Court. The said provision is not unconstitutional.
In the same report my lord PETER- ODILI, JSC said at page 253 F – H to 254 A – B as follows:
For a fuller picture, the Supreme Court has properly elucidated the expression “condition precedent” in the case of J. S. Atolagbe & Ors v. Alhaji Muhammadu Awuni & Ors

(1997) 9 NWLR (Pt. 522) 537 at 562. para. F per Uwais, CJN thus:
“Condition” – a provision which makes the existence of a right dependent on the happening of an event, the right is then conditional as opposed to an absolute right. A true condition is where the event on which the existence of the right depends is in the future and uncertain. A ‘condition precedent’ is one that delays the vesting of a right until the happening of an event.”
By the same token in this case in hand the recourse to the Governor upon the dispute over the appointment of the Olofa of Offa is the condition precedent that would first take place before the vesting of the right to approach the Court. There is no opaque scenario or an ambiguous situation. The condition must first be met before the 1st – 3rd respondents’ right to ventilate in a Court of law would enure. There is also no constitutional breach occurring or an infringement of the right to be heard denied the said parties and so the party acts in vain approaching the Court without having that condition precedent or hurdle or impediment dispelled as a first step.
To cut a long story short, there

is no jurisdiction in the trial High Court to first entertain the suit, the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal stopped on account thereof and by implication no competence in this apex Court in the matter.”
PROFESSOR JERRY GANA V. SDP & ORS (2019) 11 NWLR (PART 1684) 570 at 534 D – H per EKO, JSC who said:
“It does appear from the brief of argument of the 1st – 5th respondents that they dispute the contention of the appellant, premised on Onuoha v. Okafor (1983) 2 SCNLR 244; PDP v. Sylva (2012) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1316) 85 (SC) at 154: Lau v. PDP (2018) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1608) 60 (SC) at 123; APC v. Karfi (2018) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1616) 479 (SC) 526 that political party, like any other organization, is bound by its constitution. In all the foregoing cases, this Court took a firm position that a political party is bound by its own constitution. All members of the political party are also bound by the provisions of the constitution of the political party they belong. Obaseki, JSC in Onuoha v. Okafor (supra) had put it forcefully thus-
The party like any other corporation, operates within the guidelines, the powers and duties set out in its Constitution. All its

members are bound by its provisions and their rights and obligations created by their Constitution can be remedied as provided by the Constitution, if breached by any of its members –
Accordingly, the rights and obligations of the members of the SOP (1st respondent), including the appellant and the 5th respondent are defined by their party constitution. They, both the party and its members, “are bound by its provisions and their rights and obligations created by their constitution can be remedied as provided by the Constitution, if breached” either by the party or any of the members of the party.” (Underlined mine)
3. AGIP (NIG) LTD V. AGIP PETROLI INTL & ORS (2010) 5 NWLR (PART 1187) 348 at 419 H TO 420 A – D per ADEKEYE, JSC
Issue (a) is resolved in Appellant’s favour.

On whether the Learned trial Judge has jurisdiction to grant substantive reliefs at interlocutory stage or at Exparte stage, the Learned Counsel to the Appellant had argued that the lower Court has no such jurisdiction. The Learned Counsel to the 1st and 2nd Respondents and 4th, 5th and 6th Respondent all submitted the contrary and strongly contended that

the principle is not applicable in this case as the reliefs granted Ex parte by lower Court are preservative orders.
The law is trite that a Court of trial and an Appellate Court must take caution not to grant any order or take any decision at interlocutory stage of a matter capable of determining part or all reliefs being sought in the substantive suit or appeal. In other words a Court cannot decides or grant reliefs contained in substantive matter at interlocutory matter or when dealing with interlocutory application for injunction or any other interim issue in the action.
1. J. K. BUREMOH VS. ALHAJI ISIAKA AKANDE (2017) 7 NWLR (PART 1563) 74 at 98 C – E per M. D. MUHAMMAD JSC
2. OKUARA AGWU & ORS VS. JULIUS BERGER NIGERIA PLC (2019) 11 NWLR (PART 1682) 165 at 183 B – C per GALUMJE, JSC.
3. MRS. ABIMBOLA AKINRIMISI VS. MAERSK NIGERIA LIMITED & ANOR (2013) 10 NWLR (PART 1361) 73 at 86 A – D per MUNIAKA- COOMASSIE JSC who said:
“However, it must be pointed out that this Court in a long line of cases has repeatedly warned that a Court hearing an interlocutory application should refrain from commenting or determining any

of the issues in dispute in the substantive case. See Bank of Ireland v. Union Bank Nigeria Ltd. (1998) 7 SCNJ 385 (1998) 10 NWLR (Pt. 569) 178: Jimi Odilho v. Scheep (1997) 6 SCNJ 2161 (reported as Oduba v. Houtmangracht (1997) 6 NWLR (Pt. 5(8) 185: Magnusson v. R. Koiki (1993) 12 SCNJ, 114 (1993) 9 NWLR (Pt. 317) 287; Kotoye v. Saraki (1994) 7-8 SCNJ 54, (1994) 7 NWLR (Pt. 357) 414, FSB Int. Bank Ltd. v. Imano (Nig.) Ltd. (2000) 7 SCNJ 65, (2000) 11 NWLR (Pt. 679) 620; University Press Ltd v. IX. Martins (Nig.) Ltd. (2000) 2 SCNJ 224, (2000) 4 NWLR (Pt. 654) 584 and Mike Momah v. VAB Petroleum Inc. (2000) 2 SCNJ 200, (2000) 4 NWLR (Pt. 654) 513.
In the instant case, the order made by the Court touched on the substantive claim and as such prejudging the matter before it. I also resolve the second issue in favour of the respondent.”
4. ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF KWARA STATE VS. ALHAJI (HON) ISHOLA LAWAL & ORS (2018) 3 NWLR (PART 1606) 266 at 295 B – C per EKO, JSC who said:
“The law is settled that at interlocutory stage no Court, whether trial or appellate, is allowed to delve into the substantive matter in the pending matter and decide it. See

FSB International Bank Nig Ltd. v. Imano Nig. Ltd. (2000) 11 NWLR (Pt.679) 620 at 639. The Court below had done that which is prohibited in our jurisprudence. It’s decision and all the orders made touching the merits of the originating summons, being null and void, are hereby set aside.”

I agree with the Learned Counsel to the Appellant that the interim orders made by the lower Court shows Relief No. 5 of the Originating Summons was granted as Order No 2 Relief No 6 on the originating summons was granted as Order No 3 while Relief No. 4 was on the Originating Summons was granted as Order No. 2 on the interim Order made Ex parte on 19th June, 2020 by lower Court.

The said orders were granted by lower Court in gross violation of established principles and principles of law which prohibit such exercise of discretion by a Court when determining Ex parte Motion or Motion on Notice for interlocutory injunction or orders. The said order were made without jurisdiction and are liable to be set aside for their being null and void.
Issue (b) is resolved in favour of Appellant.

On issue (c) as to whether the 1st and 2nd Respondents lacked the

locus standi to institute suit PHC/360/2020 culminating into the appeal herein.

The Learned Counsel to the 1st and 2nd Respondents had submitted that it is too early to raise issue of locus standi against the 1st and 2nd Respondent because according to him “such an issue can only be properly raised and determined at the hearing of the substantive suit and cannot therefore be raised under the guise of lack of Jurisdiction…” With profound respect to Learned Counsel to 1st and 2nd Respondent his position has no support in law.

The settled position of the law is that a complaint that Plaintiff lacks locus standi to institute an action is interwoven and intertwined with jurisdiction of the Court called upon to adjudicate on a suit or action. Lack of locus standi to sue robs the Court of jurisdiction to embark upon adjudication over the reliefs and the matter and the reliefs sought therein.
See:
1. ALHAJI SAKA OPOBIYI & ANOR VS. LAYIWOLA MUNIRU(2011) 18 NWLR (PART 1278) 387 at 403 D – F per ADEKEYE, JSC who said:
“Locus Standi is the legal capacity to institute an action in a Court of law. Where a plaintiff is held to lack the

locus standi to maintain an action, the finding goes to the issue of jurisdiction as it denies the Court jurisdiction to determine the action. Jurisdiction is in other words, a radical question, of competence – a Court can only be competent when the case comes by due process of law and upon fulfillment of any condition precedent to the exercise of jurisdiction.
2. ADEGBITE TAIWO VS. SERAH ADEGBORO & ANOR (2011) 11 NWLR (PART 1259) 562 at 572 F – H per RHODES-VIVOUR who said:
“Locus Standi means standing to sue or competence of a party to sue. An objection to a plaintiff’s locus standi attacks his competence to sue as to whether he has any legal or equitable interest to protect. The rule about locus standi developed primarily to protect the Courts from being used as playground by professional litigants, or and meddlesome interlopers. busy bodies who really have no real stake or interest in the subject matter or the litigation.”
As rightly submitted by the Learned Counsel to the Parties in this appeal a claimant will have locus standi to sue if he is able to show or prove that his Civil Rights and obligations have been or are in danger of

being infringed jeopardized. Therefore in order to determine issue of locus standi, the Court is enjoined to confine itself to scrupulous examination of the writ of summons and statement of claim in case of action originated by writ of summons and or examination of reliefs sought on an Originating Summons and Affidavit in support where the action was commenced by Originating Summons or Originating Motion. See:
1. MR. SUNDAY ADEGBITE TAIWO V. SERAH ADEGBORO & ANOR 11 NWLR (PART 1259) 562 at 599 H to 580 A – B per RHODE-VIVOUR JSC.
2. ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF CROSS RIVER STATE VS FRN & ANOR (2019) 7 (PART 3) SC 1 at 31 TO 32 A – E per ARIWOOLA, JSC.
3. THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF THE FEDERATION VS THE ATTORNEY- GENERAL OF LAGOS STATE (2017) 8 NWLR (PART 1566) 20 at 46 E – G per PETER-ODILI, JSC, who said:
“To determine whether or not a Court has jurisdiction, this Court in the case of Olofu v. Itodo (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1225) 545 at page 573 paras. D-F held that:
“Also settled is the principle of law that in order to determine whether a Court before which a matter pends has the jurisdiction to entertain same, the Court has to look at

the plaintiff’s statement of claim before it and not the defence put forward by the defendant to the action. The claim of the plaintiff in an action includes the originating summons and the affidavit(s) in support of same, where the action is instituted any originating summons as was decided by this Court in the case of Inakoju v. Adeleke (2007) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1020) 427 at 588 – 589.”

I have earlier on in the course of this judgment reproduced the questions for determination and the reliefs sought on the originating and the Affidavit in support thereof.

A close and critical examination of the said questions and the reliefs sought and the entire paragraphs of the Affidavit in support of the originating summons clearly show that the Civil rights and obligations of the 1st and 2nd Respondents cannot be said to have been or are in danger of being infringed or violated. None of the 1st and 2nd Respondents was/is laying claim to the office or interest to occupy the said office of chairman or Acting Chairman of the 3rd Respondent. They were never in office as chairman of 3rd Respondent.

The 1st and 2nd Respondent through 1st Respondent deposed in

paragraph 3 of their Affidavit setting out the facts retied upon in the Originating Summons that: “The 1st Defendant is a registered political party herein in Nigeria and the 2nd Defendant is the current National Chairman of the 1st Defendant. Also, the 3rd Defendant is a former Deputy National Secretary of the 1st Defendant, the 4th Defendant is the Acting Chairman of All Progressives Congress, Rivers State Chapter while 5th Defendant is the National Legal Adviser of the 1st Defendant.”

The 1st and 2nd Respondents on their own volition have stated and on oath that 2nd Defendant “is the current National Chairman” as at the date they instituted the action leading to this appeal thereby showing and listing the person whose interests and obligations have been affected or infringed and NOT any of the 1st and 2nd Respondents.

I am of the firm view that the 1st and 2nd Respondents have no locus standi to initiate and to have commenced this suit. They have no cause of action or any reasonable cause of action for that matter. They could be likened to sympathizers weeping more than the bereaved.
Issue (c) is hereby resolved in favour of the Appellant.

On issue (d) as to whether by assuming jurisdiction in suit PHC/360/2020, the Learned trial Judge was sitting on appeal over the decision of the Federal Capital Territory High Court, Abuja in suit No: FHC/HC/M/6447/2020 of the view that this issue has been subsumed by the findings and conclusion reached on issues a, b and c all bordering on lack of jurisdiction on the part of the lower Court to have entertained and adjudicated on the said suit (PHC/360/2020).

In any event, there is no evidence to show that the attention of the lower Court was drawn to Ruling or orders made by the Court in FHC/HC/M/6447/2020 having regard to the fact that there was less than one day interval between the Order made at Abuja on 18/6/2020 and the Orders made on 19/6/2020 at the lower Court. Issue (d) is resolved against the Appellant.

Notwithstanding that issue (d) is resolved against the Appellant, the Appellant’s appeal is quite meritorious and it is HEREBY ALLOWED having resolved issues (a), (b) and (c) in Appellant’s favour.

It is trite law that where a trial Court is adjudged as having no jurisdiction to entertain or adjudicate on a matter, all orders or

decisions reached by the trial Court will be declared as null and void by the Appellate Court. All the Orders made by the lower Court in the suit PHC/360/2020: DELE MOSES & ANOR V. ALL PROGRESSIVES CONGRESS (APC) & ORS are hereby declared null and void and of no effect whatever. See:
1. ALHAJI JINRIN BALA HASSAN VS. DR. MUIAZU BABANGIDA ALIYU 69 93 E per ONNOGHEN JSC later CJN Rtd., who said:
“It is trite that jurisdiction is very fundamental to adjudication and that where a Court lacks the competence to hear and determine a matter but proceeds to do so, an appellate Court is duty bound to nullify a decision resulting therefrom.”
2. PEOPLES DEMOCRATIC PARTY (PDP) & ORS v. S. E EZEONWUKA (2018) 7 NWLR (PART 1606) 187 at 259 H to 260 A – C per M. D. MUHAMMAD JSC.
Consequently, all the Order made by the High Court of Rivers State CORAM HON. JUSTICE F. A. FIBERESIMA on 19th June, 2020 in suit No. PHC/360/2020 are HEREBY SET ASIDE for lack of jurisdiction on the part of the High Court of Rivers State to entertain or adjudicate on the said suit.

It is also HEREBY ORDERED that the said suit No. PHC/360/2020- DELE MOSES & ANOR

ALL PROGRESSIVES CONGRESS (APC) & 4 ORS shall be and the same is HEREBY STRUCK OUT for want of jurisdiction on the part of the lower Court.
There will be no Order as to costs.

YARGATA BYENCHIT NIMPAR, J.C.A.: I was afforded the privilege of reading in advance the judgment just delivered by my learned brother, PETER OLABISI IGE, JCA and I completely agree with the reasoning and conclusion arrived in the lead judgment. I also strike out the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

ELFRIEDA OLUWAYEMISI WILLIAMS-DAWODU, J.C.A.: I agree.

Appearances:

TUDURU U. EDE, SAN., with him, C. W. JEROME and M. S. IBRAHIM For Appellant(s)

C. NWAFOR, with him, B. W. GEORGEWILL – for 1st and 2nd Respondents
C. C. AGIDI, ESQ. – for 3rd Respondent
EZEKIEL EGBO, ESQ., with him, DAUBRY EBIZIMO, ESQ. – for 4th Respondent
NANCY SHIKAAN, ESQ., with him, ESTHER AYOMIE, ESQ. – for 5th Respondent
JAMES C. UBE, ESQ. – for 6th Respondent For Respondent(s)

LawCare Nigeria

GIADOM v. MOSES & ORS (2020)

admin

YOU MAY HAVE MISSED

RESOLVING DISPUTES BETWEEN BUSINESS PARTNERS IN NIGERIA

Securing Loans and Investment: Legal Considerations for Nigerian Businesses

Corporate Tax Obligations for Businesses in Nigeria

UNDERSTANDING SHARE CAPITAL AND ISSUING SHARES IN NIGERIA

admin

Related Story

YOU MAY HAVE MISSED