HON. (PRINCE) BASSEY AKPAN WILLIE v. PEOPLES DEMOCRATIC PARTY (PDP) & ORS
(2013)LCN/6577(CA)
In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
On Wednesday, the 4th day of December, 2013
CA/C/149/2011
RATIO
CONDITIONS TO ESTABLISH THE COMPETENCY OF A COURT
It is settled that a court is competent when the court is properly constituted as regards numbers and qualifications of the members of the bench and no member is disqualified for one reasons or the other; 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 the case comes before the court initiated by due process of law and upon fulfillment of any condition precedent to the exercise of jurisdiction. All the requirements must co-exist conjunctively before jurisdiction can be exercised by the court. It therefore means that where a court has no jurisdiction to hear and determine a case but goes ahead to do so, it becomes an exercise in futility as the decision arrived at in such a case amounts in law to a nullity irrespective of how well the proceedings was conducted.
Umanah v. Attah (2006) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1009) 503 SC, Madukolu v. Nkemdilim (1962) 1 All NLR 587 SC, Skenconsult v. Ukey (1981) 1 SC 6, Benin Rubber Producers Ltd v. Ojo (1997) 9 NWLR (Pt. 521) 388 SC, Magaji v. Matari (2000) 5 SC 46, Alao v. African Continental Bank Ltd (2000) 6 SC (Pt. 1) 27. Per UZO I. NDUKWE-ANYANWU, J.C.
JUSTICES
MOHAMMED LAWAL GARBA Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
UZO I. NDUKWE-ANYANWU Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
ONYEKACHI A. OTISI Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
Between
HON. (PRINCE) BASSEY AKPAN WILLIE – Appellant(s)
AND
1. PEOPLES DEMOCRATIC PARTY (PDP)
2. INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION (INEC)
3. HON. GODWIN OTON CHARLIE – Respondent(s)
UZO I. NDUKWE-ANYANWU, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): This is a motion filed on 16th April, 2013 praying the court for the following reliefs:
i. AN ORDER extending time within which the 1st respondent may file his 1st Respondent’s brief of argument and further evidence which time had since lapsed.
ii. AN ORDER of this Honourable Court receiving further evidence, (being certified true copy of the judgment of this Honourable Court in Appeal No. CA/C/NAEA/236/2011 and INEC form EC8E (1) Declaration of (Result of Election Form) filed by the 1st Respondent.
iii. An Order deeming the 1st Respondent’s brief and further evidence herein filed as having been properly filed and served, appropriate fees having been paid.
iv. Any further order or other orders as this Honourable Court may deem fit to make in the circumstances of this case.
There are ten grounds upon which this application was brought. In support is a 22 paragraphs affidavit sworn to by one William Umo. Also attached is a judgment of this court as Exhibit I and INEC Form EC8E as Exhibit J.
The learned counsel to the Appellant’s David Okokon Esq. also filed a written address on 7th August, 2013 but deemed properly filed and served on 18th September, 2013. The 3rd Respondent filed its written address on 5th September, 2013 but deemed properly filed and served on 18th September, 2013 supporting the 1st Respondent’s position.
The 2nd Respondent filed no processes for this motion. The Appellant/Respondent in this motion filed a five paragraphs Counter Affidavit on 14th May, 2013 with three Exhibits A, B and C. The Appellant/Respondent filed his written address on 12th September, 2013 but deemed properly filed and served on 18th September, 2013.
The Applicant in his written address articulated two issues for determination as follows:
(a) Whether or not this Honourable court have power to receive Further Evidence on “special grounds” where evidence sought to be added were “matters which have occurred after the date of trial or hearing”
(b) Whether or not the 1st Respondent must seek the leave of court for further evidence, where fresh issues raised borders on the jurisdiction of the Court?
The Applicant however argued the two issues together.
The Appellant/Respondent articulated his own issue for determination as follows:
Whether the further evidence the Applicant/1st Respondent seeks to be received in evidence is relevant in the determination of the appeal and if not whether the prayers should not be dismissed.
The counsel to the Appellant/Respondent here, in his written address stated that they were not opposed to the granting of extension of time to file the 1st Respondent’s brief out of time. Appellant/Respondent is opposed to the admission of the new evidence proposed by the 1st Respondent as they are not relevant in the determination of this appeal.
The main appeal hinged on, whether the Appellant had the Locus Standi to institute this action having gone through the whole hug in an election petition. The Appellant on the plat form of CPC challenged the return of the 3rd Respondent in that petition.
This particular fact challenged the jurisdiction of this court as it affects the locus standi of the party i.e. the Appellant/Respondent.
An objection to the jurisdiction of the court can be raised at anytime during trial even on appeal, to this court. It is important for any party who perceives that a court has no jurisdiction to hear a cause or matter, to raise the issue at the earliest opportunity. See Nnonye v. Anyichie (2005) 2 NWLR (Pt. 910) page 623.
The Applicant is challenging the jurisdiction of the court to hear this matter as he has questioned the locus standi of the Appellant.
It is settled that a court is competent when the court is properly constituted as regards numbers and qualifications of the members of the bench and no member is disqualified for one reasons or the other; 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 the case comes before the court initiated by due process of law and upon fulfillment of any condition precedent to the exercise of jurisdiction. All the requirements must co-exist conjunctively before jurisdiction can be exercised by the court. It therefore means that where a court has no jurisdiction to hear and determine a case but goes ahead to do so, it becomes an exercise in futility as the decision arrived at in such a case amounts in law to a nullity irrespective of how well the proceedings was conducted.
Umanah v. Attah (2006) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1009) 503 SC, Madukolu v. Nkemdilim (1962) 1 All NLR 587 SC, Skenconsult v. Ukey (1981) 1 SC 6, Benin Rubber Producers Ltd v. Ojo (1997) 9 NWLR (Pt. 521) 388 SC, Magaji v. Matari (2000) 5 SC 46, Alao v. African Continental Bank Ltd (2000) 6 SC (Pt. 1) 27.
It is with this back drop that the Applicant had sought to put in additional evidence to show that the Appellant/Respondent has no locus standi to bring this suit.
I must warn myself that we are still in the preliminary stages of this Appeal. I will be threading a thin line not to go into the merits of the substantive appeal at this stage.
Be that as it may, the Applicant had sought to put in additional evidence in this Appeal. The question to be asked at this stage is whether the additional evidence sought to be admitted is relevant to the just determination of this appeal. Both documents sought to be admitted are public documents. The judgment of this court can be taken judicial notice of by the court.
Are these documents relevant? I dare say that the two documents are relevant and therefore admissible in evidence. Both documents are admissible in court in determining whether it has jurisdiction to hear this appeal at all. Fawehinmi v. NBA (No. 2) (1989) 2 NWLR (Pt. 105) page 558, B.O.N. v. Saleh (1999) 9 NWLR (Pt. 618) page 331.
If these two documents are relevant to the court, in the determination of whether the court has jurisdiction or not then it must be admitted.
I hold therefore that the two documents are relevant and I therefore grant this application in terms of the orders below.
1. The Court therefore grants the Applicant extension of time to file the 1st Respondent’s brief of argument.
2. The court hereby grants the Applicant leave to put in further evidence i.e. the certified true copy of the judgment of this Hon. Court in appeal no CA/C/NAEA/236/2011 and INEC Form EC8E (1) Declaration of Result of Election form filed by the 1st Respondent.
3. The Court hereby deems the 1st Respondent’s brief filed on 16th April, 2013 as properly filed and served.
I make no orders as to costs.
MOHAMMED LAWAL GARBA, J.C.A.: The reasoning and conclusions of my learned brother Uzo I. Ndukwe-Anyanwu, J.C.A., in the lead judgment in this appeal, a draft of which I had read before now, are the same with mine on the issue that the Appellant, a member of the CPC, apparently, lacks the legal capacity to challenge the primary election conducted by the Peoples Democratic Party for its nomination of candidates to contest the general election conducted by the 2nd Respondent, which he contested for under the platform of the CPC. It is only in Nigeria that the harpless courts could be burdened by such strange and frivolous cases.
I join in dismissing the appeal with costs assessed at N50,000.00 in favour of the 3rd Respondent and to be paid by the Appellant.
ONYEKACHI A. OTISI, J.C.A.: I had the privilege of reading, in draft, the Ruling delivered by my learned Brother, Ndukwe-Anyanwu JCA.
I adopt the reasoning and the conclusions reached as mine; and, hereby grant the application of the 1st Respondent/Applicant as prayed.
Appearances
For Appellant
AND
For Respondent
