IN RE: HON. MONDAY IYORE OSAGIE & ORS v. VICTOR ENOGHAMA & ORS (2022)

IN RE: HON. MONDAY IYORE OSAGIE & ORS v. VICTOR ENOGHAMA & ORS

(2022)LCN/16854(CA)

In the Court of Appeal

(BENIN JUDICIAL DIVISION)

On Thursday, May 19, 2022

CA/B/100M/2022(R)

Before Our Lordships:

Theresa Ngolika Orji-Abadua Justice of the Court of Appeal

James Gambo Abundaga Justice of the Court of Appeal

Ademola Samuel Bola Justice of the Court of Appeal

Between

1. HON. MONDAY IYORE OSAGIE 2, HON. REUBEN IKPONMWANEKHOSUEHI 3. HON. ADEYANBA MICHAEL OSARO 4. HON. MAGDALENE OMOSIGHO OSAWE 5. HON. IMARIAGBE DESTINY OGHOGHO (For Themselves And On Behalf Of The 576 Ad-Hoc Delegates Elected At The Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) Wards Congresses In The 192 Wards Of Edo State On The 30th Day Of April, 2022 And Monitored By INEC APPELANT(S)

And

1. VICTOR ENOGHAMA 2. CHARLES EGBON 3. ANTHONY EBHODAGHE 4. ODIGIE IDAHOSA (For Themselves And On Behalf Of All The Elected Ad-Hoc Ward Delegates Of The Peoples Democratic Party, Edo State) 5. PEOPLES DEMOCRATIC PARTY 6. DR. TONY AZIEGBEMI RESPONDENT(S)

RATIO

WHETHER OR NOT LEAVE OF COURT MUST BE SOUGHT BEFORE AN INTERESTED PARTY CAN FILE AN APPEAL

In Contract Resource Nigeria Ltd. Anor. vs. United Bank For Africa Plc. (2011) LPELR-SC. 292/2003, the Supreme Court opined that Section 243(a) of the Constitution makes leave a mandatory pre-condition that must be sought and obtained before an interested party can appeal. An applicant filing an appeal without satisfying or fulfilling that pre-condition is merely wasting his time. PER ORJI-ABADUA, J.C.A.

THE POSITION OF LAW ON THE ATTITUDE OF DELIBERATE DISREGARD TO THE PROCESSES OF THE COURT

The question is, why the mad rush to hear the Motion he had since refused to give a date for. He simply rushed to emasculate this Court and stifle the course of justice. I refer to the Supreme Court case of Mohammed vs. Olawunmi (1993) 4 NWLR Part 288 page 384 where it was opined that the attitude of deliberate disregard to the processes of this Court in particular, by any lower Court/Tribunal, borders on judicial impertinence and even an affront on the authority of the Court. Such conduct should be deprecated in the strongest possible judicial language and the lower Courts be made to realize that they are constitutionally bound to accord respect to the authority and powers of this Court which are exercised through its processes issued in accordance with the law and practice. If the hierarchy of the Courts provided for in the Constitution and the rule of law are to have meaningful and practical effect at all, then, a lower Court must avoid any action or attitude that tend to or would result in the defiance and disrespect to the processes of a higher Court. I must say as had already been expressed by my Lord, Garba, JCA (as he then was) that: “I have zero (0) tolerance to willful and disdainful defiance and disregard of the processes and authority of a higher Court by lower Courts, I would be one to swiftly apply the strictest available judicial sanctions on such recalcitrant Courts.“ PER ORJI-ABADUA, J.C.A.

THERESA NGOLIKA ORJI-ABADUA, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgement): This application was filed by the Applicants/Interested Parties on Thursday, the 12th May, 2022 seeking for an Order of this Court granting them leave to appeal as persons having interest against the ruling of the Edo State High Court sitting in Benin City, dated the 5th day of May, 2022 in suit No: B/408/2022.

The application is pivoted on nine grounds thus:
“(1) The Applicants are card carrying members of the Peoples Democratic Party, a Political Party duly registered in Nigeria with its primary object being participation in general elections to political offices in Nigeria.
(2) The Applicants are the duly elected Ward Delegates of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) at the Wards Congresses conducted on the 30th day of April, 2022 in the 192 Wards of Edo State and monitored by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).
(3) The 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th Respondents surreptitiously ganged up and wrote their names as elected Ward delegates and approached the Edo State High Court for an order restraining the 5th and 6th Respondents from recognizing the Applicants as duly elected Delegates at the Wards Congresses of the 5th Respondent conducted on the 30th day of April, 2022 across the 192 Wards in Edo State.
(4) The Applicants who are the duly elected Delegates at the Wards Congresses of the 5th Respondent conducted on the 5th day of April, 2022 though adversely affected by the restraining order were not made parties to the suit before the Hon. Justice V. O. Eboreime of Edo State High Court.
(5) The Applicants stand to be adversely negatively affected if they are unable to appeal the ruling before the Honourable Court.
(6) The Applicants’ Proposed Grounds of Appeal raise serious constitutional and jurisdictional issues.
(7) The Applicants are seeking this opportunity to be heard on the propriety or correctness or otherwise of the ruling.
(7) The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) has already set out the Time Table between April and June, 2022 for every registered political party in Nigeria to hold their Conventions and Congress for the nomination of candidates for the general election.
(8) If this application is first made at the trial Court, the Respondents will have ample time to file their respective responses to the application before the trial Court may take time at its discretion to hear and determine the application.
(9) If the trial Court refuses the application the Appellants/Applicants will have to apply for and secure the certified copies of the Court processes, the record of proceedings and the ruling of the Court to be exhibited to the application in the Court of Appeal, and the Applicants/Appellants’ participation in the 5th Respondent’s Convention, Congresses and nomination of candidates would have been denied.

The facts buttressing the application were asseverated in a 23 paragraph affidavit deposed to by one Queen Iyasere, a Litigation Clerk in the Chambers of the Applicants’ learned Senior Counsel. Attached to the affidavit are Exhibits A, B, C, D, E and F. Exhibit A is the Applicants’ Proposed Notice of Appeal said to have disclosed remarkably disputable grounds of appeal. Exhibit B is the certified true copy of the ruling of the lower Court delivered on the 5th May, 2022. Exhibit C is a certified true copy of the Enrolled Order of the lower Court. Exhibit D x-rays the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) membership cards of the Applicants. The certified true copies of the election results conducted during the Ward Congresses of the 5th Respondent on the 30th April, 2022 across the 192 Wards in Edo State and monitored by INEC is Exhibit E. Exhibit F is the PDP Revised Timetable with regard to the Time Table established by INEC between April and June, 2022 for every registered political party in Nigeria to hold its Conventions and Congresses for the nomination of candidates for the general election.

The application is equally bolstered by an affidavit of urgency of ten paragraphs deposed to by the same Queen Iyasere indicating the state of urgency in the hearing of the application. Learned Silk for the Applicants filed a written address in support of the application as prescribed by the 2021 Rules of this Court. All the Respondents were served with copies of the Motion together with the processes filed alongside them in the Registry of this Court on the same 12th May, 2022.

The 1st to 4th Respondents reacted to the Motion by filing a counter-affidavit of 13 paragraphs. They annexed Exhibit A, being the Newspaper Publication by the 5th Respondent confirming the appointment of the Ward Congresses Electoral Committee. Exhibit B is the claimed authentic list of the duly elected Ad-hoc Delegates for Edo State who emerged as the winners of the Congress conducted by the Committee duly constituted by the 5th Respondent in the 192 Wards of the 18 Local Government Areas of Edo State on the 30TH April, 2022, Further attached to the counter-affidavit as Exhibit C, is the ruling of the lower Court granting interlocutory injunction on the 13th May, 2022. The 1st-4th Respondents also filed their written address in opposition to the application for leave to appeal on the 16th May, 2022.

The 5th and 6th Respondents were respectively served with Applicants’ Motion on Notice filed on 12/5/2022, and, hearing notices on the same 12/5/2022. They were further served with hearing notices on the 16th May, 2022 against the following day, 17/5/2022 when this application was heard. They neither filed counter-affidavits nor written addresses on points of law in opposition to the said Motion on Notice filed on 12/5/2022. At the hearing of the application, the respective Learned Silk for the parties adopted their respective written addresses. The Learned Senior Counsel for the Applicants sought for the permission of this Court to respond orally to the intriguing issues raised by the 1st-4th Respondents’ learned Senior Counsel in their written address just served on him in the evening of the previous day, and the same was granted by this Court.

In the Applicants’ written address, a lone issue was propositioned by the Applicants thus:
“Whether this application should be granted.”

The 1st to 4th Respondents for themselves equally propounded only one issue thus:
“Whether having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, the applicants are entitled to the grant of this application.”

The learned Senior Counsel for the Applicants/Parties Interested, Chief F. O. Orbih, SAN, in their written address, referenced the cases of Adedeji vs. Adedeji (2018) LPELR-46706(CA); Re: Apeh (2017) 11 NWLR Part 1576 page 252 at 302-303; Waziri vs. Gumel (2012) 9 NWLR Part 1304 page 185; In Re: Abiola (2019) 12 NWLR Part 1685 page 27 at 48-49;50 and 51; Bi-Courtney Limited vs. A.G., Federation & Ors (2019) 10 NWLR Part 1079 page 112 at 129-130 and Registered Trustees, Acts of Apostles Church vs. Fatunde (2016) 11 NWLR Part 1523 page 211 at 225-226, and submitted that where the Applicants have alluded to the fact that they were not parties at the trial Court but that the judgment of and Order of that Court affected them, the Court is always inclined to give opportunity to such persons whose rights have been affected behind their back to be heard and such persons cannot be shut out as that will infringe on their constitutional right to fair hearing which borders on jurisdiction. He listed the factors which the Court should consider when determining such an application as: (1) The Applicant/Party Interested in the case whose interest needs to be protected; (2) Whether the Proposed Notice and Grounds of Appeal are substantial and arguable? And (3) The Applicant’s entitlement to exercise the guaranteed right of appeal.

Learned Senior Counsel referred to the facts averred in the affidavit in support and contended that they were not made parties by the 1st-4th Respondents at the lower Court. They were not aware of the pendency of the action until a restraining order was made public as depicted in Exhibits B and C. He further contended that the ruling of the lower Court directly affected the political fortunes/interests of the Applicants and the same has subjected them to confusion and disorganisation. On the reason of approaching this Court first rather approaching the lower Court in the first instance with such application, learned Senior Counsel drew the attention of this Court to the time frame set out by INEC for the political parties’ primaries to begin in April, 2022 and end in June, 2022 which he argued, constituted exceptional circumstances. He stated that the natural delay in approaching the Court below first will surely defeat the essence of the proposed appeal. He pointed out that the Proposed Grounds of Appeal raised constitutional and jurisdictional issues of the trial Court. During his adoption of the written address, he drew the attention of this Court to the fundamental issue of law pertaining to Section 84(14) of the Electoral Act, 2022, which categorically charged all aggrieved aspirants who have complaints about flouting of the provisions of the Act and the guidelines of a political party in the selection or nomination of a candidate to apply to the Federal High Court for redress, and then urged that this application be granted.

In the 1st-4th Respondents’ written address adopted by the Learned Senior Counsel for the 1st-4th Respondents, Ayo Asala, SAN, before this Court, it was vehemently contended that the Applicants have not shown any special circumstances to warrant bringing this application at first instance before this Court without first filing it before the lower Court. He said that the reason as portrayed at paragraph 19 of the affidavit in support of the application does not constitute special circumstance. He referred to the case of Vaswani Trading Co. vs. Savalakh (1972) 1 All NLR Part 2 page 482 for the construction of the word “special” which would entail a consideration of some collateral circumstances and, in some cases, inherent matters which may, unless the order is granted, destroy the subject matter of the proceedings or foist upon the Court, especially, the Court of Appeal, a situation of complete helplessness or render nugatory any order or orders of the Court of Appeal or paralyse in one way or the other, the exercise by the litigant of his constitutional right of appeal or generally provide a situation in which whatever happens to the case, and in particular even if the Appellant succeeds in the Court of Appeal, there could be no return to the status quo. He submitted that the Applicants have not displayed any special circumstances that would warrant their bringing this application before this Court. The second reason he adduced is that the ruling of the lower Court which the Applicants are seeking to appeal against has lapsed and overtaken by event. He said that the Motion on Notice to which the order sought to be against was subjected, was heard by the lower Court on the 13th May, 2022, then bringing to a stop or closure that interim order made on the 5th May, 2022.

In the Applicants’ reply to the issues raised by the 1st-4th Respondents in their address, the learned Senior Counsel, in respect of the allegation of lack of special circumstances, referred this Court to the case of Olabomi vs. Oyewinle (2013) LPELR-20969 and submitted that time is of the essence in this proceeding because from the timetable of the 5th Respondent attached as Exhibit F to the application, the primaries will start taking place from the 18th May, 2022 and that the Presidential Primary will take place on the 28th and 29th May, 2022. He strongly contended that after these dates in May, 2022, the whole exercise would have become academic and come to nought. He argued that because of the state of urgency in the entire proceeding and the shortness of time in applying to the lower and supposed the same was refused by the lower Court and by the time the Applicants would have rushed to this Court to apply for leave, the entire time and process would have evaporated and that would have been detrimental to the Applicants.

On the contention of the 1st-4th Respondents’ Counsel that in view of the Order of Interlocutory injunction made by the lower Court on the 13th May, 2022, after the 1st-4th Respondents were served with the present Motion on Notice on 12/5/2022, that this application would become an academic exercise, learned Senior Counsel submitted that the notion is totally misconceived, because of the issue raised that the trial Court lacked jurisdiction in the first instance to entertain the matter and if determined and upheld, every step taken and the proceedings conducted by the lower Court become a nullity.

It was further argued that self-help is not allowed by the Courts and that no litigant is permitted at all to foist on any Court a situation of helplessness. He said that the Respondents were served on the 12th May, 2022, then on the 13th May, 2022, they went before the lower Court and argued their Motion on Notice for Interlocutory Injunction and obtained the said Order in order to rush to this Court, having known that the present application was fixed for hearing before this Court on the 16th May, 2022, to say that the application has been overtaken by event. He strenuously argued that they owed this Court utmost duty on the 13th May, 2022 they went before the lower Court to inform it about the existence of the present application. He seriously contended that having been aware of the pendency of this application, they ought to have given this Court a chance to look into the matter.

In countering the argument on Section 14 of the Court of Appeal Act, 2004, that no appeal shall lie against an ex parte order made by the Court, learned Senior Counsel referred to Section 241 (1)(f)(ii) which says that an appeal shall lie against an order of injunction as of right, therefore, no Act of Parliament can take away the right of appeal donated by the Constitution of Nigeria (as amended). He respectfully urged that this application be granted.

In determining this application, it must be distinctly stated that the act of delivering a judgment or making an order in the absence of a person which affects the person’s interest was envisaged by the provisions of Section 243(1)(a) of the 1999 Constitution as amended, which provides inter alia that any person having an interest in the matter will exercise his right of appeal with the leave of the Federal High Court or the High Court or the Court of Appeal. It follows, therefore, that the Applicants herein who were not originally parties in suit No. B/408/2022 and whose interests were alleged to have been adversely affected by the ruling of the High Court of Edo State sitting in Benin City delivered on the 5th May, 2022, can only appeal against the same with the leave of the Court. See also the Supreme Court case of Ekpoke vs. Usilo (1978) 6-7 SC (Reprint) 127 where the apex Court held that:
“The general rule of Law undoubtedly is that no person is to be adversely affected by an action to which he was not a party, because of injustice in deciding an issue against him in his absence. But this general rule admits of two exceptions, one is that a person who is in privity with the parties, a “privy” as is called is bound equally with the parties, in which case, he is estopped by res judicata; the other is that a person may have acted as to include himself from challenging the judgment in which case, he is estopped by his conduct. Nigerian Law recognises that the conduct of a person may be such that he is estopped from relitigating the issue all over again.”
So the right to appeal in circumstances such as this is only exercisable with leave, at the instance of the person who can show that he has an interest in the matter. Such a person has the herculean duty to satisfy the Court that he has a legal grievance in the matter and that the decision pronounced upon him has wrongfully and prejudicially refused him something which he had a right to demand. It is only a person whose interest has been directly and not obliquely affected by a decision that can validly seek leave to appeal as an interested party. It would not cover a person who has a general interest in the said decision to appeal against the same.

It is instructive to note that there is no time limit within which the application for leave to appeal as an interested party may be brought. Once he is granted admittance into the proceedings, he must then comply with the requirements of the law in the same manner as any other party.

The momentous question at this juncture is “whether the Applicants sufficiently disclosed their interest in making this application? The facts buttressing the application were glaringly stated at paragraphs 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 of their affidavit in support. They averred that they are card carrying members of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), the 5th Respondent. They are the duly elected Ward Delegates of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) at the Wards Congresses conducted on the 30th day of April, 2022 in the 192 Wards of Edo State and monitored by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC). It was alleged that the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th Respondents surreptitiously ganged up and wrote their names as elected Ward Delegates and approached the Edo State High Court for an order restraining the 5th and 6th Respondents from recognising the Applicants as duly elected Delegates at the Wards Congresses of the 5th Respondent conducted on the 30th day of April, 2022 across the 192 Wards in Edo State. It was equally shown that the Respondents approached the lower Court via a Motion Ex-parte and an Order of interim injunction was made by the lower Court on the 5th May, 2022.

There is something dubious and inexplicable about the approach adopted by the lower Court because, naturally upon granting an Ex-parte Order of Injunction, the lower Court ought to have adjourned the hearing of any pending Motion on Notice for Interlocutory Injunction to a particular or a given date. Ordinarily, an ex-parte injunction is expected to last for a short time more so as the procedure is likely to be abused by litigants. This is why the order must be very sparingly made particularly in political matters and pre-election cases because usually, time is of the essence. Shockingly and without any explanation, as per Exhibits B and C attached to the Applicants’ affidavit in support, the lower Court after restraining the Applicants by the ex parte order, remained silent on the date of adjournment of the Motion on Notice for Interlocutory Injunction, deliberately refused to adjourn the Motion on Notice to any given date knowing full well that the activities of the parties the Applicants were restrained by the ex parte order to participate in would all start on 19/5/2022 and end between 28th and 29th May, 2022, between about 12 days and 22 days respectively from the date of the Order. They are supposed to participate starting from the 19th May, 2022. So even if the lower Court had intended that it would then lapse after a period of 14 days, the Applicants would still have been adversely affected since they had only 12 days from the date of the order and the beginning of the events. It is evident in Exhibits B and C, which were equally admitted by the learned Senior Counsel for the 1st-4th Respondents that the Motion for Interlocutory Injunction was not adjourned to nor fixed on any known near date. It is clear in those Exhibits that the lower refused to fix the Motion immediately for hearing having knowledge of the fact that time is of the essence in the matter.

Everything about the date of the Motion on Notice for Interlocutory Injunction was shrouded in secrecy. The non-fixing of the Motion on Notice for Interlocutory Injunction in a political matter was definitely hanging over the heads of the Applicants like a Sword of Damocles. This then compelled the Applicants to file this application.

They stated that having been duly elected delegates at the Wards Congresses of the 5th Respondent conducted on the 30th day of April, 2022 they have been adversely affected by the restraining order and were not made parties to the suit before the Hon. Justice V. O. Eboreime of Edo State High Court. They said that they stand to remain adversely and negatively affected if they are unable to appeal the ruling of the lower Court which would have amounted to a violation of their constitutional right to fair hearing. Obviously, the decision of the lower Court made on the 5th May, 2022 in suit No. B/408/2022 prejudicially affected the Applicants’ interest in their rights to participate and vote at the Congresses and Convention of the 5th Respondent fixed between today the 19th May, 2022 and next week Friday and Saturday being the 28th and 29th May, 2022. The Order deprived them of their rights to participate as presumed elected delegates of the 5th Respondent.

The major objection raised by the 1st-4th Respondents herein is the failure of the Applicants to approach the lower Court first for leave and the fact that by Section 14 of the Court of Appeal Act, 2004, no appeal shall lie against an ex parte Order.
Dealing with the first limb, that is to say, that the lower Court was not approached first, the Applicants sufficiently explained their reasons for rushing to this Court first because of the time frame. They are almost out of time to challenge the decision of the lower Court. In Contract Resource Nigeria Ltd. Anor. vs. United Bank For Africa Plc. (2011) LPELR-SC. 292/2003, the Supreme Court opined that Section 243(a) of the Constitution makes leave a mandatory pre-condition that must be sought and obtained before an interested party can appeal. An applicant filing an appeal without satisfying or fulfilling that pre-condition is merely wasting his time.
By the provisions of Rules of this Court, the Applicants were neither circumscribed nor shut out from bringing or filing the application for leave to appeal as Interested parties regulated by Section 243(1)(a) of the 1999 Constitution before this Court. Even though there is no time limit within which an applicant may present an application to appeal as an interested party, If the time within which he would have appealed against the decision has expired, he must apply before the appellate Court for extension of time for leave to appeal, leave to appeal and extension of time to appeal against the said ruling, that is to say, the trinity prayers must be sought for. The Applicants herein stated at paragraph 19 that if this application is first made at the lower Court, the Respondents would have ample time to file their respective responses and the trial Court may take time at its discretion to hear and determine the application. The same was further explained at paragraph 20 of their affidavit in support and they would have ended up being denied participation at the 5th Respondent’s Convention and Congresses and nomination of candidates.
I must observe that there is nothing in the provisions of Section 243(1)(a) of the 1999 Constitution that precluded the Applicants from filing the application for leave to appeal as an interested party in the first instance before this Court. It must further be observed that leave to appeal as an interested party is regulated by Section 243(a) of the 1999 Constitution which simply required that the leave of the Federal High Court or the High Court or the Court of Appeal be obtained by the person having an interest in the matter to appeal as an interested party implying that the person may approach any of those Courts first. Section 243(a) did not provide that leave to appeal must first be sought at the Court below and that failure to approach the lower Court first, renders the application incompetent. The provisions of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria are superior to any Rules of Court and they take precedence over them. I am, therefore, satisfied with the circumstances explained by the Appellants which warranted their application for leave to appeal as interested parties being presented before this Court for the first time. They are completely running out of time and I agree that the same could not have been achieved within the 12 days they had from the date of the Order i.e. 5/5/2022 to the 19th May, 2022, the beginning of happening of the events. In the light of the foregoing, particularly bearing in mind that the basic application for consideration herein is that asking for leave to appeal as interested parties, I hereby overrule this objection premised on the provisions of the Rules of this Court.

Regarding the objection premised on Section 14 of the Court of Appeal, Act, the same will be and is hereby overruled in view of the provisions of Section 241(1)(f)(ii) which says that an appeal shall lie from the decisions of the Federal High Court or a State High Court to the Court of Appeal as of right in the following cases: (f) decisions made or given by the Federal High Court or a High Court-(ii) where an injunction or the appointment of a receiver is granted or refused. It is worthy of note that the word injunction stipulated therein was not qualified nor limited to any particular type of injunction. An Injunction is injunction whether made ex parte or upon a Motion on Notice, the same set of conditions have to be satisfied by the person seeking it, so once granted, it is appealable in line with the provisions of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 as amended.

I have closely studied the proposed grounds of appeal raised by the Applicants which fundamentally questioned the jurisdiction of the High Court of Edo State to have entertained the ex parte application or the suit filed by the Respondents wherein it restrained the Applicants from participating in their party’s Convention and Congresses and nomination of candidates in the first place and granting such an order since the provisions of Section 84(14) of the 2022 Electoral Act, has donated jurisdiction over matters of this nature to Federal High Court only. There was no mention of State High Court in the said Section. This, I view as a valid and substantial ground that would compel this Court to grant this application. If the lower Court has no jurisdiction in the first place to have entertained the suit let alone making the order of 5/5/2022 considering the provisions of Section 84(14) of the 2022 Act, then it is imperative that the application is granted.
In respect of the matter being an accomplished act, due to the Interlocutory injunction the lower Court hurriedly granted on the 13th May, 2022 after all the Respondents had been served with the Applicants’ Motion on Notice on 12/5/2022, I view it as the height of judicial rascality and impertinence. It is instructive to note that the trial Court refused to fix the date on which the said Motion on Notice for Interlocutory Injunction was to be moved and, suddenly on 13/5/2022, permitted the 1st-4th Respondents’ Counsel, who was fully aware that the instant Motion on Notice had been fixed for hearing on 16/5/22, to argue the said unfixed Motion for Interlocutory Injunction and granted the same. All these, to my mind, was intended to foist upon the Court of Appeal a situation of helplessness. It appears insulting and an act of impudence for Counsel to come and argue that the granting of this application will amount to an academic exercise. The attitude of Counsel is most disturbing and condemnable. As far as this Court is concerned, the hearing of the Motion for Interlocutory Injunction which the trial Court had refused to fix or adjourn for hearing, after the Respondents had been served with the instant application, is horridly distasteful and unbecoming of a Minister in the Temple of Justice. The trial Judge had exhibited the greatest degree of disrespect to this Court and judicial process. He deliberately boxed this Court to a corner for refusing to fix the Motion for Interlocutory Injunction before him for hearing but then turned around to hear the same after this Court had fixed the instant application. No, we shall not permit such rascality to prevail.
The question is, why the mad rush to hear the Motion he had since refused to give a date for. He simply rushed to emasculate this Court and stifle the course of justice. I refer to the Supreme Court case of Mohammed vs. Olawunmi (1993) 4 NWLR Part 288 page 384 where it was opined that the attitude of deliberate disregard to the processes of this Court in particular, by any lower Court/Tribunal, borders on judicial impertinence and even an affront on the authority of the Court. Such conduct should be deprecated in the strongest possible judicial language and the lower Courts be made to realize that they are constitutionally bound to accord respect to the authority and powers of this Court which are exercised through its processes issued in accordance with the law and practice. If the hierarchy of the Courts provided for in the Constitution and the rule of law are to have meaningful and practical effect at all, then, a lower Court must avoid any action or attitude that tend to or would result in the defiance and disrespect to the processes of a higher Court. I must say as had already been expressed by my Lord, Garba, JCA (as he then was) that: “I have zero (0) tolerance to willful and disdainful defiance and disregard of the processes and authority of a higher Court by lower Courts, I would be one to swiftly apply the strictest available judicial sanctions on such recalcitrant Courts.” It is clear that the hearing of the Motion for Interlocutory Injunction the trial Court had since 5/5/2022 refused to fix for hearing, and, delivery of the ruling on 13/5/2022 by the lower Court, amounted to a deliberate disregard and defiance of the processes of this Court on the facts and circumstances of this case. This is a political matter and Courts had been enjoined by the apex Court to exercise great caution in dishing out such orders in time-bound cases. Grounds one and five of the Applicants’ Proposed Grounds of Appeal raised serious issues of jurisdiction which I found exceedingly compelling in granting this application.
In the end and for all the reasons I have given above, this Court finds substance in this application more so where there is a seeming conspiracy to unjustly deny the Applicants their rights without being heard at all and stifle the course of justice. Accordingly, this application is granted. The Applicants are granted the leave of this Court to appeal as persons having interest against the decision of the High Court of Edo State in suit No. B/408/2022 made on 5/5/2022. In view of the fact that time is of the essence, because by Friday next week, all the 5th Respondent’s Convention and Congresses and nomination of candidates for the general election would have been over, the Applicants are given 24 hours to file their Notice of Appeal against the said decision.

JAMES GAMBO ABUNDAGA, J.C.A.: I have read the draft of the ruling delivered by my learned brother, Theresa Ngolika Orji-Abadua, JCA.

I am in complete agreement with his Lordship that the application is meritorious, and should be granted.

Now, in the application, the applicants have in the affidavit in support of the motion satisfied the Court that they are the duly elected delegates. Even though the Respondents have denied this and attached a result which shows that they are the duly elected delegates, all that this Court can say for now is that the question of which set of delegates are authentic delegates, is one to be decided in the substantive suit.

The Respondents have in the course of arguing against the grant of this application informed the Court off record that the motion for interlocutory injunction had been moved and granted on 14/5/22, that issue is not before this Court. Even if it is, the Court cannot take it seriously because it must be one that was granted during the pendency of the instant application which was served on the Respondents on 12/5/22 Therefore, it cannot obstruct the determination of the instant application on its merits.

It is for the foregoing reasons, and detailed reasoning in the lead ruling that I grant this application as prayed.
I abide by all the consequential orders made in the lead ruling.

ADEMOLA SAMUEL BOLA, J.C.A.: I have been privilege to read in draft, the ruling of this Court read by my learned brother, THERESA NGOLIKA ORJI-ABADUA JCA. I am in agreement with her reasoning and conclusion. I adopt them as mine.

There is no doubt the Applicants’ application reveals special circumstances to warrant its grant.