MR. EBIELIM MADUEMEZIA v. MR. CHIBUZOR UWAJE & ORS
(2015)LCN/7836(CA)
In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
On Wednesday, the 25th day of March, 2015
CA/B/434/2013
RATIO
COURT: JURISDICTION; THE IMPORTANCE OF JURISDICTION TO A PROCEEDINGS AND HOW TO DETERMINE WHETHER A COURT HAS JURISDICTION TO ENTERTAIN A MATTER
Jurisdiction is the fons et origo and threshold of judicial power and judicialism. The very lifeline and livewire of all proceedings in a court or tribunal without which the entire proceedings are a nullity however brilliantly they may have been conducted: ROSSEK vs. ACB (1993) 8 NWLR (PT 312) 382 at 437C – G and 487G – H and OKE vs. OKE (2006) 17 NWLR (PT 1008) 2264. Jurisdiction is a fundamental prerequisite in the adjudication of any matter. Jurisdiction is the authority, which a court has to decide matters that are litigated before it or to take cognizance of matters presented in a formal way for its decision. Where a Court does not have jurisdiction to entertain a matter the proceedings however well conducted are a nullity as the defect or lack of jurisdiction is extrinsic to the adjudication. See OLOBA vs. AKEREJA (1988) 3 NWLR (PT 84) 508 and MADUKOLU vs. NKEMDILIM (2001) 46 WRN 1 at 13. In considering whether a court has jurisdiction to entertain a matter, it has to be borne in mind that jurisdiction of a Court is not assumed, but must be based on the provisions of a statute. The jurisdiction of the Court does not derive from the sky or to put it in the Latinism, in nubibus. It is statutory. See IKECHUKWU vs. FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA Appeal No. SC. 278/2012 (unreported) delivered on 6th March, 2015. The jurisdiction of a Court is not something you employ a searchlight to discover, it must be plain for all to see: OBI vs. INEC (2007) 11 NWLR (PT 1046) 565 at 669. The courts duty when its jurisdiction to entertain a matter is put in issue is to expound its jurisdiction but not to expand it. See TUKUR vs. GOVT. OF GONGOLA STATE (1989) 4 NWLR (PT 117) 517 at 549, EGBUE vs. ARAKA (2003) 9 MJSC 17 at 35 and MUDIAGA-ERHUEH vs. INEC (2003) 7 WRN 95 at 112 – 113.
Now, the concept of jurisdiction of a court can mean two things: (i) the abstract right of a Court to exercise its powers in causes of a certain class; or (ii) the right of a court to exercise its powers over a particular subject matter or res in dispute. In the broader sense of the right of a court to exercise its powers, jurisdiction implies the legal authority or legal capacity to adjudicate at all. It has not argued that the Lower Court, the Federal High Court does not have the legal capacity to adjudicate. It is therefore the narrower sense of the concept of jurisdiction, id est, the exercise of the court’s power over the particular subject matter or the res in the case that is in contest. per. UGOCHUKWU ANTHONY OGAKWU, J.C.A.
COURT: JURISDICTION; WHETHER IT IS WITHIN THE PROVINCE AND JURISDICTION OF THE COURT TO INTERFERE WITH MATTERS WHICH CONCERN THE RUNNING OF THE INTERNAL AFFAIRS OF POLITICAL PARTIES
Now, the parties are agreed that the principle enunciated in ONUOHA vs. OKAFOR (supra) remains good law. The said principle is that no justiciable dispute or controversy is presented to a court when the parties seek adjudication of only a political question. The decisions of questions of a political nature is exclusively for the political party. See ONUOHA vs. OKAFOR (1983) LPELR (2705) 1 at 33. As pungently put by Irikefe, JSC at pages 35 – 36:
“The matter in controversy in the appeal is whether a court has jurisdiction to entertain a claim whereby it can compel a political party to sponsor one candidate in preference for another candidate of the self-same political party. If a court could do this, it would in effect be managing the political party for the members thereof. The issue of who should be a candidate of a given political party at any election is clearly a political one, to be determined by the rules and constitution of the said party. It is thus a domestic issue and not such as would be justiciable in a court of law.” So the settled legal position is that it is not within the province and jurisdiction of the courts to interfere with matters which concern the running of the internal affairs of political parties. The decided cases on the point are legion, but I will only refer to a few, notably ONUOHA vs. OKAFOR (supra), ABDULKADIR vs. MAMMAN (2003) 14 NWLR (PT 836) 1, DALHATU vs. TURAKI (2003) 15 NWLR (PT 843) 310, EHINLAWO vs. OKE (2008) 16 NWLR (PT 1113) 357, LADO vs. CPC (2011) 18 NWLR (PT 1279) 689, UZODINMA vs. IZUNASO (NO. 2) (2011) 17 NWLR (PT 1275) 30, TUKUR vs. UBA (2013) 4 NWLR (PT 1343) 90, UMEH vs. EJIKE (2013) LPELR (23506) 1, PDP vs. SYLVA (2012) LPELR (7814) 1 and UGWU vs. PDP (2015) LPELR (24352) 1. per. UGOCHUKWU ANTHONY OGAKWU, J.C.A.
JUSTICES
HELEN MORONKEJI OGUNWUMIJU Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
HAMMA AKAWU BARKA Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
UGOCHUKWU ANTHONY OGAKWU Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
Between
MR. EBIELIM MADUEMEZIA Appellant(s)
AND
1. MR. CHIBUZOR UWAJE
2. PEOPLES DEMOCRATIC PARTY (PDP)
3. INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION Respondent(s)
UGOCHUKWU ANTHONY OGAKWU, J.C.A. (Delivering The Leading Judgment): This appeal is one of two related appeals emanating from the judgment of the Federal High Court sitting in Asaba delivered on 10th June, 2013. The sister appeal is Appeal No. CA/B/292/2013. The Appellant herein is the 1st Respondent in the said Appeal No. CA/B/292/2013, while the 1st Respondent herein is the Appellant in the said Appeal No. CA/B/292/2013.
The appeal flows from the disceptation that arose after the conduct of the 2012 Local Government Congress of the Peoples Democratic Party for the election of the Local Government Party Executives for Oshimili South Local Government Area of Delta State. The 1st Respondent claims that he was elected the Local Government Party Chairman at the election but that at the State Congress of the Party, the Delta State Chairman of the Peoples Democratic Party replaced his name with that of the Appellant. The demands which he made to right the wrong yielded no result consequent upon which he commenced proceedings by originating summons at the Lower Court for the determination of the following questions:
“1. Whether upon the interpretation of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) Constitution of 2009 (as amended), and the PDP Guidelines, a Local Government Party Chairman can emerge or be elected without the participation of the Local Government Area Congress Planning Committee and the elected ward delegates for the said Local Government.
2. If the answer to No. 1 above is in the negative; whether the current attempt by the 2nd Defendant to replace the Plaintiff whom the validly elected PDP delegates elected at the duly organized congress in accordance with the PDP Constitution on 10/3/2012 as Chairman of the party in Oshimili-South Local Government Area of Delta State with the name of the 1st Defendant without the latter contesting a valid election in a duly organized congress as provided for in the PDP Constitution and Guidelines amounts to a violation of the Plaintiff’s rights, thus entitling the latter to the declaratory; injunctive; and other consequential reliefs sought.”
Upon the determination of the aforesaid questions, the 1st Respondent claimed the following reliefs:
“1. A declaration that the purported election of the 1st Defendant as the P.D.P. Chairman for Oshimili-South Local Government Area of Delta State without the 1st Defendant emerging as such through an Oshimili-South Local Government Area Congress by the Oshimili-South Local Government Congress Planning Committee with the duly elected Delegates voting as provided for in the P.D.P. Constitution and Guidelines is in violation of both the P.D.P. Constitution and Guidelines; the Amended Electoral Act 2010; the 1999 Constitution; and the Plaintiff’s right therein; and is consequently null and void and of no legal effect.
2. A consequential order setting aside the purported election of the 1st Defendant as the P.D.P. Chairman for Oshimili-South Local Government Area of Delta State.
3. A declaration that the Plaintiff is the validly elected P.D.P. Chairman for Oshimili-South Local Government Area of Delta State.
4. An order restraining the 2nd – 4th Defendants by themselves, their agents, privies and representatives from holding out and/or recognizing the 1st Defendant as the duly elected Chairman of the P.D.P. for Oshimili-South Government Area of Delta State.
5. Any other consequential order or orders that his honourable Court might deem fit to make in the circumstances.”
The Delta State Chairman of the Peoples Democratic Party was initially sued as the 2nd Defendant in the action; however, the 1st Respondent subsequently discontinued the action against him and the suit continued with the other named defendants on record. The Appellant herein who was the 1st Defendant at the Lower Court could not see his way clear with the competence of the action. He entered a conditional appearance and also filed an application challenging the jurisdiction of the Lower Court to entertain the action. The said application is at pages 527 – 533 of the Records. The 1st Respondent’s application challenging the jurisdiction of the Lower Court was taken along with the originating summons and in its chafed judgment which is at pages 581 – 600 of the Records, the Lower Court held that it had jurisdiction to entertain the action and then proceeded to assume jurisdiction and determine the originating summons. The Appellant was dissatisfied with the decision of the Lower Court that it had jurisdiction to entertain the matter and he lodged an appeal against the same. The Notice of Appeal is at pages 601 – 603 of the Records.
The Records of Appeal having being compiled and transmitted, briefs of argument were filed as between the Appellant and 1st Respondent only. The 2nd and 3rd Respondents did not file any processes and also did not attend court at the hearing of the appeal. The Court therefore ordered that the appeal be heard on the briefs of the Appellant and 1st Respondent alone. The Appellants Brief of Argument is dated 11th March, 2014 filed on 14th March, 2014 and deemed as properly filed and served on 22nd October, 2014.
The Appellant distilled a sole issue for determination, namely:
“Whether the trial Court was right in holding that it had jurisdiction to entertain the Respondent’s claim.”
The 1st Respondent’s Brief is dated and filed on 19th May, 2014 and deemed as properly filed and served on 22nd October, 2014. In the said brief, the 1st Respondent acquiesced to the sole issue for determination as formulated by the Appellant.
At the hearing of the appeal, G. I. Ugbechie, Esq., learned Counsel for the Appellant adopted the submissions in the Appellant’s Brief, which was settled by O. W. Chibuogwu, Esq., and he urged the Court to allow the appeal and set aside the decision of the Lower Court for want of jurisdiction. In the same vein, Chike Onyemenam, Esq., SAN, learned Senior Counsel for the 1st Respondent adopted the submissions in the 1st Respondent’s Brief and he urged the court to dismiss the appeal.
SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT ON THE SOLE ISSUE
The Appellant submits that jurisdiction is statutory and that the Lower Court derives its jurisdiction from the 1999 Constitution as amended, the Federal High Court Act or an Act of the National Assembly. It was posited that there is no provision in any of the said Laws which gives the Lower Court jurisdiction to entertain the 1st Respondent’s claim. The Appellant contended that the facts of the instant appeal were distinguishable from those in UGWU vs. ARARUME (2007) ALL FWLR (PT 377) 807, as the said case dealt with the specific provisions in Section 34 of the Electoral Act, 2006, on how the electoral candidate of a party can be lawfully substituted; and the court stepped in when the provisions were breached. It was opined that the law enunciated in ONUOHA vs. OKAFOR (1983) 10 SC 118 remained good law as the Supreme Court rejected the invitation in UGWU vs. ARARUME (supra) at 866 B – C to overrule its decision in ONUOHA vs. OKAFOR (supra).
It was contended that the decision in ONUOHA vs. OKAFOR (supra) applied to the facts of this matter because of the wording of Section 87 (10) of the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended) which limited the exercise of the court’s jurisdiction to cases involving the electoral candidates of political parties. The cases of UMEH vs. EJIKE (unreported), judgment of the Enugu Division of this Court was referred to the effect that the court has no jurisdiction to entertain the domestic affair of a political party. It was conclusively argued that the courts could not justifiably throw its doors wide open to contestants for mere party offices.
SUBMISSIONS OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT ON THE SOLE ISSUE
The 1st Respondent concedes that ONUOHA vs. OKAFOR is still good law but that the principle is in respect of candidates of a political party nominated to contest general elections on behalf of a political party against other political parties. That the courts cannot choose candidates for the political parties to contest elections on their behalf except in the circumstances of Section 34(2) of the Electoral Act 2006 where courts are vested with jurisdiction where the political party fails to give cogent or justifiable reason for substituting a candidate.
The 1st Respondent opined that none of the cases dealt with election of executive officers of a political party and none of them decided that election of political party executive officers cannot be challenged in Court. The 1st Respondent contended that UGWU vs. ARARUME (supra) laid it down that the law need not provide for a sanction for the breach before the matter can become justiciable. It was therefore posited that a breach of Section 85(3) of the Electoral Act, 2010 as amended, which provided for the election of the executive of a political party in a democratic manner entitles the aggrieved party to seek redress in Court. The 1st Respondent maintained that any stipulation in the regulations of a political party which seeks to restrain members from approaching the courts in exercise of their constitutional rights until they have exhausted the internal complaint machinery of the party was in conflict with the 1999 Constitution and therefore null and void and of no effect.
RESOLUTION OF THE SOLE ISSUE
In upholding its jurisdiction to entertain the 1st Respondent’s action, the Lower Court stated as follows at page 591 of the Records:
“I must state that both parties agreed on the broad principle of what is justiciable within the parameters of Section 87(10) of the Electoral Act (as amended) vis-a-vis the workings of a political party’s Constitution and Guidelines, for the conduct of an election.
As a matter of fact the Supreme Court espoused in the case of UGWU V. ARARUME (Supra) when the court concluded that ONUOHA V. OKAFOR (Supra) ceased to be a useful guiding light in view of the state of our present political landscape.
What led to the reasoning is the contemporary chaotic occurrences in the political scene.
The court will always intervene when political parties fail to comply with the Constitution which they themselves had written with their own hands.
The Courts must therefore always in its ordinary duties enforce compliance with the agreements reached by parties in their contracts.”
The Lower Court then concluded as follows at pages 593 – 594 of the Records.
“What the Plaintiff is saying is that the P.D.P. failed to adhere to the Constitution and party guidelines which they themselves wrote in producing the 1st Defendant. As long as that allegation stands, this court will have the duty to step in and enforce compliance with the agreements reached by the parties in their contract.
The court will not shy away from that responsibility.
I am therefore on the authority of UGWU V. ARARUME (Supra) satisfied that the court has the jurisdiction to take this case. See also Section 87 (10) of the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended) and in doing this examine the complaints of the Plaintiff.”
Jurisdiction is the fons et origo and threshold of judicial power and judicialism. The very lifeline and livewire of all proceedings in a court or tribunal without which the entire proceedings are a nullity however brilliantly they may have been conducted: ROSSEK vs. ACB (1993) 8 NWLR (PT 312) 382 at 437C – G and 487G – H and OKE vs. OKE (2006) 17 NWLR (PT 1008) 2264. Jurisdiction is a fundamental prerequisite in the adjudication of any matter. Jurisdiction is the authority, which a court has to decide matters that are litigated before it or to take cognizance of matters presented in a formal way for its decision. Where a Court does not have jurisdiction to entertain a matter the proceedings however well conducted are a nullity as the defect or lack of jurisdiction is extrinsic to the adjudication. See OLOBA vs. AKEREJA (1988) 3 NWLR (PT 84) 508 and MADUKOLU vs. NKEMDILIM (2001) 46 WRN 1 at 13.
In considering whether a court has jurisdiction to entertain a matter, it has to be borne in mind that jurisdiction of a Court is not assumed, but must be based on the provisions of a statute. The jurisdiction of the Court does not derive from the sky or to put it in the Latinism, in nubibus. It is statutory. See IKECHUKWU vs. FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA Appeal No. SC. 278/2012 (unreported) delivered on 6th March, 2015. The jurisdiction of a Court is not something you employ a searchlight to discover, it must be plain for all to see: OBI vs. INEC (2007) 11 NWLR (PT 1046) 565 at 669. The courts duty when its jurisdiction to entertain a matter is put in issue is to expound its jurisdiction but not to expand it. See TUKUR vs. GOVT. OF GONGOLA STATE (1989) 4 NWLR (PT 117) 517 at 549, EGBUE vs. ARAKA (2003) 9 MJSC 17 at 35 and MUDIAGA-ERHUEH vs. INEC (2003) 7 WRN 95 at 112 – 113.
Now, the concept of jurisdiction of a court can mean two things: (i) the abstract right of a Court to exercise its powers in causes of a certain class; or (ii) the right of a court to exercise its powers over a particular subject matter or res in dispute. In the broader sense of the right of a court to exercise its powers, jurisdiction implies the legal authority or legal capacity to adjudicate at all. It has not argued that the Lower Court, the Federal High Court does not have the legal capacity to adjudicate. It is therefore the narrower sense of the concept of jurisdiction, id est, the exercise of the court’s power over the particular subject matter or the res in the case that is in contest.
The summation of the grievance on which the 1st Respondent predicted his action and approached the Lower Court for redress is that he contested and won the election as the Chairman of the Oshimili-South Local Government Area of the Peoples Democratic Party in a duly conducted Congress election, but that the Appellant who did not participate in any congress became accepted as the Chairman elect. The 1st Respondent therefore wanted the Lower Court to declare him the duly elected Chairman of the Peoples Democratic Party, Oshimili-South Local Government Area. The 1st Respondent relying on UGWU vs. ARARUME (supra) maintains that Section 85(3) of the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended) entitles an aggrieved party to seek redress in Court notwithstanding that there was no sanction provided for a breach of the provisions of Section 85 (3).
Now, the parties are agreed that the principle enunciated in ONUOHA vs. OKAFOR (supra) remains good law. The said principle is that no justiciable dispute or controversy is presented to a court when the parties seek adjudication of only a political question. The decisions of questions of a political nature is exclusively for the political party. See ONUOHA vs. OKAFOR (1983) LPELR (2705) 1 at 33. As pungently put by Irikefe, JSC at pages 35 – 36:
“The matter in controversy in the appeal is whether a court has jurisdiction to entertain a claim whereby it can compel a political party to sponsor one candidate in preference for another candidate of the self-same political party. If a court could do this, it would in effect be managing the political party for the members thereof. The issue of who should be a candidate of a given political party at any election is clearly a political one, to be determined by the rules and constitution of the said party. It is thus a domestic issue and not such as would be justiciable in a court of law.”
So the settled legal position is that it is not within the province and jurisdiction of the courts to interfere with matters which concern the running of the internal affairs of political parties. The decided cases on the point are legion, but I will only refer to a few, notably ONUOHA vs. OKAFOR (supra), ABDULKADIR vs. MAMMAN (2003) 14 NWLR (PT 836) 1, DALHATU vs. TURAKI (2003) 15 NWLR (PT 843) 310, EHINLAWO vs. OKE (2008) 16 NWLR (PT 1113) 357, LADO vs. CPC (2011) 18 NWLR (PT 1279) 689, UZODINMA vs. IZUNASO (NO. 2) (2011) 17 NWLR (PT 1275) 30, TUKUR vs. UBA (2013) 4 NWLR (PT 1343) 90, UMEH vs. EJIKE (2013) LPELR (23506) 1, PDP vs. SYLVA (2012) LPELR (7814) 1 and UGWU vs. PDP (2015) LPELR (24352) 1.
In holding that it has jurisdiction the Lower Court, inter alia, stated that:
“ONUOHA vs. OKAFOR (supra) ceased to be a useful guiding light in view of the state of our present political landscape.”
(See page 591 of the Records).
It seems that by conceding that ONUOHA vs. OKAFOR (supra) is still good law the 1st Respondent does not agree with the Lower Court that the said decision has “ceased to be a useful guiding light.” Be that as it may, the Lower Court was satisfied that it could assume jurisdiction based on the case of UGWU vs. ARARUME (supra) and Section 87(10) of the Electoral Act 2010 as amended (now Section 87 (9)). The learned counsel for the 1st Respondent has tried to distinguish the decision in ONUOHA vs. OKAFOR by contending that it “is in respect of candidates of a political party nominated to contest general elections on behalf of a political party against other political parties.” With respect this seems to be a distinction without a difference. Whether the candidate is elected by the political party to contest general elections or to be a party official, the issue is that it remains a political question and the court cannot decide for a political party who its party officials will be or who its candidates at general elections should be. In ABDULKADIR vs. MAMMAN (supra) an action that dealt with the duly and properly elected National Officers of the Alliance for Democracy, this court per I. T. Muhammad, JCA (as he then was) stated at page 33:
“It is trite law that an intra party governance is within the province of the party. It is not the role of the court to make appointments of person to hold party offices.”
While it is correct as submitted by the 1st Respondent’s counsel that the case of UGWU vs. ARARUME (supra) laid it down that where there is a breach of the guiding provisions, the aggrieved party can seek redress since the law, namely Section 34 (2) of the Electoral Act, 2006, vested jurisdiction in the courts to consider the validity of the reason for the action taken. It seems to me that each case must be considered and determined on its own peculiar facts and circumstances. Under the present dispensation, the courts have been given limited and narrow jurisdiction pursuant to the provisions of Section 87 (9) of the Electoral Act, 2010 as amended. This limited jurisdiction does not necessarily amount to an interference in the internal affairs of a political party which is not justiciable so long as the laid down stipulations and guidelines have been complied with. For the stipulations of Section 87(9) to apply the facts and circumstances of the case must fall within the ambit of the stipulation. The said stipulation provides:
“(9) Notwithstanding the provisions of this Act or rules of a political party, an aspirant who complains that any of the provisions of this Act and the guidelines of a political party has not been compiled with in the selection or nomination of a candidate of a political party for election, may apply to the Federal High Court or the High Court of a State or FCT, for redress.”
The above provision donates jurisdiction to the court in very circumscribed situations, that is, where there is a complaint that the relevant provisions and guidelines have not been complied with in the selection or nomination of the candidate of a political party for election. It is therefore clear that the provision has not made it an all-comers affair. It has to be a complaint relating to the selection or nomination of a candidate for election. The facts of this matter do not relate to the nomination or selection of the 1st Respondent as a candidate of a political party for election. It is rather in respect of complaints and claims in respect of executive officers of the Oshimili-South Local Government Chapter of the Peoples Democratic Party. Accordingly the limited jurisdiction conferred by Section 87 (9) of the Electoral Act, 2010 as amended cannot be relied upon to make justiciable an entirely domestic affair of a political party, namely the officials of the party. See ABDULKADIR vs. MAMMAN (supra) and UMEH vs. EJIKE (supra).
I gave due consideration to Section 85 (3) of the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended) referred to by learned senior Counsel for the 1st Respondent. The said Section provides that the election of members of the executive committee or other governing body of a political party shall be by democratic process. Without a doubt, an action where it is contended that the democratic process was not adhered to in electing party officials, may be justiciable irrespective of the fact that a sanction for the breach has not been stipulated in Section 85 (3): UGWU vs. ARARUME (supra) at 857. However, the facts disclosed in the affidavit evidence on record is of two congresses conducted to elect the party officials of the Peoples Democratic Party. So there was compliance with the Section 85 (3), the question was which was the valid congress? The law seems settled that when there is a dispute as to which of two primaries of a political party produced a candidate or conferred a right, the dispute is not justiciable under Section 87 (9) of the Electoral Act 2010 as amended as such a contest is outside the purview of the provision. The courts will not have jurisdiction to entertain such an action. See LADO vs. CPC (2011) LPELR (8254) 1 at 35. In order for the court to have jurisdiction, the aggrieved person must bring himself within the purview of Section 87 (9) of the Electoral Act, 2010 as amended. It is only if his complaint can be pitchforked into the provision that his complaints can be justiciable as the courts still cannot decide as between two or more contending parties which of them is the choice of the party; that power still resides in the political parties to exercise: LADO vs. CPC (supra) and ARDO vs. NYAKO (2014) LPELR (22878) 1 at 38. In the circumstance, on the facts on which the 1st Respondent premised his action, the Lower Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the matter. The only option open to the Lower Court was to decline jurisdiction and strike out the matter.
CONCLUSION
From the totality of the foregoing, I will resolve the sole issue for determination in favour of the Appellant. The Lower Court was not right in holding that it had jurisdiction to entertain the 1st Respondent’s claim. The issue of jurisdiction is very fundamental as it goes to the competence of the Court. If a court is not competent to entertain a matter, it is a waste of time to embark on the hearing and determination of the matter. In the words of Obaseki, JSC in OLOBA vs. AKEREJA (supra) at 520:
“If a court or tribunal is not competent to entertain a matter or claim or suit, it is a waste of time for the court to embark on hearing and determination of the suit, matter or claim… There is no justice in exercising a jurisdiction where there is none. It is injustice to the law, the court and to the parties to do so.”
In a summation this appeal is meritorious. It succeeds. The decision of the Lower Court upholding its jurisdiction delivered on 10th June 2013 is hereby set aside. The 1st Respondent’s action in Suit No. FHC/ASB/CS/121/2012 is hereby struck out for want of jurisdiction. The Appellant is entitled to the costs of this appeal which I assess and fix at N50,000.00.
HELEN MORONKEJI OGUNWUMIJU, J.C.A.: I have read the judgment just delivered by my learned brother UGOCHUKWU ANTHONY OGAKWU JCA. I am in complete agreement with his reasoning and conclusions that the appeal has merit and that it should be allowed. I will add a few words.
The 1st Respondent’s at the trial court contended that he won the election as Chairman of the Oshimili South Local Government Area of the Peoples Democratic Party when it conducted its congress, but the party substituted the Appellant who did not contest the election. The trial court assumed jurisdiction and granted him the prayers sought. The issue here is whether the action of the 1st Respondent is justiciable. S.89(9) of the Electoral Act 2010 as amended provides as follows:
“(9) notwithstanding the provisions of this Act or rules of a political party, an aspirant who complains that any of the provisions of this Act and the guidelines of a political party has not been complied with in the selection or nomination of a candidate of a political party for election, may apply to the Federal High Court or the High Court of a state or FCT, for redress.” (Underlining is mine)
By S.87(9), jurisdiction is vested in the court where there is a complaint that there has been a breach of the party’s constitution or guidelines in the nomination or selection a candidate of a political party for election. My humble interpretation of that subsection is that it is only where the selection or nomination is for an election under the Electoral Act that a breach becomes justiciable. The election in dispute must therefore be one to elect a candidate under the ultimate auspices of INEC as provided by the 1999 Constitution. The internal process of electing party officials cannot come within the ambit of S.89(9) of the Electoral Act. Onuoha v. Okafor (1983) 10 S.C. 118 in my humble view is still the law. The Supreme Court has in no way softened its stand that the court cannot open its arms to every manner of complaints by politicians so as not to be swallowed by political quicksand.
See Ugwu v. PDP (2015) LPELR (24352) 1, where the Supreme Court held true to the settled position of the law that intraparty governance is within the exclusive purview of the political party chieftains. In the circumstances, the appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed. I abide by the order as to costs in the lead judgment.
HAMMA AKAWU BARKA, J.C.A.: I had the singular advantage of reading in draft the judgment of my learned brother UGOCHUKWU ANTHONY OGAKWU JCA just delivered.
The sole issue for determination was anchored on whether the trial court had jurisdiction to entertain the respondent’s application by way of an Originating Summons seeking for the reliefs borne therein. In the consideration of the sole issue, and in the con of the instant case, my Lord brilliantly considered the decisions in Ugwu v. Ararume (2007) ALL FWLR (Pt.377) 807, which dealt with the provisions of Section 34 of the Electoral Act 2006, and the decision in Onuoha vs. Okafor (1983) 10 SC 118 on the application of Section 87(10) of the Electoral Act 2010 as amended.
I am at one with my Lord that by the limited jurisdiction granted by Section 87(a) of the Electoral Act 2010 as amended, the domestic affair of the party in this case, the Oshimili North branch of the Peoples Democratic Party still remains the preserve of the said party for which a court of law should resist the urge to poke nose. I finally agree with the clear and deft exposition of the issue, and the reasoning and conclusion reached in the lead judgment, which I adopt as mine.
I too I’m of the view that the appeal has merit and it is hereby allowed by me. The decision of the Lower Court therefore claiming jurisdiction in Suit No.FHC/ASB/CS/121/2012 is hereby set aside, and in its place an order striking out the 1st Respondent action for want of jurisdiction.
N50,000 costs awarded in favour of the appellants.
Appearances
G. I. Ugbechie, Esq.For Appellant
AND
Chike Onyemenam Esq., SAN (with S.I. Abudei, Esq. and P.O.C Nwokoro, Esq.) for the 1st Respondent.
2nd and 3rd Respondents absent and not represented by Counsel.For Respondent
