PDP & ANOR v. JARIGBE & ANOR
(2021)LCN/5086(SC)
In The Supreme Court
On Wednesday, January 06, 2021
SC.838/2020
Before Our Lordships:
Mary Ukaego Peter-Odili Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Ejembi Eko Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Mohammed Lawal Garba Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Samuel Chukwudumebi Oseji Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Tijjani Abubakar Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Between
1. PEOPLES DEMOCRATIC PARTY 2. COL. AUSTIN AKOBUNDU APPELANT(S)
And
1. HON. JARIGBE AGOM JARIGBE 2. INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION RESPONDENT(S)
RATIO:
THE COURT WILL NOT ENTERTAIN A MERE ACADEMIC SUIT
I have no problem with the argument that this Court is seised of jurisdiction to entertain a pre-election matter even after the primary election or the general election had been contested, lost and won, so long as the action is within the constitutionally prescribed period for such adjudication. However, where as in the case at hand the possible orders sequel to the claims of the plaintiff would become academic, then the Court has no business delving into the appeal and it is well advised to put a stop to it and not temporise on what to do. See Anyanwu v. Eze (2020) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1708) 379 at 396; C.P.C. v. I.N.E.C. (2011) LPELR-8257 (SC); (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1279) 493; Ikuforiji v. F.R.N. (2018) LPELR-4388 (SC) page 11; (2018) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1614) 142; Odom &Ors v. P.D.P. &Ors(2015) LPELR-24351 (SC) 56; (2015) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1456) 527; Ugba& Anor v. Suswam&Ors (2014) LPELR-22 882 (SC) pages 64-65; (2014) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1427) 264. PER MARY UKAEGO PETER-ODILI, J.S.C.
TIJJANI ABUBAKAR, J.S.C. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): This appeal stems from the decision of the Court of Appeal Port Harcourt Division, delivered on the 2nd day of November, 2020 affirming the decision of the trial Federal High Court sitting in Port Harcourt delivered on the 4th day of September, 2020. The facts giving rise to the appeal are that, the elected Senator representing Cross River State North Senatorial District died in office, the event of his death therefore created vacancy in the Senate. The second respondent, Independent National Electoral Commission issued out a notice on the 11th day of August, 2020 that bye-elections would be conducted to fill the existing vacancy, the bye-election was slated for 31st October, 2020. The 1st appellant accordingly requested the 2nd respondent to monitor the primary elections.
Before the primary elections were conducted, the 1st respondent in this appeal apparently perceived threat to his prospects of participating in the bye-election, he therefore through counsel commenced an action at the Federal High Court by originating summons on the 24th day of August, 2020, and submitted three questions for determination by the trial Court, the questions are:
1. Whether upon proper construction and interpretation of the provisions of Sections 85(1) and 87 (c)(i) and 87 of the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended), the defendant can alter, modify, amend, exclude or substitute the list of party members who emerged as ward and Local Government Area executives of the 1st defendant who emerged as ward and Local Government Area executives of the 1st defendant on the 7th and 21st March, 2020 pursuant to the elections duly conducted by the 1st defendant and monitored by the 3rd defendant.
2. Whether by the provisions of Article 15(2) and 18 of the 1st defendant’s Constitution, the 1st defendant can alter, modify, amend, exclude or substitute the list of party members who emerged as ward and Local Government Area executives of the 1st defendant on the 7th and 21st March, 2020 pursuant to the elections duly conducted by the 1st defendant and monitored by the 3rd defendant.
3. Whether by the provision of Section 87 of the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended) and Article 59(2)(c) of the 1st defendant’s Constitution, the 1st defendant can conduct the primaries for its senatorial candidate in any other place or venue different from the senatorial Constituency Headquarters as prescribed by its Constitution.
Upon the determination of the questions set out herein, the 1st respondent then sought for the following reliefs:
a. A declaration that the 1st defendant is bound to utilize the list of the party members who emerged as ward and Local Government Area Executives of the 1st defendant on the 7th and 21st March 2020, same having been authenticated by the 1st defendant and certified by the 3rd defendant, for the purpose of selecting the senatorial candidate of the 1st defendant for the senatorial bye election in Cross River North Senatorial District.
b. An Order of this honourable Court restraining the 1st and 2nd defendants either by themselves or acting through their organs, agents, privies from carrying out any change, modification, exclusion, substitution or however, described by them to the list of party members who engaged as ward and Local Government Area executives of the 1st defendant on the 7th and 21st March, 2020 same having been authenticated by the 1st defendant and certified by the 1st defendant for the senatorial candidate of the 1st defendant for the senatorial bye election in Cross River North Senatorial District.
c. An order of this honourable Court restraining the 3rd defendant from giving effect to any purported change; modification; exclusion, substitution, or howsoever described by the 1st defendant to the list of party members who emerged as ward and Local Government Areas executives of the 1st defendant on the 7th and 21st March 2020 same having been authenticated by the 1st defendant and certified by the 3rd defendant for the purpose of selecting the senatorial candidate of the 1st defendant for cenatorial candidate of the 1st defendant for the senatorial bye election in Cross River North Senatorial District.
d. An order of this honourable Court directing the 1st defendant to conduct the primary elections for the purpose of selecting the senatorial candidate of the 1st defendant for the senatorial bye in Cross River North Senatorial District for 5th September 2020 or any other date, at the senatorial Headquarters in Ogoja in accordance with the provisions of the 1st defendants Constitution.
e. And for such other order this honourable Court may deem fit to make in the circumstance of this case.
The case of the 1st respondent at the trial Court was that a faction of the 1st appellant, led by the 2nd appellant circulated unapproved list of delegates elected on the 7th and 21st March, 2020 for the purpose of conducting the primary elections fixed for 5th September, 2020. At the conclusion of hearing, the trial Federal High Court found in favour of the 1st respondent, and ordered that his name be restored on the list. He was eventually restored on the list by the 1st appellant in compliance with the order of the trial Court. The appellants became nettled by this decision and made for the Court of Appeal.
The appellants therefore filed an appeal at the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal Port Harcourt Division affirmed the decision of the trial Federal High Court. Appellants therefore finally appealed to this Court on the 4th day of November, 2020, the initial notice of appeal containing four grounds is at pages 2897- 2859 of the records of appeal Vol. IV. The appellants filed another notice of appeal on the 9th day of November, 2020 containing ten grounds of appeal. Learned senior counsel Chief Olanipekun, SAN filed brief of argument on behalf of the appellants on the 13th day of November, 2020 and nominated the following three issues for determination:
i. Was the lower Court correct when it affirmed the decision of the trial Court in relation to the 1st respondent’s disqualification by the 1st appellant’s Screening Committee. (Grounds 4, 9 and 10)
ii. Did the claim of the 1st respondent vide the originating summons filed on 24/8/2020 (leading to the judgment of the trial Court and affirmed by the lower Court) vest jurisdiction on the Court(s). (Grounds 1, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 8)
iii. Whether the claim of the 1st respondent herein in the originating summons filed on the 24/08/2020 was/is statute barred, considering the date of the filing of the claim vis-à-vis exhibit JA-J10. (Ground 2)
Learned senior counsel for the appellants also filed replies to both the 1st and 2nd respondents on the 26th day of November, 2020 wherein counsel reacted to the 1st respondent’s preliminary objection.
The 1st respondent through learned senior counsel Adedipe, SAN filed the 1st respondent’s brief of argument on the 29thday of November 2020. In the brief of argument, counsel raised preliminary objection. The objection is premised on two major grounds, dealing with failure to obtain leave of Court before filing the appeal, and the appellants’ appeal being academic. At the hearing of this appeal, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent withdrew the first part of the objection dealing with the issue of leave, and concentrated on the second part of the objection contending that appellants appeal is academic.
In the brief of argument filed by learned senior counsel for the 1st respondent, counsel adopted the issues for determination crafted by the appellants.
The second respondent through learned counsel, Abdulaziz Sani filed brief of argument on 24/11/2020, and nominated the following three issues for determination:
a. Whether the lower Court was right in upholding the decision of the trial Court that the case leading to the instant appeal was not statute barred (Culled from grounds 1, 2, and 3 of the notice of appeal).
b. Whether the lower Court was right when it held that the trial Court correctly assumed jurisdiction and granted the reliefs sought by the1st respondent as per the 1st respondents originating summons. (Culled from grounds 4, 5, and 6 of the notice of appeal).
c. Whether the lower Court was right when it held that the 1st respondent had the requisite locus standi and acted timeously in instituting action against a perceived infraction of his right. (Culled from grounds 7 and 8 of the notice of appeal).
I must at this stage mention that, at the hearing of this appeal, the appellants through counsel sought to strike out 1st and 2nd respondents’ briefs of argument. Learned senior counsel for the appellants, filed a motion on notice on the 26th day of November 2020 pursuant to paragraph 6 of the Supreme Court Election Appeal Practice Direction, 2011 and under the inherent jurisdiction of this Court praying for:
1. An order striking out the 1st respondent’s brief dated and filed on 20th November, 2020.
2. An Order striking out the 2nd respondent’s brief dated 20th November, 2020 but filed on the 24th November, 2020.
In brief, the grounds for the application are that the briefs of the respondents were filed outside the time limited by the Practice Direction beingpre-election qua election related appeal, the proceedings do not accommodate the filing of processes out of time and do not admit of application for extension of time to do so. Appellants filed 6 paragraphs affidavit in support and written address.
The first respondent filed counter affidavit and deposed at paragraph 4 that there is no rule of this Court that limits the filing of 1st respondents brief to 5 days. Learned senior counsel for the 1st respondent also filed written address on the 1st day of December, 2020 and referred to the preamble to the Practice Direction restricting application of the Direction to Election Appeals.
The 2nd respondent filed 5 paragraph counter affidavit and written address prepared and filed by learned counsel, Abdulaziz Sani whose submissions are substantially in accord with the submissions of learned senior counsel for the 1st respondent. I considered the application, the affidavit in support, the counter affidavits and written addresses of the contending parties, I am of the view that the application is frivolous and lacking in merit, it therefore deserves to be dismissed, it is so dismissed.
On the 1st respondent’s preliminary objection, the law is well settled on seemingly endless judicial decisions that the Courts have compelling obligations to hear and determine first, any preliminary objection, before proceeding to consider and determine the substantive case on the merit where so doing turns out to be necessary. I will now proceed to consider and determine the 1st respondent’s preliminary objection.
1st Respondents Preliminary Objection’
As I stated earlier, counsel withdrew the first part of his preliminary objection and argued the second part dealing with the appellant appeal being academic. I will take the submissions of counsel on this point now. Counsel said the appeal is lacking in utilitarian value, he submitted that the reliefs sought by the 1st respondent were aimed at ensuring that the approved list of delegates for the 1st appellant’s primary election fixed for 5th September, 2020 was used for the purpose of conducting the primary elections. Counsel said following the order of the trial Court granting the reliefs, the approved list of delegates was used to conduct the primary elections, and that the appellant did not challenge the decision of the trial Court granting the relief but instead challenged the consequential order reversing the disqualification of the 1st respondent.
Learned counsel therefore said this challenge to the order of the Court at this time is of no utilitarian value because the elections of 5th September, 2020 had since been conducted and a winner was declared. Learned counsel said the 1st respondent whose grouse was that he was disqualified obtained respite from the order of the Court, his disqualification was reversed and he fully participated in the elections.
Learned counsel therefore said for the reasons set out there is nothing left, the appellants appeal has become academic since any decision given may not have any practical utilitarian value, counsel said even if the appellants obtain Judgment, their success will serve no useful purpose, to support his submissions on this point, counsel relied on the decisions of this Court in C.P.C. v. I.N.E.C. (2011) LPELR-82579(SC) Pg. 78-79, G-E; (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1279) 493; Ikuforiji v. F.R.N. (2018) LPELR-43884(SC); (2018) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1614) 142; Odom &Ors v. PDP &Ors (2015)LPELR-24351 (SC) Pg. 56 F-G; (2015) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1456) 527, and Ugba& Anor v. Suswam & Ors (2014) LPELR-22882 (SC) 64-65 C – B; (2014) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1427) 264. Learned counsel then urged that this appeal being an academic exercise be struck out.
Reacting to the preliminary objection, counsel for the appellants said there is no evidence from the records that the said elections were in fact conducted on the 5th day of September, 2020, he also submitted that the delegates list referred to by counsel for the 1st respondent was not exhibited, counsel said from the records of the Court, the issue of respondents victory at the election remains contentious. Counsel also relied on the decision in P.D.P. & 2 Ors v. BiobarakumaDegi-Eremienyo& 3 Ors 2020 LPELR-49734 (SC); (2021) 9 N WLR (Pt. 1781) 274 to submit that this Court went ahead to disqualify a candidate even after elections had been concluded and results declared by INEC, counsel also relied on Anyanwu v. Eze (2020) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1708) 379 at 396 in further support of the submission that even where elections have been held and concluded, the matter cannot be held to be an academic exercise.
Appellants contended that the appeal was filed within time, it cannot therefore be held to be academic, counsel further submitted that the issues in this appeal are purely jurisdictional, and jurisdictional issues cannot become academic, he urged this Court to so hold. Submitting on the challenge to consequential orders of the trial Court reversing the disqualification of the 1st respondent by the appellants instead of the reliefs sought, counsel said the notice of appeal and the brief of the appellants show clearly that the appellants challenged the reliefs sought. Counsel urged this Court to dismiss the preliminary objection.
Resolution of Preliminary Objection.
The issue central to the determination of the 1st respondent’s preliminary objection is whether appellants appeal is academic or not. A suit becomes academic where it appears theoretical, makes empty sound and lacks practical utilitarian value to the plaintiff even if judgment is given in his favour. See: Plateau State v. A.-G., Federation (2006) 3 NWLR (Pt. 967) 346; Odedo v. I.N.E.C. (2008) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1117) 554.
Again, Courts engage in resolving live issues. Once a suit no longer has live issues for determination, such a suit becomes academic, and the Courts must on no account invest precious judicial time toiling and slaving to resolve such hollow, insignificant, worthless and academic issues.
Just to refresh our minds on the issue at stake, the appellants took out originating summons at the trial Court wherein they submitted the following questions for determination:
1. Whether upon proper construction and interpretation of the provisions of Sections 85(1)(2) and 87(c)(i) and 87(7) of the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended), the defendant can alter, modify, amend, exclude or substitute the list of party members who emerged as ward and Local Government Area Executives of the 1st defendant on the 7th and 21st March, 2020 pursuant to the elections duly conducted by the 1st defendant and monitored by the 3rd defendant.
2. Whether by the provisions of Article 15(2) and 18 of the 1st defendant’s Constitution the 1st defendant can alter, modify, amend, exclude or substitute the list of party members who emerged as ward and Local Government Area Executives of the 1st defendant on the 7th and 21st March, 2020 pursuant to the elections duly conducted by the 1st defendant and monitored by the 3rd defendant.
3. Whether by the provision of Section 87(4) of the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended) and Article 59(2)(c) of the 1st defendant’s Constitution, the 1st defendant can conduct the primaries for its senatorial candidate in any other place or venue different from the senatorial constituency headquarters as prescribed by its Constitution.
Upon the determination of the questions set out herein, the 1st respondent then sought for the following reliefs:
a. A declaration that the 1st defendant is bound to utilize the list of the party members who emerged as ward and Local Government Area Executives of the 1st defendant on the 7th and 21st March, 2020, same having been authenticated by the 1st defendant and certified by the 3rd defendant, for the purpose of selecting the senatorial candidate of the 1st defendant for the senatorial Bye election in Cross River North Senatorial District.
b. An Order of this honourable Court restraining the 1st and 2nd defendants either by themselves or acting through their organs, agents, privies from carrying out any change, modification, exclusion, substitution or however described by them, to the list of party members who emerged as ward and Local Government Area executives of the 1st defendant on the 7th and 21st March, 2020 same having been authenticated by the 1st defendant and certified by the 1st defendant for the Senatorial candidate of the 1st defendant for the Senatorial Bye election in Cross River North Senatorial District.
c. An order of this honourable Court restraining the 3rd defendant from giving effect to any purported change, modification, exclusion, substitution, or howsoever described by the 1st defendant to the list of party members who emerged as ward and Local Government Areas executives of the 1st defendant on the 7th and 21st March, 2020 same having been authenticated by the 1st defendant and certified by the 3rd defendant for the purpose of selecting the Senatorial candidate of the 1st defendant for senatorial candidate of the 1st defendant for the senatorial bye election in Cross River North Senatorial District.
d. An order of this honourable Court directing the 1st defendant to conduct the primary elections for the purpose of selecting the senatorial candidate of the 1st defendant for the senatorial Bye election in Cross River North Senatorial District for 5th September, 2020 or any other date, at the senatorial Headquarters in Ogoja in accordance with the provisions of the 1st defendant’s Constitution.
e. And for such other order this honourable Court may deem fit to make in the circumstance of this case.
The 1st respondent sought for a declaration that the 1st defendant is bound to utilize the list of the party members who emerged as ward and Local Government Area Executives of the 1st defendant on the 7th and 21st March, 2020, same having been authenticated by the 1st defendant and certified by the 3rd defendant, for the purpose of selecting the senatorial candidate of the 1st defendant for the senatorial Bye-election in Cross River North Senatorial District. An order restraining the appellants from altering the list of 3rd defendant not to give effect to any change, to conduct the primary elections in Ogoja in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution of the 1st defendant. The trial Court granted all the reliefs sought, the 1st appellant accordingly complied with the order of the trial Court, relied on the authentic list and conducted the primary elections accordingly. The entire event started and ended. The event became completed, closed and sealed.
Learned senior counsel for the appellants relied heavily on the decision of this Court in Anyanwu v. Eze (2020) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1708) 379, and submitted that the correct position of the law is that pre-election well within the relevant statutes and time prescribed remains a live issue in spite of the general elections that had been concluded, and that this appeal is not academic as contended by the 1st respondent.
The decision of this Court in Anyanwu (supra) heavily relied on by learned senior counsel for the appellants, is completely distinct from the instant appeal because in that case, the facts are that a pre-election matter was filed at the Federal High Court Owerri on the 24th day of October, 2018. By the provisions of Section 285(10) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), the Federal High Court was mandatorily required to deliver its judgment within 180 days fromthe date of filing the suit.
The decision of the lower Court was delivered on the 4th day of May, 2019. At the time the judgment of the lower Court was delivered, the trial Court no longer had jurisdiction to hear and determine the case since the constitutional period available to hear and determine pre-election matters had elapsed. From the date the petition was filed and the date the lower Court delivered its judgment was 192 days. This therefore clearly shows that the order of retrial made by the lower Court was made in error since the trial Court no longer had jurisdiction to hear and determine the matter.
The instant appeal has to do with skirmishes and political party squabbling over authenticity of list of delegates and whether the 1st defendant Peoples Democratic Party had the power to tinker with the authentic list in conducting its party primaries. The trial and lower Courts made a concurrent finding directing that the authentic list be used and primary elections be conducted to select candidate for the bye-election, the primary election was conducted and candidate for the bye-election emerged and the bye-election was accordingly conducted. The 1st appellant complied with the order of the trial Court and restored the authentic list. I am of the view that the emphasis placed by the appellants on the decision of this Court in Anyanwu (supra) is misconceived because the facts and circumstances in the decision are different from the facts and circumstances of the instant appeal.
In my humble view therefore, there is nothing left for the Court to pronounce upon, there is no live issue for the Court to adjudicate upon, there is nothing on record to show that the appellants are challenging the election of any person, their main grievance is that the trial and lower Courts did not allow them use their list of candidates in conducting the primary elections.
Are the appellants calling on this Court to order that their list of delegates be used after the time limited for conducting the bye-election had elapsed? I think the appellants in this appeal have clearly confronted this Court with an appeal that is out and out, academic and therefore not deserving of any positive consideration whatsoever. Any decision rendered in this appeal will be of no use to the appellants because the authentic list as directed by the Courts, was used and the primary and bye-elections have since been concluded. In Anyanwu v. Eze (supra) my learned brother, Sanusi, JSC, (as he then was) held as follows:
In Plateau State v. A.-G., Federation (2006) 3 NWLR (Pt. 967) 346; 137 LRCN 1400 this Court stated as follows:
“A suit is academic where it is thereby theoretical makes empty sound and of no practical utilitarian value to the plaintiffs even if judgment is given in his favour. A suit is academic if it is not related to practical situation of human nature and humanity.” See Odedo v. INEC (2008) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1117) 554.
Once a suit no longer has live issues for determination, such a suit is academic and a Court should on no account spend judicial time, or engage in academic exercise. Courts are to determine live issues. See: Oyeneye v. Odugbesan (1972) 4 SC 244; Bakare v. A.C.B. Ltd. (1986) 3 NWLR (Pt. 26) 47; Okulate v. Awosanya (2000) 2 NWLR (Pt. 646) 530; Nkwocha v. Gov. of Anambra State (1984) 1 SCNLR 634.
I queue behind this decision and hold the view that appellants appeal is academic. Since the appeal is patently academic,appellants must not engage in inviting this Court to dish out vain, sterile, and impracticable orders. Appellants obviously have nothing useful to urge this Court. This appeal having been adjudged to be manifestly academic therefore deserves to be struck out. See: Ogbonna v. President, F.R.N. (1997) 5 NWLR (PT 504) 281, where Uwaifo, JSC (as he then was), held as follows:
“… If no purpose will be served by an action or appeal or any issue raised in it other than its mere academic interest the Court will not entertain it … The law is that it is an essential quality of a suit or an appeal fit to be disposed of by a Court that there should exist between the parties a matter in actual controversy which the Court undertakes to decide as a living issue. Moreover, a Court deals only with live issues and steers clear of those that are academic. But there cannot be said to be a live issue in a litigation if what is presented to the Court for a decision, when decided, cannot affect the parties in any way. See also A – G Fed v. A.N.P.P. (2003) 12 SC (Pt II) 146 @ 170, (2003) 18 NWLR (PT 831) 182 @ 215 …”
In conclusion therefore, I must add that, even without the 1st and 2nd respondents briefs of argument, this Court is bound to consider the appeal on the appellants brief to determine whether it will succeed or fail. This Court is therefore entitled to adjudge the appellant’s appeal academic even if the appeal is heard and determined on the appellants brief alone.
On the whole therefore, the 1st respondent’s preliminary objection is meritorious and is accordingly sustained, the appellant’s appeal having been adjudged academic is therefore struck out.
Parties in this appeal shall bear their respective costs.
MARY UKAEGO PETER-ODILI, J.S.C.: I agree with the judgment just delivered by my learned brother Tijjani Abubakar JSC and to register the support I have in the reasonings from which the decision emanated, I shall make some comments.
This is an appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal Port Harcourt Division or Court below or lower Court: I.O. Akeju, C.I. Jombo-Ofo and A.M. Lamido, JJCA delivered on 2nd November, 2020. The Court below had dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment of the Federal High Court, Port Harcourt Division.
<br< p=”” style=”box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;”></br<>
Background Facts
The case of the 1st respondent is contained at pages 3 – 774 of the record of appeal. Succinctly put, the case presented by the 1st respondent at the trial Court was that, pursuant to a timetable released by the 2nd respondent for the conduct of the Cross River North Senatorial District Bye-election in Cross River State, the 1st appellant through the 2nd appellant fixed the conduct of its primary election to nominate its candidate for the said office for the 5th of September, 2020, and commenced the sale of expression of interest and nomination forms for the said office. Consequently, the 1st respondent indicated his interest by purchasing the nomination form to enable him participated as a candidate in the said Bye-election.
Meanwhile, sequel to the announcement by the 2nd respondent with respect to the conduct of the bye-election, the 1st appellant had conducted congresses for the election of executives into the Wards and Local Government Areas of the State on the 7th and 21st of March, 2020 which said election was duly monitored by the 2nd respondent in accordance with the provisions of the Electoral Act. The names of the party members who emerged as Ward and Local Government Areas executive of the 1st appellant from the said congresses were approved/ratified by the 1st appellant and also certified by the 2nd respondent (Exhibits JAJ at pages 116 – 320 of the record).
In line with the Constitution of the 1st appellant, these members who emerged from the said Ward and Local Government congresses were expected to serve as statutory delegates of the 1st appellant in electing candidates for the National and State House Assembly election through their tenure, which also includes the 1st appellant’s primary election fixed for 5th September, 2020, to elect its candidate for the forthcoming Bye election of the Cross River North Senatorial District.
However, a faction of the 1st appellant in Cross River State circulated an unapproved list of elected delegates under the purported name and signature of the 2nd appellant (Exhibit JAJ 10 at pages 321 – 538 of the record) in order to substitute and/or exclude the lawfully elected executives of the Wards and Local Government’s delegates who had emerged through the congresses of 7th and 21st of March, 2020 and whowere the authentic statutory delegates for the 1st appellant’s primary election slated for and which took place on the 5th of September 2020. The effect of such substitution would have been that the process of the primary election of 5th of September, 2020, for the election of the 1st respondent and other candidates of the appellant, would have been compromised by the injection of unapproved delegates by a faction of the 1st appellant. Contrary to the narrative expressed by the appellants in their brief, these facts were necessary as they form the foundation of any indirect primary election by the 1st appellant’s Constitution and the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended).
This unapproved list of delegates was being circulated by the 1st appellant for the purpose of the primary election of 5th September, 2020, despite the conveyance of the ratified/approved list of the lawfully elected executives of the Wards and Local Government areas to the State Party Chairman of the 1st appellant in Cross River State by the 2nd appellant and the subsequent disclaimer of the list in circulation also by the 2nd appellant and it was endorsed and forwarded on behalf of the 1st appellant by the 2nd appellant.
On the basis of this development, the 1st respondent who had purchased his nomination form to participate in the primary election of the 1st appellant instituted an action for the purpose of ensuring that the 1st appellant was restrained from allowing any other list apart from the list of members who are eligible to participate as delegate in the 5th September, 2020 primary election, to be used for the said election.
The lower Court granted all the reliefs sought by the 1st respondent and also granted a consequential relief arising from the conduct of the 1st appellant who had purportedly disqualified the 1st respondent from participating in the primary election in the course of the proceedings at the trial Court, contrary to an existing order of the trial Court for parties to maintain status quo pending the determination of the suit. The contention by the appellants that the consequential reliefs granted was outside the question for determination and reliefs sought at the trial Court.
On the 15th December, 2020 date of hearing, learned senior advocate for the appellants adopted the brief of argument filed on 13/11/2020 and reply brief to 1st respondent filed on 26/11/2020 and reply brief to 2nd respondent’s brief filed on 26/11/2020. He raised three issues for determination of the appeal, viz:
1. Was the lower Court correct when it affirmed the decision of the trial Court in relation to the 1st respondent’s disqualification by the 1st appellant’s screening committee. (Grounds 4, 9, and 10).
2. Did the claim of the 1st respondent vide the originating summons filed on 24/8/2020 (leading to the judgment of the trial Court and affirmed by the lower Court) vest jurisdiction on the Courts. (Grounds 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, and 8)
3. Whether the claim of the 1st respondent herein in the originating summons filed on 24/08/2020 was/is statute barred considering the date of the filing of the claim vis-à-vis exhibit JAJ 10 (Ground 2).
Chief L.A. Adedipe SAN for the 1st respondent adopted the brief of argument filed on 20/11/2020 in which he raised and argued a preliminary objection.
Chief Adedipe adopted the issues nominated by the appellants.
Learned counsel for the 2nd respondent, Abdullaziz Sani Esq adopted the brief of argument filed on 24/11/2020 and raised three issuesfor determination as follows:-
(i) Whether the lower Court was right in upholding the decision of the trial Court that the case leading to the instant appeal was not statute barred. (Culled from grounds 1, 2 and 3 of the notice of appeal).
(ii) Whether the lower Court was right when it held that the trial Court correctly assumed jurisdiction and granted the reliefs sought by the 1st respondent’s as per the 1st respondent’s originating summons. (Culled from grounds 4, 5 and 6 of the notice of appeal)
(iii) Whether the lower Court was right when it held that the 1st respondent had the requisite locus standi and acted timeously in instituting action against a perceived infraction of his rights. (Culled from grounds 7 and 8 of the notice of appeal).
I shall first tackle the preliminary objection raised and argued by the 1st respondent.
Preliminary Objection
The 1st respondent contended that this appeal serves no utilitarian value considering that the primary election of the 1st appellant had been held and the general election also concluded.
Learned senior advocate for the appellants rejected that view of the 1strespondent since pre-election matters remain justiciable after the general election. He cited SC.1/2020 – P.D.P. & 2 Ors v BiobarakumaDegi-Eremienyo& 3 Ors delivered an 13th February, 2020 and now reported in (2020) LPELR – 49734 (SC); (2021) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1781) 274; Anyanwu v. Eze (2020) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1708) 379 at 396.
In answer to the question on the status of the appeal being an academic discourse, we need to go back in time to see it in context.
The reliefs at the trial Court which formed the substratum of the case in hand would help in the determination of that question raised above, as to the utility or the use of the outcome of this appeal. See the reliefs at the Court of first instance, viz:-
A. A declaration that the 1st Defendant is bound to utilise the list of the party members who emerged as ward and Local Government Areas Executives of the 1st defendant on the 7th and 21st of March, 2020, same having been authenticated by the 1st defendant and certified by the 3rd defendant, for the purpose of selecting the senatorial candidate of the 1st defendant for the senatorial bye election in Cross River North Senatorial District.
(b) An order of this honourable Court restraining the 1st and 2nd defendants either by themselves or acting through any of their organs, agents, or privies, from carrying out any change, modification, exclusion substitution or howsoever described by them, to the list of the party members who emerged as ward and Local Government Areas Executives of the 1st defendant and certified by the 3rd defendant, for the purpose of selecting the senatorial candidate of the 1st defendant for the senatorial bye-election in Cross River North Senatorial District.
(c) An order of this honourable Court restraining the 3rd Defendant from giving effect to any purported change, modification, exclusion, substitution or howsoever described by it or the 1st defendant, to the list of the party members who emerged as ward and Local Government Areas Executives of the 1st defendant on the 7th and 21st of March, 2020, same having been authenticated by the 1st defendant certified by the 3rd defendant, for the purpose of selecting the senatorial candidate of the 1st defendant for the Senatorial Bye-election in Cross River North Senatorial District.
(d) An order of this honourable Court directing the 1st defendant to conduct the primary election for the purpose of selecting the senatorial candidate of the 1st defendant for the senatorial bye election in Cross River North Senatorial District scheduled for 5th September, 2020 or any other date, at the Senatorial headquarters in Ogaja in accordance with the provision of the 1st defendant’s constitution.
I have set above the reliefs sought by the respondents as plaintiffs in the trial High Court so that whatever decision is reached herein is not done out of context and one which cannot be related to the claims of the plaintiffs which are really the fulcrum to where we are. I say so because while the 1st respondent posits that this appeal has become academic, the 1st respondent having participated in, and won the said primary election and the general election inter parties having been concluded, learned senior counsel for the appellants disagrees and cited the case of P.D.P. & 2 Ors v. BiobarakuDegi-Erenienyo (2020) LPELR – 49734 (SC); (2021) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1708) 379.
The position of the appellants and the case cited are distinguishable. The reason is that in the P.D.P. v. Biobaraku Degi-Eremienyo (supra), the plaintiffs sought the disqualification of the respondent as not being qualified to contest the general election and that the gubernatorial ticket was invalid on account thereby. The opposite situation herein has to do with the 1st plaintiff now 1st respondent crying that his political party was denying him his right and so asked for reliefs that would stop his name to be removed from the list of contestants at the primary election, as he had then been properly cleared by the same party and his name is in the authentic list. The two Courts below agreed with his plea and granted the said reliefs. In fact the trial Court had granted an interim order restraining the party from keeping him off the primary process which they disobeyed until the Court below affirmed that decision.
It is for the above portrayed situation in the light of the claims of the plaintiff, that proceeding with this appeal and a possible outcome or decision would serve no purpose. The matter was filed at the Federal High Court Owerri on 24th October, 2018. By Section 285(10) of the Constitution, the Federal High Court had 180 days from date offiling the suit to delivery of judgment. The decision of the lower Court was delivered on the 4th May, 2019. At the time the judgment of the lower Court was delivered, the trial Court had no jurisdiction as from the date of petition to the delivery of judgment it was 192 days so the order of retrial made by the lower Court was in error, the trial Court having no jurisdiction to hear and determine the matter.
I have no problem with the argument that this Court is seised of jurisdiction to entertain a pre-election matter even after the primary election or the general election had been contested, lost and won, so long as the action is within the constitutionally prescribed period for such adjudication. However, where as in the case at hand the possible orders sequel to the claims of the plaintiff would become academic, then the Court has no business delving into the appeal and it is well advised to put a stop to it and not temporise on what to do. See Anyanwu v. Eze (2020) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1708) 379 at 396; C.P.C. v. I.N.E.C. (2011) LPELR-8257 (SC); (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1279) 493; Ikuforiji v. F.R.N. (2018) LPELR-4388 (SC) page 11; (2018) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1614) 142; Odom &Ors v. P.D.P. &Ors(2015) LPELR-24351 (SC) 56; (2015) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1456) 527; Ugba& Anor v. Suswam &Ors (2014) LPELR-22 882 (SC) pages 64-65; (2014) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1427) 264.
EJEMBI EKO, J.S.C.: I will just add a few words to the judgment delivered by my learned brother, Tijjani Abubakar, JSC. There is no doubt that this appeal was filed in time and in compliance with the due process of the law. The competence of the appeal per se is not the issue.
The issue is, what practical utilitarian purpose will this appeal serve? The Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) primary election to elect the PDP candidates for the bye-election in Cross River North Senatorial District was scheduled for 5th September, 2020. The said bye-election had since been conducted, and results declared, by Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC). It was a general election which neither the PDP nor any of the other participating political parties and their respective candidates had no control over. They must conduct their affairs in strict compliance with INEC timetable and directives.
It is expected that, by dint of Section 30 and 31 of the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended) that the PDP, like any other political party, should have completed its nomination processes and submitted the name of its candidate to INEC in strict compliance with the provisions of the Act and INEC Guidelines for the election. On this, I will reproduce the provisions of Sections 30, 31(1) and 34 of the Electoral Act to emphasize the point; that is –
“30(1) The commission shall, not later than 90 days before the day appointed for holding of an election under this Act, publish a notice in each state of the Federation and the Federal Capital Territory –
(a) stating the date of the election; and
(b) appointing the place at which nomination papers are to be delivered.
(2) The notice shall be published in each constituency in respect of which an election is to be held.
(3) In the case of a by-election, the Commission shall, not later than 14 days before the date appointed for the election, publish a notice stating the date of the election.
31(1) Every political party shall not later than 60 days before the date appointed for a general election under the provisions of this Act, submit to the Commission in the prescribed forms the list of the candidates the party proposes to sponsor at the elections.
34. The Commission shall, at least 30 days before the day of the election, publish by displaying or causing to be displayed at the relevant office or offices of the Commission and on the Commission’s website, a statement of the full names, and addresses of all candidates standing nominates.”
The cause of action in the suit at the Federal High Court leading up to this appeal was whether the defendants at the trial Court, could “alter, modify, amend or substitute the list of party members who emerged as ward and Local Government Area Executives of the (PDP) on 7th and 21st March, 2020 pursuant to the elections duly conducted by the (PDP) and monitored by the (INEC)”. The complaint presented at the trial Court by the 1st respondent, as the plaintiff, was that the defendants (particularly the appellants herein) were trying to alter the voting delegates to his disadvantage. The trial Court ruled in favour of the plaintiff/1st respondent in the judgment delivered on 4th September, 2020 and granted all the reliefs he had sought. On 2ndNovember, 2020 the Court of Appeal (the lower Court) affirmed the decision and orders of the trial Court.
There is no doubt that, in compliance with the orders of the trial Court, the PDP conducted its primary election using the disputed delegates list. The primary election, by virtue of Section 87(1) of the Electoral Act was mandatory for the PDP and its candidate to participate in the INEC organized bye-election, which INEC had since conducted and the results declared. It is now obvious that this appeal will serve no further useful utilitarian purpose, the issue having become purely academic.
In the words of Bello CJN in Atake v. Afejuku(1994) 9 NWLR (Pt. 368) 379 at 402 –
If no purpose will be served by an action or appeal or any issue raised in it other than its mere academic interest, the Court will not entertain it.
The existence of live issue in the matter in the actual controversy between the parties is what gives the suit or appeal the essential quality of its being fit to be adjudicated upon and disposed: Saraki v. Kotoye (1992) 9 NWLR (Pt 264) 156. As pointed out by Nnamani, JSC in Akeredolu v. Akinremi (1986) 2 NWLR (Pt. 25)719 at 725 a law Court deals only with live issues and steers clear of those that are academic and hypothetical. Once it has become seised of such contaminant, it abstains itself from it with or without being told.
The foregoing is my own reason for agreeing with my learned brother, Tijjani Abubakar, JSC, that we do not entertain this appeal since it has become academic.
MOHAMMED LAWAL GARBA, J.S.C.: I have read the draft of the leading judgment delivered by my learned brother, Tijjani Abubakar, JSC, in this appeal and completely agree with the decision that the appeal is purely academic in view of the peculiar facts upon which it is predicated as succinctly set out in the leading judgment. A case or an appeal, for the purpose of judicial adjudication by a Court, is said to be academic when and where there is no and cannot be said to be a live issue in it for consideration and determination by the Court which can materially affect the parties thereto. This may be because of the fundamental nature of the reliefs sought or of changed circumstances since the litigation started such that in case of an appeal, just as we have here, the appeal may become academic at thetime it is due for hearing. A case or an appeal is academic when the questions or issues raised therein have, due to the special and specific facts from which they arise, become spent such that no genuine right or benefit would inure to or on the successful party. See Akeredolu v. Akinremi (1986) 2 NWLR (Pt. 25) 710; Nwobosi v. A.C.B. (1995) 6 NWLR (Pt. 404) 658; Ogbonna v. President, F.R.N. (1997) 5 NWLR (Pt. 504) 281; Ndulue v. Ibezim (2002) 12 NWLR (Pt 780) 139; A-G Federation v. A.N.P.P. (2003) 12 SC (Pt. II) 146, (2003) 18 NWLR (Pt. 851) 182, Odedo v. I.N.E.C. (2008) 17 NWLR (Pt 1117) 554; Agbakoba v. I.N.E.C. (2008) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1119) 489.
The law is also settled that where in the course of proceedings in a case or in an appeal, election matters inclusive, there is an intervening event cutting at the root or foundation of the case and the vested rights of parties, the Court concerned will do well to terminate or end the proceedings where it is clear that the ultimate outcome will no longer serve the end of justice even if the claimant/ appellant wins thereby rendering same academic. See Badejo v. Federal Ministry of Education (1996) 8NWLR (Pt. 464) 15; Nwora v. Nwabueze (2011) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1271) 467; Ministry of Works & Transport Adamawa State v. Yakubu (2013) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1351) 481.
In the present appeal, as demonstrated in the leading judgment, the crucial issue presented by the facts leading to the appeal was one on the validity of the list of Delegates to vote at the primary election of the 1st appellant for selection/nomination of candidates for the bye-election of 5th September, 2020 in the Cross River North Senatorial District. The trial Federal High Court had ordered, in the ruling of 4th September, 2020, that the Delegates elected on 7th and 21st March, 2020 as Ward and Local Government Area Executives were the valid Delegates to participate in the primary election. The primary election was conducted in compliance with the said order and was supervised/monitored by the 2nd respondent pursuant to the provisions of Section 85 (2), and of the Electoral Act, 2015. From the facts, the 1st respondent emerged as the winner of the primary election, nominated as the candidate for and he participated in the bye-election which was conducted by the 2nd respondent in line with the 1stappellant’s Constitution and Guidelines as well as the Electoral Act, respectively.
The turn of events, from the facts, renders the appeal academic since the subject of the dispute before the trial Court which was the validity of the delegates to participate in the primary election that was statutorily to be conducted within prescribed time before the bye-election, for the purpose of selection/nomination of candidates for the bye-election, was overtaken by expiration of the time limited for the primary election. In the circumstance, the issues of the validity of the delegates list for the purpose of a primary election that could/can no longer be conducted in accordance with the Electoral Act and the 2nd respondent’s Guidelines for Elections, has become stale, spent and dead for all practical purposes.
This Court, in Alli v. Alesinloye (2000) LPELR – 427 (SC), (2000) 6 NWLR (Pt. 660) 177, per Iguh, JSC restated that-
“The law is firmly established that where a question before the Court is entirely academic, speculative or hypothetical, the appellate Court in accordance with the well-established principle of this Court must decline to decide the point. See Nkwocha v. Governor of Anambra State (1984) 6 SC 362; (1984) 1 SCNLR 634; Governor of Kaduna State v. Dada (1986) 4 NWLR (Pt. 38) 687; Richard Ezeanya v. Gabriel Okeke and others (1995) 4 NWLR (Pt. 388) 142.”
In the above premises, I join in upholding the objection by the learned SAN for the 1st respondent that the appeal is now academic and adopt the consequential order striking it out.
I also order that parties should bear their respective costs of prosecuting the appeal.
SAMUEL CHUKWUDUMEBI OSEJI, J.S.C.: I have had the privilege of reading in advance, the judgment delivered by my learned brother, Tijjani Abubakar, JSC in this appeal. I entirely agree with his conclusion that this appeal has evolved to an academic exercise and ought to be struck out.
The facts of the case are well detailed in the lead judgment and as such needs no further rehashing here except to state that the 1st respondent was faced with the threat of losing his chances at the impending primaries to be conducted by his party (1st appellant) for the bye-election into the Cross River State North Senatorial District. This was sequel to the information gathered to the effect that apart from the authentic delegates list already submitted to INEC, another unapproved delegates list was said to be in circulation and meant to be used for the primaries to be conducted by the 1st appellant on 5/9/2020. The 1st respondent having purchased the nomination form for the primaries was then compelled to commence an action at the Federal High Court by way of originating summons on the 20th day of August, 2020 wherein the following three questions were submitted for determination –
“1. Whether upon proper construction interpretation of the provisions of Sections 85(1) and 87(1) and 87(7) of the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended), the defendant can alter, modify, amend, exclude or substitute the list of party members who emerged as ward and local Government Area Executives of the 1st defendant on the 7th and 21st March, 2020 pursuant to the elections duly conducted by the 1st defendant and monitored by the 3rd defendant.
2. Whether by the provisions of Article 15(2) and 18 of the 1st defendant’s Constitution, the 1stdefendant can alter, modify, amend, exclude or substitute the list of party members who emerged as ward and Local Government Area executives of the 1st defendant on the 7th and 21st March, 2020 pursuant to the elections duly conducted by the 1st defendant and monitored by the 3rd defendant.
3. Whether by the provision of Section 87(4) of the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended) and Article 59(2) of the 1st defendant’s Constitution, the 1st defendant can conduct the primaries for its senatorial candidate in any other place or venue different from the senatorial Constituency Headquarters as prescribed by its Constitution.
The 1st respondent also sought the following four reliefs:-
a. A declaration that the 1st defendant is bound to utilize the list of the party members who emerged as ward and Local Government Area Executives of the 1st defendant on the 7th and 21st March, 2020, same having been authenticated by the 1st defendant and certified by the 3rd defendant, for the purpose of selecting the senatorial candidate of the 1st defendant for the Senatorial Bye election in Cross River North Senatorial District.
b. An Order of this honourable Court restraining the 1st and 2nd defendants either by themselves or acting through their organs, agents, privies from carrying out any change, modification, exclusion, substitution or however described by them, to the list of party members who emerged as Ward and Local Government Area Executives of the 1st defendant on the 7th and the 1st defendant and certified by the 1st defendant for the Senatorial candidate of the 1st defendant for the Senatorial Bye-Election in Cross River North Senatorial District.
c. An order of this honourable Court restraining the 3rd defendant from giving to any purported change, modification, exclusion, substitution, or howsoever described by the defendant to the list of party members who emerged as ward and Local Government Areas executives of the 1st defendant on the 7th and 21st March, 2020 same having been authenticated by the 1st defendant and certified by the 3rd defendant for the purpose of selecting the senatorial candidate of the 1st defendant for Senatorial candidate of the 1st defendant for the senatorial bye election in Cross River North Senatorial District.
d. An order of this honourable Court directing the 1stdefendant to conduct the primary elections for the purpose of selecting the Senatorial candidate of the 1st defendant for the Senatorial bye-election in Cross River North Senatorial District for 5th September, 2020 or any other date at the Senatorial Headquarters in Ogoja in accordance with the provisions of the 1st defendant’s Constitution.
e. And for such other order this honourable Court may deem fit to make in the circumstance of this case.
While the action was pending in the trial Court, the appeal panel under the auspices of the 1st appellant purported to disqualify the 1st respondent from participating in the primaries in spite of all existing order of the trial Court for parties to maintain status quo pending the determination of the suit.
However, at the conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Judge granted all the reliefs sought in the originating summons and also granted and ancillary relief setting aside the disqualification of the 1st respondent by the appeal panel of the 1st appellant on the ground that it was an affront to the dignity of the Court. On appeal to the Court of Appeal Port Harcourt Division (lower Court), thedecision of the trial Court was affirmed and the appeal dismissed for lacking in merit. Meanwhile the primary election, subject matter of the suit at the trial Court wherein the 1st respondent sought and obtained an order that the approved list of delegates must be used by the appellants, was duly conducted on the 5th day of September 2020 which is the date approved by the 2nd respondent (INEC). The bye-election into the Cross River State North Senatorial District had also been conducted and a winner had emerged and so declared by INEC.
The appellants herein had appealed to this Court seeking the setting aside of the judgment of the lower Court which affirmed the decision of the trial Court. The main thrust of the appeal is premised on the ancillary order of the trial Court reversing the disqualification of the 1st respondent which as earlier stated was done in defiance and disobedience to the order of the trial Court made on the 28/8/2020 for the maintenance of the status quo by all the parties.
The 1st respondent raised a preliminary objection challenging the competence of the appeal on the grounds that:-
“(a) The election fixed for 5thSeptember, 2020 which the 1st respondent sought to ensure its sanctity had been held and a winner declared.
(b) The 1st respondent who was purportedly disqualified in the course of the proceedings at the trial Court participated as an aspirant in the said election given that the trial Court reversed the decision of the 1st appellant disqualifying him.”
The appellants response to the preliminary objection is contained in paragraphs 2.6. to 2.12 at pages 3 to 6 of the appellants reply brief to the 1st respondent’s brief of argument filed on 26/11/2020. Submissions of learned senior counsel on both sides of divide have been duly considered vis-à-vis the questions raised for determination in the originating summons and the relief sought thereof, also not excluding the reliefs sought in the notice of appeal.
The end result in my humble view is that this appeal will unfortunately not serve any utilitarian value. It has become spent and will only serve for academic benefits which the Courts by a long line of authorities have been admonished to desist from such ventures. See Ardo v. INEC &Ors (2017) LPELR-41919 (SC); (2017) 13NWLR (Pt. 1583) 450, where this Court per Amina Adamu Augie, JSC noted thus:-
“An action becomes hypothetical or raises more academic point when there is no live matter in it to be adjudicated upon or when its determination holds no practical or tangible value for making a pronouncement upon it, it is otherwise an exercise in futility. When an issue has become defunct, it does not require to be answered … and leads to make bare legal postulations which the Court should not indulge in, it is like the salt that has lost its seasoning. And like the salt in that terms, an academic issue or question does not relate to the live issues in the litigation because it is spent as it will not ensure any right or benefit on a successful party”.
See also Union Bank Plc v. Edionseri (1988) 2 NWLR (Pt. 74) 93; Julius Berger Ltd. v. Femi (1993) 5 NWLR (Pt.295) 612; Olaniyi v. Aroyehun (1991) 5 NWLR (Pt. 194) 652; Governor of Kaduna v. Dada (1986) 4 NWLR (Pt. 38) 687; Nkwocha v. Governor of Anambra State (1984) 6 SC 362; (1984) 1 SCNLR 634.
As had always been emphasized and needs to be further stated for posterity, this Court has no jurisdiction orcompetence to determine hypothetical questions or to embark on advisory or abstract academic opinion, hence it has consistently refused to decide such questions. See Atake v. Afejuku (1994) 9 NWLR (Pt. 368) 379.
It is therefore trite law that Courts do not expend valuable judicial time and energy on academic issues. See K.R.K Holdings Nigeria Limited v. First Bank Nig Plc (2016) LPELR 41463 (SC); (2017) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1552) 326. This appeal no doubt falls within the realm of cases classified by this Court in numerous decisions to be academic, hypothetical and lacking utilitarian value in that any pronouncement made thereon would not confer any rights or benefit to the appellant.
For this and the fuller reasons detailed in the lead judgment, I also uphold the preliminary objection. This appeal is accordingly struck-out.
I also abide by the order as to costs.
Appeal struck out.
Appearances:
Chief Wole Olanipekun, SAN with him, Bola Olotu, Esq.; Chief Emmanuel Moses Enoidem, Esq.; AdedamolaFanokun, Esq. and Akintola Makinde, Esq.)For Appellant(s)
Chief Ifedayo A. Adedipe, SAN with him, C.S. Njoka, Esq.- for 1st Respondent
Abdulaziz Sani, Esq. – for 2nd RespondentFor Respondent(s)
