PEOPLES DEMOCRATIC PARTY v. PRINCE UZOMA IDABOH & ORS
(2017)LCN/10368(CA)
In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
On Wednesday, the 25th day of October, 2017
CA/B/289/2017
RATIO
JURISDICTION: WHETHER IT IS THE PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM THAT DETERMINES THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT
It is also settled law that, generally, in a suit fought on pleadings, the Court determines its jurisdiction over the matter by examining only the plaintiffs claim. Where the action is by an originating summons, the plaintiffs claim and the affidavit in support thereof are the relevant processes in determining the Courts jurisdiction. It is not the defence of the defendant that determines whether or not the Court has jurisdiction. For these principles of law, See Western Steel Works Ltd. v. Iron & Steel Workers Union (No. 2) (1987) 1 NWLR (Pt. 49) 284; Chief James Onanefe Ibori v. Engineer Goodnews Agbi & 5 Ors. (2004) 6 NWLR (Pt. 868) 78; Oba J. A. Aremo II v. S. F. Adekanye & 2 Ors. (2004) 13 NWLR (Pt. 891) 572 and Vivian Clems Akpamgbo-Okadigbo & Ors. v. Egbe Theo Chidi & Ors. (2015) 10 NWLR (Pt.1466) 124.PER MOORE ASEIMO ABRAHAM ADUMEIN, J.C.A.
APPEAL: THE EFFECT OF THE FINDINGS OF A COURT NOT APPEALED AGAINST
The law is that findings of a Court not appealed against are deemed to be correct. See Prince John Okechukwu Emeka v. Lady Margery Okadigbo & 4 Ors. (2012) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1331) 55 at 99, per Rhodes-Vivour, JSC where the Supreme Court held that a judgment not appealed against is accepted as correct and remains inviolate for all times. See also the cases of Madam Adunola Adejumo & 2 Ors. v. Mr. Oludayo Olaiwaiye (2014) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1421) 252 and Wike Ezenkwo Nyesom v. Hon. (Dr.) Dakuku Adol Peterside & Ors. (2016) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1492) 71.PER MOORE ASEIMO ABRAHAM ADUMEIN, J.C.A.
ELECTORAL MATTERS: THE EFFECT OF A PRIMARY ELECTION CONDUCTED BY A STATE CHAPTER OF A POLITICAL PARTY
Since the 1st respondent has accepted the finding of the trial Court that his claim was premised on a primary election conducted by a State Chapter of his political party, the 1st respondent has no locus standi under Section 87(9) of the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended). See Senator Abubakar Saddiq Yaradua & Ors. v. Senator Abdu Umar Yandoma & Ors. (2015) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1447) 123 at 182 183, per Ngwuta, JSC; where the Supreme Court stated as follows:
In the case of nomination for the membership of the National or State Assembly the complaint may be that the aspirant with the highest number of votes was not declared winner of the primary election as provided in Section 87 (4) (c) (ii) of the Electoral Act, 1 (as amended). If there are two parallel primary elections, as in the cases from which these appeals arose, only a person who took part in the primary elections conducted by the National Executive Committee of the party is an aspirant within the meaning of the term in Section 87 (9) of the Act. It is only an aspirant who can approach the Court to seek redress pursuant to Section 87 (9) of the Act. Anyone who takes part in the primary election conducted by a State organ of the party is not an aspirant and cannot approach the Court for redress for he has no locus standi to ask for redress. (Underlining mine for the sake of emphasis)
The Supreme Court has, by several of its decisions, settled that a primary election conducted by a State Chapter of a political party is illegal. See Chief Ikechi Emenike v. Peoples Democratic Party & Ors. (2012) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1315) 556 at 602, per Rhodes-Vivour, JSC, and Emeka v. Okadigbo (2012) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1331) 55 at 88 per, Rhodes-Vivour, JSC, where the Supreme Court stated clearly that the primaries, which the appellant participated in was illegal, it having been conducted by the State Executive Committee of the PDP
In this case, therefore, in respect of the primary election conducted by National Executive Committee of the appellant party, the 1st respondent could be viewed as a non-contestant and he had no locus standi to complain about it, since by his own admission and showing he participated in the illegal or unlawful primary election conducted by the State Chapter of his party when such a State chapter had no legal right to conduct a primary election. That non-contestant at a primary election can not in Court complain about the conduct of the primary election, See Prince John Okechukwu Emeka v. Lady Margery Okadigbo & 4 Ors. (2012) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1331) 55 at 88, per Rhodes-Viviour, JSC, where His Lordship stated that:
A person who was not a candidate/aspirant at the primaries cannot come to complain about the conduct of primaries.
To be very brief on the live issue in this appeal, I am of the view that having found that the 1st respondents claim was based on a primary election conducted by the Delta State Chapter of the appellant party, the trial Court lacked the jurisdiction to proceed further with the case. By its finding that the primary election upon which the 1st respondent premised his case was conducted by a State Chapter of the political party, the claim automatically became non-justiciable and the Court had no jurisdiction to entertain. See Chief Ikechi Emenike v. Peoples Democratic Party & Ors. (2012) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1315) 556 and Chief S.O. Adebayo & 2 Ors. v. Peoples Democratic Party & 2 Ors. (2013) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1382) 1 at 45, per Onnoghen, JSC (as he then was, now CJN) where the eminent jurist stated that:
The Courts, including the Supreme Court, regard any purported primary election conducted by a State Executive Committee of a political party contrary to the partys Constitution, Electoral Act and party guidelines, on conduct of primary elections as an illegal primary and therefore not justiciable. PER MOORE ASEIMO ABRAHAM ADUMEIN, J.C.A.
LOCUS STANDI: THE EFFECT OF A PLAINTIFF LACKING LOCUS TO INSTITUTE HIS ACTION OR SUIT
It is important to restate the settled principle of law that locus standi is a threshold issue. Therefore, where a plaintiff lacks the locus standi to institute his action or suit, the Court itself lacks the jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter. See Chiwuzie Mokelu & 2 Ors. v. Bernard Nwoye & Anor. (2017) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1569) 1 at 16 andCaptain Idris Ichalla Wada & 2 Ors. v. Yahaya Bello & 2 Ors. (2016) 17 NWLR (Pt.1542) 374 at 441, per M.D. Muhammad, JSC, where the Supreme Court stated that:
The question of locus standi is a threshold issue. Where a party lacks the legal capacity to institute proceedings in a Court of law in a bid to enforce a perceived right, he puts the Court which lacks the jurisdiction to hear and determine the matter, in the impossible position of proceeding on his claim. Only a plaintiff who has the right on vested interest to protect and enforced legally and disclosed same in his claim is entitled to one. In the instant case, where the appellants by their petition failed to show that their case is justiciable, no Court can proceed. PER MOORE ASEIMO ABRAHAM ADUMEIN, J.C.A.
Justice
SAMUEL CHUKWUDUMEBI OSEJI Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
MOORE ASEIMO ABRAHAM ADUMEIN Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
MUDASHIRU NASIRU ONIYANGI Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
Between
PEOPLES DEMOCRATIC PARTY (PDP) – Appellant(s)
AND
1. PRINCE UZOMA IDABOH
2. THE INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION (INEC)
3. EMEKA NWAOBI – Respondent(s)
MOORE ASEIMO ABRAHAM ADUMEIN, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): In Suit No. FHC/ASB/CS/21/2015, instituted by way of an originating summons in the Federal High Court, Asaba Judicial Division, holden at Asaba, Delta State, the 1st respondent was the claimant. The 2nd respondent, 3rd respondent and the appellant were the 1st defendant, 2nd defendant and 3rd defendant, respectively, in the said suit. As the claimant in the said suit, the 1st respondent sought the following relief:
1. A DECLARATION that the plaintiff, having won the primary election of the 3rd Defendant conducted on 29/11/2014 is the validly nominated candidate for Aniocha-North Constituency in the Delta State House of Assembly election fixed for 28th February, 2015.
2. AN ORDER of this Honourable Court compelling the 3rd Defendant to forward the name of the plaintiff to the 1st Defendant as his candidate for Aniocha-North Constituency in the Delta State House of Assembly election fixed for 28th February, 2015.
3. AN ORDER restraining the 3rd defendant from presenting the name of the 2nd Defendant or any other name except the plaintiff as
1
its candidate for Aniocha-North Constituency in the Delta State House of Assembly election fixed for 28th February, 2015.
4. AN ORDER of this Honourable Court restraining the 1st defendant from accepting or recognizing the 2nd Defendant or any other person as the candidate of the 3rd Defendant for Aniocha-North Constituency in the Delta State House of Assembly election fixed for 28th February, 2015 except the plaintiff.
5. AN ORDER setting aside any purported replacement or substitution of the Plaintiffs name with that of the 2nd Defendant or any other person and presentation of same to the 1st Defendant by the 3rd defendant as its candidate for the election of 28/2/2014 into the Aniocha-North Constituency seat, in the Delta State House of Assembly.
In the said No. FHC/ASB/CS/21/2015, the 1st respondent sought answers to the following questions:
1. WHETHER the plaintiff, having won the primary election of the 3rd Defendant held on 29/11/2014, is not the duly nominated candidate of the 3rd Defendant for the election into the Delta State House of Assembly to represent Aniocha-North Constituency in the election fixed for
2
28th February, 2015.
2. WHETHER by the provisions of Section 87(1), (c), (4) of the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended) the 3rd Defendant is not bound to submit the name of the Plaintiff to the 1st defendant as his candidate for Aniocha-North constituency in the Delta State House of Assembly election fixed for 28th February, 2015, having won the party primary election conducted on 29th November, 2014.
3. WHETHER, having regard to the express provisions of Section 87 of the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended), the 3rd defendant can submit the name of the 2nd Defendant and/or any other person who did not win the 3rd Defendants primary election conducted on 29/11/2014 as his candidate for Aniocha-North constituency in the Delta State House of Assembly election fixed for 28th February, 2015.
4. WHETHER the 1st defendant, having acknowledged the Plaintiff as the winner of the 3rd Defendants primary election to pick its candidate for Aniocha-North Constituency held on 29/11/2014 can accept the name of the 2nd Defendant and/or any other person as the candidate of the 3rd defendant.
5. WHETHER by virtue of Section 87(9) of the Electoral
3
Act, 2010 (as amended), the plaintiff having won the primaries can question or complain against his unlawful purported replacement by his party and refusal to issue him INEC Nomination Form.
The appellant raised a preliminary objection to the jurisdiction of the trial Court to entertain the 1st respondents suit on the grounds that:
1. The evidence in this case show that the primary election relied on by the plaintiff was initiated and conducted by the Delta State Executive Committee of the Peoples Democratic Party [PDP].
2. A party primary conducted by the Delta State Executive Committee of the PDP relied on by the plaintiff in this is no primary at all, discloses no reasonable cause of action and vests no jurisdiction in the Court to entertain or and grant the reliefs sought on the originating summons.
3. That for the Court to have jurisdiction to entertain the plaintiffs suit the primary complained of must have been conducted by the National Executive Committee of the 3rd Defendant.
4. The Body recognized by the 3rd defendants Constitution and Electoral Guidelines for conducting primary election
4
into Houses of Assembly is the National Executive committee.
After hearing the parties on the appellants preliminary objection, the trial Court delivered its ruling on the said objection on 06/06/2017 whereby the preliminary objection was dismissed. Not satisfied by the decision of the trial Court, dismissing its preliminary objection, the appellant filed a notice of appeal on 16/06/2017 containing three grounds; and a second notice of appeal was filed on 19/06/2017 containing one ground of appeal. The two notices of appeal were consolidated by an order of this Court made on 04/10/2017. From its four grounds of appeal, the appellant distilled two issues in its brief filed on 04/08/2017 but deemed properly filed on 04/10/2017 as follows:
1. Whether the lower Court was in error in the way it relied on the interest of Justice and ignored its finding on what was the gravamen of the 1st Respondents case in its resolution of the 1st respondents locus standi. Grounds 1 and 4.
2. Whether the lower Courts conclusion that the 1st respondent had locus standi to found his claims and that there were triable issues
5
disclosed, was not justified by its earlier finding on the gravamen on which the 1st respondent erected his claims, the provisions of Section 87(4)(c)(ii) and 87(9) of the Electoral Act, 2010 {as amended} and the evidence. Grounds 2 and 3.
In his brief filed on 24/08/2017 and deemed filed on 04/10/2017, the 1st respondent identified a single issue for determination as follows:
Whether the learned trial judge was right to have held that the 1st respondent had locus standi to present this suit.
The 2nd and 3rd respondents did not file any briefs.
I have read the appellants grounds of appeal, the two issues distilled by the appellant and the sole issue framed by the 1st respondent and I am of the view that the following sole issue is sufficient for the determination of this appeal:
Whether the 1st respondent had the locus standi to institute his suit in the trial Court.
The kernel of the appellants arguments is that the trial Court having found and held that by the evidence of the plaintiff/respondent, the primary election of the 3rd defendant he participated on was the (sic)
6
conducted by the Delta State Executive Committee of the 3rd defendant, it was wrong for the Court to proceed to dismiss the preliminary objection by holding that the 1st respondent established an interest in the subject matter of this case which enable (sic) him to institute the action and seek the relief of Court declaring him as the winner of the primary election of the 3rd defendant conducted on 29/11/2014. Learned counsel for the appellant relied on the case of Adebayo & Ors. v. PDP & Ors. (2013) LPELR 20342 (SC) and submitted that:
Having determined that the material or significant part of the 1st respondents grievance or complaint on the originating summons was erected on the primary conducted by the Delta State Chapter of the Appellant that was the end of the claims of the 1st respondent. The lower Court ought to have terminated the case pro tanto and proceeded no further with the matter.
In response, learned counsel for the 1st respondent contended that the 1st respondent deposed in paragraph 34 of the affidavit in support of his originating summons that only one primary
7
election was held for all the six aspirants for Aniocha-North Constituency and that by paragraph 4 of the 3rd respondents counter affidavit, the 1st respondents deposition was admitted. Referring to the case of Ndayako v. Dantoro (2004) 13 NWLR (Pt. 889) 187, learned counsel submitted that a fact which has been admitted needs no further proof. Counsel then argued that with that admission coming from the 3rd respondent who was also an aspirant who contested the said primary election….that admission….clearly takes the case of the 1st respondent as put before the trial Court outside the preview (sic) of cases like:
(1) Emeka v. Oguebego (2012) LPELR 9338 (SC)
(2) Odedo v. Oguebego (2015) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1476) 229.
(3) Lado v. CPC (2011) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1279) 689.
Learned counsel for the 1st respondent submitted that the 1st respondent who participated in the primary election, has the locus standi to institute his action under Section 87(9) of the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended).
In the lower Court, in the written address in support of the preliminary objection, learned counsel
8
for the appellant submitted, inter alia, at page 1467 of the record, as follows:
Instructively, the plaintiffs locus standi from his own showing was non-existent in so far as the primaries he rested his claims on was initiated by the Aniocha North Chapter of the 3rd defendant and conducted by Emmanuel Okorodudu who was appointed by an unknown committee of the Delta State Chapter of the PDP, whereas the primary election that brought up the 2nd defendant was conducted by Roy Oke, who was appointed by the National Executive Committee of the 3rd Defendant.
From the plaintiffs affidavit in support of his originating summons, it is undeniable that the primary election the plaintiff has founded his total reliance upon was conducted by one Emmanuel Okorodudu, who was appointed by the Delta State House of Assembly Primary Election Committee.
In its ruling, the trial Court found and held as follows:
It is my view that the fundamental issue in this objection is whether the plaintiff/respondent having regards to his evidence, that is, the affidavit attached to his originating summons can be said to possess
9
the required locus standi to institute this action. This is because by evidence of the plaintiff/respondent, the primary election of the 3rd defendant he participated on was conducted by the Delta State Executive Committee of the 3rd Defendant. This admission no doubts is at variance with the provisions of Section 87(9) of the Electoral Act which states that Any one (sic) who takes part in the primary election conducted by a State organ of the party is not an aspirant and cannot approach the Court for redress for he has no locus standi to ask for redress. It is trite that as a general principle of averments, it is the statement of claim and the writ of summons (in support of the Originating summons) that are mainly the material required at this stage to ascertain to locus standi of a plaintiff, that is to say, they are the materials relevant in the consideration of the instant question. There is no doubt that exhibits J1 and ELA 3 exhibited by the plaintiff show that State Executive Committee of the PDP conducted the primary upon which the gravmen (sic) of the plaintiff case is erected.
(Underlining mine for the sake of
10
emphasis)
It is trite law that the issue of locus standi is a jurisdictional issue which goes to the standing or competence of a claimant or a plaintiff to institute his action. See Professor T. M. Yesufu v. Governor of Edo State and Visitor, Edo State University & Ors. (2001) 13 NWLR (Pt. 731) 517 at 531; per Ogundare, JSC. Locus standi is therefore a threshold issue which is based on the showing by the case put forward by the claimant or plaintiff in his statement of claim. See Momoh v. Olotu (1970) 1 All NLR 117; Prince Ademolu Odeneye v. Prince David Efunuga & 4 Ors. (1990) 7 NWLR (Pt. 164) 618; (1990) 11-12 SCNJ 1 and Josiah Kayode Owodunni v. The Registered Trustees of Celestial Church of Christ & 3 Ors. (2000) 10 NWLR (Pt.675) 315 at 357, per Iguh, JSC.
It is also settled law that, generally, in a suit fought on pleadings, the Court determines its jurisdiction over the matter by examining only the plaintiffs claim. Where the action is by an originating summons, the plaintiffs claim and the affidavit in support thereof are the relevant processes in determining the Courts jurisdiction. It is not the defence of
11
the defendant that determines whether or not the Court has jurisdiction. For these principles of law, See Western Steel Works Ltd. v. Iron & Steel Workers Union (No. 2) (1987) 1 NWLR (Pt. 49) 284; Chief James Onanefe Ibori v. Engineer Goodnews Agbi & 5 Ors. (2004) 6 NWLR (Pt. 868) 78; Oba J. A. Aremo II v. S. F. Adekanye & 2 Ors. (2004) 13 NWLR (Pt. 891) 572 and Vivian Clems Akpamgbo-Okadigbo & Ors. v. Egbe Theo Chidi & Ors. (2015) 10 NWLR (Pt.1466) 124.
In this case, the trial Court found that the 1st respondents claim was based on a primary election conducted by Delta State Chapter of the appellant party. This finding was accepted by the 1st respondent as true and correct, since he did not appeal against it. The law is that findings of a Court not appealed against are deemed to be correct. See Prince John Okechukwu Emeka v. Lady Margery Okadigbo & 4 Ors. (2012) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1331) 55 at 99, per Rhodes-Vivour, JSC where the Supreme Court held that a judgment not appealed against is accepted as correct and remains inviolate for all times. See also the cases of Madam Adunola Adejumo & 2 Ors. v. Mr. Oludayo
12
Olaiwaiye (2014) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1421) 252 and Wike Ezenkwo Nyesom v. Hon. (Dr.) Dakuku Adol Peterside & Ors. (2016) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1492) 71.
Since the 1st respondent has accepted the finding of the trial Court that his claim was premised on a primary election conducted by a State Chapter of his political party, the 1st respondent has no locus standi under Section 87(9) of the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended). See Senator Abubakar Saddiq Yaradua & Ors. v. Senator Abdu Umar Yandoma & Ors. (2015) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1447) 123 at 182 183, per Ngwuta, JSC; where the Supreme Court stated as follows:
In the case of nomination for the membership of the National or State Assembly the complaint may be that the aspirant with the highest number of votes was not declared winner of the primary election as provided in Section 87 (4) (c) (ii) of the Electoral Act, 1 (as amended). If there are two parallel primary elections, as in the cases from which these appeals arose, only a person who took part in the primary elections conducted by the National Executive Committee of the party is an aspirant within the meaning of the term in Section 87
13
(9) of the Act.
It is only an aspirant who can approach the Court to seek redress pursuant to Section 87 (9) of the Act. Anyone who takes part in the primary election conducted by a State organ of the party is not an aspirant and cannot approach the Court for redress for he has no locus standi to ask for redress.
(Underlining mine for the sake of emphasis)
The Supreme Court has, by several of its decisions, settled that a primary election conducted by a State Chapter of a political party is illegal. See Chief Ikechi Emenike v. Peoples Democratic Party & Ors. (2012) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1315) 556 at 602, per Rhodes-Vivour, JSC, and Emeka v. Okadigbo (2012) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1331) 55 at 88 per, Rhodes-Vivour, JSC, where the Supreme Court stated clearly that the primaries, which the appellant participated in was illegal, it having been conducted by the State Executive Committee of the PDP
In this case, therefore, in respect of the primary election conducted by National Executive Committee of the appellant party, the 1st respondent could be viewed as a non-contestant and he had no locus standi to complain about it, since by
14
his own admission and showing he participated in the illegal or unlawful primary election conducted by the State Chapter of his party when such a State chapter had no legal right to conduct a primary election. That non-contestant at a primary election can not in Court complain about the conduct of the primary election, See Prince John Okechukwu Emeka v. Lady Margery Okadigbo & 4 Ors. (2012) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1331) 55 at 88, per Rhodes-Viviour, JSC, where His Lordship stated that:
A person who was not a candidate/aspirant at the primaries cannot come to complain about the conduct of primaries.
To be very brief on the live issue in this appeal, I am of the view that having found that the 1st respondents claim was based on a primary election conducted by the Delta State Chapter of the appellant party, the trial Court lacked the jurisdiction to proceed further with the case. By its finding that the primary election upon which the 1st respondent premised his case was conducted by a State Chapter of the political party, the claim automatically became non-justiciable and the Court had no jurisdiction to entertain. See Chief Ikechi
15
Emenike v. Peoples Democratic Party & Ors. (2012) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1315) 556 and Chief S.O. Adebayo & 2 Ors. v. Peoples Democratic Party & 2 Ors. (2013) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1382) 1 at 45, per Onnoghen, JSC (as he then was, now CJN) where the eminent jurist stated that:
The Courts, including the Supreme Court, regard any purported primary election conducted by a State Executive Committee of a political party contrary to the partys Constitution, Electoral Act and party guidelines, on conduct of primary elections as an illegal primary and therefore not justiciable.
I wish to add that it was wrong for the trial Court to have proceeded to hold that the 1st respondent invariably… participated in the two primaries. I say so because the 1st respondent, by his affidavit evidence, did not base his case on a primary election conducted by the National Executive Committee of the appellant party. The lower Court, therefore, erred by clothing the 1st respondent with locus standi so as to enable him to proceed with his action.
It is important to restate the settled principle of law that locus standi is a threshold issue.
16
Therefore, where a plaintiff lacks the locus standi to institute his action or suit, the Court itself lacks the jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter. See Chiwuzie Mokelu & 2 Ors. v. Bernard Nwoye & Anor. (2017) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1569) 1 at 16 andCaptain Idris Ichalla Wada & 2 Ors. v. Yahaya Bello & 2 Ors. (2016) 17 NWLR (Pt.1542) 374 at 441, per M.D. Muhammad, JSC, where the Supreme Court stated that:
The question of locus standi is a threshold issue. Where a party lacks the legal capacity to institute proceedings in a Court of law in a bid to enforce a perceived right, he puts the Court which lacks the jurisdiction to hear and determine the matter, in the impossible position of proceeding on his claim. Only a plaintiff who has the right on vested interest to protect and enforced legally and disclosed same in his claim is entitled to one. In the instant case, where the appellants by their petition failed to show that their case is justiciable, no Court can proceed.
As stated earlier, by his originating summons, as rightly found by the trial Court in its ruling, the 1st respondent premised his claim on the result of a primary
17
election conducted by the Delta State Chapter of the appellant political party. In the circumstances of this case, the 1st respondents claim is not justiciable, as it is anchored on an illegal primary election and he has no legally enforceable legal right to protect.
For the sake of fully resolving this issue, it is important to say that the trial Court also found, although erroneously, that I have found from the evidence of the parties that the Plaintiff/Respondent has established an interest in the subject matter of this case which enable him to institute this action and seek the relief of the Court declaring him as the winner of the primary election of the 3rd Defendant conducted on 29/11/2014 and compelling the 3rd Defendant to forward his name to the 1st Defendant amongst other reliefs. I say so because it seems from Exhibit B attached to 3rd Defendant/Applicant counter affidavit that the name of the Plaintiff/Respondent appeared on the result sheet of the purported primary election conducted by the National Executive Committee which shows Roy Oke as the returning Officer and also Exhibit P1 attached to
18
Plaintiff/Respondents Reply to 3rd Defendants Counter-affidavit which has the name of Plaintiff/Respondent on the result sheet of the purported primary election conducted by the Delta State chapter of the 3rd Defendant. The result sheet has Emmanuel Okorodudu as the returning officer. What this invariably means is that the Plaintiff participated in the two primaries. The one conducted by the National Executive Committee of the 3rd Defendant and the one by Delta State Chapter of the 3rd Defendant.
Assuming, without conceding that the 1st respondent based his claim on two competing primary elections, as stated in the ruling of the trial Court, the trial Court would still be divested of its jurisdiction to entertain the claim because by such a dispute the cause or matter would be taken out of the purview of Section 87(4)(b)(ii), (4)(c)(ii) and (9) of the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended). This was the view expressed by the Supreme Court in Senator Yakubu Garba Lado & Ors. v. Congress for Progressive Change & Ors. (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1279) 689 at 724, where the Supreme Court, per Onnoghen, JSC, (as he then was, now CJN) stated,
19
inter alia, as follows:
In the instant case, the jurisdiction in question is statutory and is very limited in scope. On the face of the claim it would appear that the Courts have jurisdiction under Section 87(4)(b)(ii); (c)(ii) and (9) of the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended), if the right being claimed by the appellants and in dispute between the parties arose from the primaries of 15th January, 2011, alone.
Once there arises a dispute as to which of the two primaries conferred a right of candidate on the parties to represent a political party in an election, the matter is taken outside the preview of Section 87(4)(b)(ii); (c)(ii) and (9) of the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended).
It is only when the National Executive Committee of a political party conducts two parallel primary elections that a Court of law is vested with jurisdiction to determine the authentic primary election. See Prince John Okechukwu Emeka v. Lady Margery Okadigbo & 4 Ors. (2012) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1331) 55 at 88 where the Supreme Court stated as follows:
Where there are two primaries conducted by the National Executive of the PDP, a situation at best
20
imagined, it is only then that it can be said that there were two parallel primaries. The authentic primary could easily be resolved by documentary evidence available.
In the instant case, of the two primary elections referred to by the trial Court, the one relied upon by the 1st respondent was conducted by State Chapter of the political party. Therefore, the question of two parallel primary elections does not arise to warrant the trial Court to invoke its jurisdiction to entertain the 1st respondents case.
By way of a mere reminder, I wish to add that the question of jurisdiction, being very fundamental in the process of adjudication, can be asked or raised at any stage of the proceedings. See African Newspaper Nigeria Ltd v. Federal Republic of Nigeria (1985) 2 NWLR (Pt. 6) 137; Utomudo v. Military Governor of Bendel State & Ors. (2014) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1417) 97; Senator Christiana N.D. Anyanwu v. Hon. Independent C. Ogunewe & Ors. (2014) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1410) 337 and Mrs. Esther I. Adesigbin & Ors. v. Military Governor of Lagos State & Anor. (2017) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1574) 442 at 457, per Rhodes-Vivour, JSC.
It is also to be
21
remembered that where the Court lacks jurisdiction, it cannot exercise any judicial power over the matter. This is so because the Court can only exercise its judicial powers where it is seised of jurisdiction over a cause or matter. See Bronik Motors Ltd. v. Wema Bank Ltd (1983) 1 SCNLR 296 and Prof. Vincent Nnamdi Okwuosa v. Prof. N.E. Gomwalk & 19 Ors. (2017) 9 NWLR (Pt.1570) 259 at 276-277, per Eko, JSC. Therefore, where a Court purports to exercise jurisdiction where it possesses none its decision is nothing more than a mere nullity. See Attorney General for Trinidad & Tobago v. Erichie (1893) AC 518 at 522-523; Timitimi v. Amabebe (1953) 4 WACA 374 and Ekulo Farms Ltd. v. Union Bank of Nigeria PLC (2006) 6 SCM 78.
In refusing to uphold the appellants preliminary objection, the trial Court concluded that: Terminating this suit at the preliminary stage in my view may not serve the interest of Justice. I think that a Court has a duty to do Justice in accordance with the law. In the administration of Justice, a Court of law does not decide issues or matters on the basis of sentiments or sympathy. See Federal Republic of
22
Nigeria v. Senator Adolphus N. Wabara (2013) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1347) 331 at 357 and Olu Ode Okpe v. Fan Milk PLC & Anor. (2017) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1549) 282 at 310, per I.T. Muhammad, JSC; where the Supreme Court stated, inter alia, that:
…. in the realm of law, sentiments or sympathy have no place. It is only law and law only that should take its course.
In the earlier case of Mr. Ime Ime Umanah Jnr. V. Nigeria Deposit Insurance Corporation (2016) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1533) 458 at 484, the Supreme Court, per Nweze, JSC stated as follows:
……the law brooks neither sentiment nor empathy.
In any case, what is the meaning of interest of Justice? the answer to this question was answered by the Supreme Court in the case of Olu Ode Okpe v. Fan Milk PLC & Anor. (2017) 2 NWLR (Pt.1549) 282 at 311, per I.T. Muhammad, JSC where the noble Law Lord stated as follows:
Furthermore, interest of Justice connotes such interest, aspirations and or attempts to achieve Justice in a given case or situation. The whole goal is the achievement of Justice. Justice is fair and proper administration of laws, whereas
23
anything done in the interest of Justice is done in pursuance of fairness to all the parties in a case without compromising the principles of the law and evidence under consideration which, as of right, entitle the successful party to judgment. That perhaps, is why they now say, that Justice is a three-way-traffic. Justice to the plaintiff/appellant, Justice to the defendant/respondent and Justice to the Court itself. The last one of course, requires that parties to a legal tussle or their legal representatives should always come to Court with open mind, sincerity of purpose, diligent and coherent with unwavering confidence that the Court will at the end, deliver Justice according to law.
Therefore, where a Court is seised of any cause or matter, in order to be seen as having acted in the interest of Justice, the case should be even-handedly decided in accordance with settled principles of law.
For all the reasons I have given in this judgment, the live issue in this appeal is hereby resolved in favour of the appellant.
This appeal, being meritorious, is hereby allowed. Consequently, the decision of the trial Court dismissing the
24
appellants preliminary objection is hereby set aside. In its place, an order is hereby entered upholding the appellants preliminary objection.
Consequently, Suit No. FHC/ASB/CS/21/2015 between: PRINCE UZOMA IDABOH v. INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION & 2 ORS., is hereby struck out for lack of jurisdiction.
The parties are hereby ordered to bear their respective costs.
SAMUEL CHUKWUDUMEBI OSEJI, J.C.A.: I have had the privilege of reading in draft the judgment of my learned brother M.A.A. ADUMEIN JCA. I agree with his Lordships reasoning and conclusion that the appeal has merit and should be allowed.
I abide by the consequential orders made in the lead judgment order as to costs.
MUDASHIRU NASIRU ONIYANGI, J.C.A.: I agree with the judgment just delivered by my learned brother, MOORE ASEIMO ABRAHAM ADUMEIN, JCA, and to underscore my support I shall make some comments on the reasoning.
In this appeal, the core issue is predicated on whether or not the Court has the jurisdiction to entertain the action by the 1st Respondent. Tons of
25
Nigerian Statutes and Courts decisions are dotted with the twelve letter word, jurisdiction. To mention but a few are, S.232, 233, 239, 240, 251, 257, 262, 272, 282 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. To also mention few out of legion of decided cases are YUSUFU V. OBASANJO (2003) 15 NWLR (PT.843) 293, AWUSE V. ODILI (2002) 18 NWLR (PT.851) 116, IHESI V. ARINZE (2007) 5 NWLR (PT.1027) 241, and many, many more.
According to Halsburys Laws of England Vol.10 4th Edition para 715, jurisdiction means:
—the authority which a Court has to decide matters that are litigated before it or to take cognizance of matter presented in formal way for its decision.
This interpretation has received the imprimatur of the Nigeria Courts, the Supreme Court inclusive in the myriad of cases i.e.MOBIL PRODUCTION (NIG) UNLIMITED V. LASEPA (2002) 18 NWLR (PT.798) 1.; EBHODAGHE V. OKOYE (2004) 18 NWLR (PT.905) 472, ANPP V. BSIEC (2006) 11 NWLR (PT.992) 582, S.P.D.C. (NIG) LTD V. SIRPI-ALUSTEEL CONSTRUCTION LTD (2008) 1 NWLR (PT.1067) 128.
The 1st Respondent having submitted himself to an illegal Primary Election conduction
26
by the Delta State Executive Committee of Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), for nomination of candidate for the Election into the Delta State House of Assembly to represent Aniocha North Constituency on the 28th February 2015, has by his act failed to plan and ipso facto planned to fail. His action has remove his complaint from the domain of the trial Courts jurisdiction to entertain and determine his matter. If jurisdiction is the right in the Court to hear and determine the dispute between the parties, the Federal High Court Asaba Judicial Division, holding in Asaba, Delta State has no jurisdiction to entertain the action by the 1st Respondent.
In the light of the foregoing and the fuller and better reasons of my learned brother, MOORE ASEIMO ABRAHAM ADUMEIN JCA, I see light at the end of the tunnel in this appeal. The appeal is meritorious and I also allow it. I abide by the consequential orders made.
27
Appearances:
E. R. Emukpoeruo Esq., with him, O. O. Olusiyi Esq.For Appellant(s)
L. O. Egboyi Esq., with him, A.E. Alagun, Esq. for the 1st respondent.
Okechuckwu Okeke Esq., for the 2nd respondent.
K. E. Mozia SAN, with him, J. I. Odibeli Esq. and Miss E. AyoweFor Respondent(s)
>
Appearances
E. R. Emukpoeruo Esq., with him, O. O. Olusiyi Esq.For Appellant
AND
L. O. Egboyi Esq., with him, A.E. Alagun, Esq. for the 1st respondent.
Okechuckwu Okeke Esq., for the 2nd respondent.
K. E. Mozia SAN, with him, J. I. Odibeli Esq. and Miss E. AyoweFor Respondent
