PEOPLES DEMOCRATIC PARTY vs. HON. (DR.) HARRY N. ORANEZI. (2017)

PEOPLES DEMOCRATIC PARTY vs. HON. (DR.) HARRY N. ORANEZI.

(2017) LCN/4486(SC)

In the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Friday, December 15, 2017

Case Number: SC. 581/2016

RATIO

OPERATION OF THE DOCTRINE OF STARE DECISIS

In NEPA V. Onah (1997) LPELR-1959 (SC) this Court has I stated as follows:- “It is a cardinal principle of law under the doctrine of stare decisis that an inferior court is bound by a decision of a superior court, however sure it may be that it has been wrongly decided”. See also Usman V. Umaru (1992) 7 SCNJ 388, Ngwo & ors V. Monye & ors (1970) LPELR-1991 (SC) and CBN & ors V. Okojie (2015) LPELR-24740 (SC).

WHETHER IT IS THE PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM THAT PROVIDES THE BASIS OF DETERMINING WHETHER A COURT HAS JURISDICTION ENTERTAIN IT OR NOT

It is trite principle of law that the plaintiff’s claim alone provides the basis of determining whether a court has jurisdiction to proceed where, as in the instant case, the competence of the claim is challenged. The facts on the basis of which the suit is filed and the reliefs sought of the court as pleaded are scrutinized against the background of the statute that confers on the court the jurisdiction it is approached to exercise. See Dr. Taiwo Oloruntoba-Oju & ors V. Prof. P.A. Dopamu & ors (2008) NWLR (Pt 1085) 1 at 22-23, and P.D.P V. Timpre Sylva & ors (2012) 12 NWLR (part 1316) 85. PER MUSA DATTIJO MUHAMMAD, JSC

HOW TO INTERPRET THE PROVISIONS OF A STATUTE

Now, a cardinal principle of interpretation we must not forget, which learned appellant’s counsel however seems to ignore, is that provisions of a statute, an instrument or indeed pleadings should not be read in isolation of the other parts of the statute, instrument or pleadings. In order to determine the intendment of the makers of the statute, instrument or pleadings, same should be read as a whole. Thus a clause in any of these must be construed together and with reference to the context and other clauses in the statue, instrument or pleadings in ensuring the discovery of a consistent meaning of the whole, here, the pleading being considered. See Oyeyemi V. Commissioner for Local Government (Kwara State) (1992) 2 SCNJ 266 at 280 and Astra Industry Limited V. NBC I (1998) 3 SCNJ 97 at 115.

POSITION OF THE LAW ON THE JUSTICIABILITY OF ANY DISPUTE ARISING FROM THE CONDUCT OF PRIMARY ELECTIONS BY POLITICAL PARTIES TO NOMINATE CANDIDATES TO CONTEST ELECTIONS

It is noteworthy that this appeal is on all fours with Appeal No. SC.279/2016: Hon. Chris Azubuogu Vs Hon. (Dr.) Harry Oranezi & ors (2017) LPELR-42669 (SC), which arose from same judgment of the Court of Appeal in CA/E/207/2015 delivered on 4/2/2016 wherein the present appellant was the 1st respondent. That appeal was instituted by the present 4th respondent. Judgment in SC.279/2016 was delivered by this court on 12th July 2017. Therein, this court cited with approval the dictum of Akaahs, JSC in Ugwu Vs P.D.P. (2015) 1 NWLR (Pt.1459) @ 478 thus: “I am of the considered view that the trial court will be abdicating its responsibility if it declares that the suit is not justiciable. It has a duty to say which of the two primaries is the authentic one. This is the reason while(sic) Section 87(4)(i), 4(c), (i), (ii) and (9) has been put in place and to avoid arbitrariness by some officials of the political party who may want to impose their preferred candidates who probably did not take part in primaries because of the conflicting claims by the parties. It is only the court that could resolve the issue. This is the dimension which the decision in C.C. Vs Ombugadu supra introduced.” His Lordship, M.D. Muhammad, JSC in Azubuogu Vs Oranezi and Ors. (supra) @ 22-24 D-A concluded as follows: “The 1st respondent having participated in the 2nd respondent’s primary election is the aspirant the Electoral Act in Section 87(4)(b) and (9) provides a platform for to seek the reliefs he circumscribes in his claim. The section has already been interpreted and applied by this Court in a seemingly endless number of its decisions a great deal of which have been cited by both sides to the appeal. In Garba v. Mohammed (2016) 16 NWLR (Pt.1537) 114 this Court per Mohammed CJN (as he then was) at pages 164-165 paragraphs H-C of the law report held as follows: ‘As for the additional jurisdiction conferred on the Federal High Court under Section 87(9) of the Electoral Act, 2010 as (as amended) quoted above, it gives any aspirant member of a registered political party who participated in a primary election conducted by a political party to choose a candidate to contest an election under its platform, who is not satisfied with the outcome of the primary election contested with other members of the same political party, to approach the Federal High Court or High Court of a State or FCT High Court for redress……… In other words, any dispute arising from the conduct of primary elections by political parties to nominate candidates to contest elections, may be bought (sic) to the Federal High Court under Section 87(9) of the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended) by an aggrieved aspirant of any political party who participated in the primary election conducted by a political party for resolution by that court. (underlining supplied for emphasis) See also Lokpobiri V. Ogola (2016) 3 NWLR (Pt.1499) 328. The lone issue, for the foregoing, is determined against the appellant. The appeal is hereby dismissed and the judgment of the Court of Appeal in appeal No. CA/E/207/2015 delivered on 4th February 2016 affirmed.” PER KUDIRAT MOTONMORI OLATOKUNBO KEKERE-EKUN, JSC

JUSTICES:

MUSA DATTIJO MUHAMMAD

JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

KUDIRAT MOTONMORI OLATOKUNBO KEKERE-EKUN

JOHN INYANG OKORO

CHIMA CENTUS NWEZE

EJEMBI EKO

APPELLANTS

PEOPLES DEMOCRATIC PARTY

RESPONDENTS

1. HON. (DR.) HARRY N. ORANEZI2. ALHAJI ADAMU MUA’ZU (NATIONAL CHAIRMAN OF PEOPLES DEMOCRATIC PARTY AND CHAIRMAN OF NATIONAL EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE AND NATIONAL WORKING COMMITTEE OF PEOPLES DEMOCRATIC PARTY)3. PROF. WALE OLADIPO (NATIONAL SECRETARY OF PEOPLES DEMOCRATIC PARTY)4. HON. CHRIS AZUBUOGU5. HON. JULIUS OFFORMAH

(Delivered by MUSA DATTIJO MUHAMMAD, JSC)

On the 12th day of July 2017, this very court did determine Appeal No. SC. 279/2016 brought by the 5th respondent herein, Hon. Julius Offormah, against the decision of the Court of Appeal, Enugu Division, hereinafter referred to as the lower court, in appeal No.CA/E/207/2015. The issue raised and the facts on which the issue rested in the earlier appeal are on all fours as in the instant appeal. I shall briefly elaborate the facts that brought about the two appeals.

The 1st respondent in both appeals, Hon. Dr. Harry Oranezi, as plaintiff at the Federal High Court sitting at Awka, hereinafter referred to as the trial court, initiated suit No. FHC/AWK/CS/24/2015 against the appellant herein and the appellant in appeal No. SC. 279/2016, now the 4th respondent and the remaining respondent. He contends by his writ that having scored the highest votes in appellant’s primary election of 7th December 2014 for the party’s candidate in the 14th February 2015 general election in respect of the Nnewi North/South/Ekwusigu Federal House of Representatives Constituency, it is unlawful for the party to substitute him with and submit the 4th respondent’s name as that of its candidate in the general election. The Substitution being in breach of the Constitution and the Electoral Guidelines of the Appellant, the plaintiff pursuant to Section 87(4)(c) and (9) of the Electoral Act (as amended) sought that much declaratory and injunctive reliefs from the trial court to restore him to being the appellant’s rightful candidate in the 14th February 2015 general election for the Nnewi North/Sought/Ekwusigo Federal Constituency.

The defendants to the action challenged the competence of 1st respondent’s suit and urged the trial court to dismiss it in limine. In its ruling of 19th March 2015, the court sustained the objection of the defendants, declined jurisdiction and struck out 1st respondent’s suit.

Dissatisfied, the 1st respondent appealed to the lower court which, in upholding the appeal and setting aside the trial court’s ruling, remitted the suit to the trial court for same to be heard and determined by a judge other than M.L Abubakar J.

Similarly aggrieved, the appellant herein, like Hon. Julius Offirmah in the earlier appeal, has appealed to this Court. The notice of appeal filed on 3rd May 2016 contains two grounds of appeal.

In its brief which the appellant exchanged with the respondents and, at the hearing of the appeal, adopted and relied upon as its argument for the appeal, a lone issue has been distilled as arising for the determination of the appeal. The issue, see paragraph 4 at pages 3 and 4 of the brief reads:-

“Having regard to the following facts:

(i) The 1st Respondent claims there were three Primaries in his Statement of Claim.

(ii) He won the Primary conducted by Ken – Emeakayi

(iii) The trial Court’s un-appealed decision to the effect that the Ken – Emeakayi led Executive had ceased to exist by the 7th day of December, 2014 (the date of the primary election).

Whether the lower court was not wrong in allowing the appeal and granting consequential orders (Grounds 1 and 2)”.
(Underlining mine for emphasis).

The respondents who also adopted and relied on their respective briefs have formulated similar issues therein for the determination of the appeal. The 1st respondent’s issue reads:-

“Whether the court below was right in allowing the appear.

It is significant to observe that whereas the 2nd and 3rd respondents are executive officers of the appellant, the 4th and 5th respondents are persons whose names, the 1st respondent in his suit at the trial court asserts variously, unlawfully substituted his. Both had polled less votes in the appellant’s primary election than his. The 6th respondent, INEC, had witnessed the appellant’s primary election the outcome of which is what is in contention in the instant suit. Not surprisingly only the 1st respondent, the plaintiff at the trial court, and INEC, the 6th respondent, in keeping with its neutral role, maintain their traditional roles as respondents in the appeal, by their support and defence of the judgment being appealed against.

The 2nd to 5th respondents’ brief which seek that the appeal be allowed must be discountenanced. This Court remains emphatic that the role of the respondent in an appeal is to defend the judgment appealed against. In the instant appeal where these particular briefs are not filed in support of any cross appeal, the procedure does not allow them to do what they set out to. See Cameroon Airline V. Otutuizu (2011) 4 NWLR (Pt 1238) 512 and F. Organ and Ors. V. Nigeria Liquefied Natural Gas Ltd & anor (2013) LPELR-20942 (SC).

6th respondent’s better framed issue that subsumes the appellant’s and 1st respondent’s issues and on the basis of which this appeal shall be determined reads:-

“Whether the Court of Appeal was right to have held that the Federal High Court was seized jurisdiction to entertain the suit filed by the 1st respondent as plaintiff”.

On the lone issue, learned appellant counsel refers to paragraph 31 of the statement of claim and submits that Section 87(4) and (9) of the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended) does not confer the platform to sue on the 1st respondent whose emergence as a successful candidate for the party is in relation to a state conducted primary election. The primary election he bases his claim on, not having been conducted by the National Organs of the appellant as pleaded in paragraphs 26-33 of the statement of claim, on the authority of Yar’adua V. Yandoma (2015) 4 NWLR (Pt 1448) 123 at 198 and Lado & Ors. V. C.P.C. & Ors. (2012) ALL FWLR (Pt 607) 623, it is submitted, renders 1st respondent’s suit incompetent. The lower court’s decision that the suit is justiceable notwithstanding the parallel primaries to which the suit relates, it is further argued, is perverse. The decision of the Supreme Court in C.P.C & 1 other V. Hon. Emmanuel David Ombugadu & 1 or (2013) 18 NWLR (Pt 1385) 146 it is submitted, does not justify the lower court’s wrong decision. The Ken Emeakayi – led state executive of the appellant the 1st respondent claims conducted the primary election of the former, it is submitted, has been held by the trial court to be illegal. The trial court’s finding that has not been appealed against by the 1st respondent, it is further argued, persists. Relying on Alhaji Musa Sani V. State (2015) 15 NWLR (Pt 483) and Odedo V. INEC & 3 ors (2008) 17 NWLR (Pt 1117) 554, to support this contention, learned appellant’s counsel insists that the lower court is wrong in its conclusion that 1st respondent’s suit is founded on a primary election that serves as the platform for the enforcement of his claims. The appellant urges that the appeal be allowed and the lower court’s wrong decision set-aside.

On the lone issue, learned 1st respondent’s counsel submits that it is necessary to recall that the trial court had declined jurisdiction over plaintiff’s action because same was founded on the appellant’s multiple primary elections and all the more so because the one the 1st respondent claimed to have emerged from was conducted by the state organs of the party. These findings of the trial court, submits learned counsel, are to be found at pages 109 – 111 of the record of appeal. The lower court’s contrary findings on the very issue, submits learned counsel, are at pages 295, 297 – 299 and 300 – 301 of the record of appeal.

1st respondent’s case instead of paragraph 31 of the statement of claim the appellant asserts is based upon, it is argued, draws particularly from paragraph 26 of the pleading. Paragraph 31 of the statement of claim, it is contended, not being ambiguous, means exactly what it states as properly understood by the lower court. The paragraph deals with the drama caused by the submissions and publication of list of candidates rather than the drama on the conduct of the primary election.

It remains 1st respondent’s case, further argues learned counsel, that the primary election he contested was the one conducted by the National Executive Committee of the appellant. Having polled the highest votes in the particular primary, it is further argued, his case comes clearly within the purview of Section 87(4) and (9) of the Electoral Act as amended and the numerous decisions of the Supreme Court on who is entitled to be the appellant’s candidate at the general election. On the whole, it is submitted, the appellant has misconceived the lower court’s judgment when it attributes to it what it does not decide. It is for that reason, learned counsel submits, that the appeal should fail.

In the 6th respondent’s brief settled by Lotanna Chuka Okoli Esq, it is similarly argued that the appeal be dismissed. Relying on Garba V. Mohammed (2016) 16 NWLR (Pt 1537) 114 and Lokpobiri V. Ogola (supra), learned counsel submits that by virtue of Section 31(5) and 87(9) of the Electoral Act 2010 ( as amended), 1st respondent is clearly entitled to the reliefs thereunder which reliefs the trial court though empowered to grant declined. 1st respondent’s has the locus under the law to question the intra party election of the appellant. The lower court’s decision that so holds, it is submitted, should be upheld.

My lords, in resolving the lone issue the appeal raises and determining whether or not the lower court’s judgment being appealed against should persist, there is the need for the court to be guided by an overriding and trite principle. In this regard the fact that we have not been urged by any of the parties in the appeal to depart from our decision in appeal No. SC. 279/2016 is significant. Abiding by the precedent this Court outlined in its decision in the earlier appeal in this subsequent matter that dwells on the same facts and seeks the application of the same law to the facts becomes an imperative. In the same vein, the lower court’s decision herein, the very decision considered by this Court in the determination of the earlier appeal abides if, like in the earlier appeal, is that court’s application of the doctrine of stare – decisis or precedent.

In NEPA V. Onah (1997) LPELR-1959 (SC) this Court has I stated as follows:-

“It is a cardinal principle of law under the doctrine of stare decisis that an inferior court is bound by a decision of a superior court, however sure it may be that it has been wrongly decided”.

See also Usman V. Umaru (1992) 7 SCNJ 388, Ngwo & ors V. Monye & ors (1970) LPELR-1991 (SC) and CBN & ors V. Okojie (2015) LPELR-24740 (SC).

The lower court’s decision, which effects and essence the appellant begrudges, see page 300 of the record of appeal, reads:-

“Since the appellant herein averred that he participated in the primary conducted by the 1st – 3rd respondents and the Ken Emeakayi – led State Executive Committee, he has a right to approach the Court to seek redress for his complaints of manipulation of the result of the primary and the Court has the jurisdiction to entertain same. The court also has the jurisdiction and the duty to decide which of the primaries is the valid and authentic one and who actually won the primary. See C.P.C. VS. OMBUGADU (SUPRA), UGWU VS. P.D.P. (SUPRA). The case of LADO VS C. P. C. (SUPRA) where the Supreme Court held that once there arises a dispute as to which of the two primaries conferred a right of candidature 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) is no longer the law”. (Underlining mine for emphasis).

In rightly succumbing to the earlier decisions of this Court on the same facts and law the lower court in the foregoing, admirably, complies with the age-long principle of precedent or stare decisis. The curious might ask: how?

The trial court in sustaining the appellant’s challenge to the competence of the 1st respondent’s action had declined jurisdiction thereon. The lower court imbibed the decisions of this Court and ruled differently.

The appellant herein, as in appeal No. SC. 279/2016 determined earlier by this Court, disputes the correctness of the lower court’s decision. It is trite principle of law that the plaintiff’s claim alone provides the basis of determining whether a court has jurisdiction to proceed where, as in the instant case, the competence of the claim is challenged. The facts on the basis of which the suit is filed and the reliefs sought of the court as pleaded are scrutinized against the background of the statute that confers on the court the jurisdiction it is approached to exercise. See Dr. Taiwo Oloruntoba-Oju & ors V. Prof. P.A. Dopamu & ors (2008) NWLR (Pt 1085) 1 at 22-23, and P.D.P V. Timpre Sylva & ors (2012) 12 NWLR (part 1316) 85.

In suit No. FHC/AWK/CS/24/2015 that brought about the instant appeal, the plaintiff, the 1st respondent herein, Hon. (Dr) Harry Oranezi, had sought the following reliefs:-

“1. DECLARATION that the Plaintiff having polled the majority of votes at the 1st defendant’s primary election conducted on 7th December, 2014, for emergence of its candidate for Nnewi North/South/Ekwusigo Federal House of Representatives Constituency in the Federal House of Representatives election scheduled for 14th February, 2015 is the candidate of 1st Defendant at the February, 2015 general elections.

2. DECLARATION that Plaintiff having polled majority of votes at the said 1st Defendant’s primary election was entitled to have his names as 1st Defendant’s candidate for Nnewi North/South/Ekwusigo Federal House of Representatives Constituency in the Federal House of Representatives election, 2015 submitted by 2nd & 3rd Defendants to the 8th Defendant.

3. DECLARATION that Plaintiff having been declared the winner of the said primary election under Section 87 (4) (c) of Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended), he cannot be substituted with the 4th Defendant albeit 5th Defendant, both of who lost the primary election under the Electoral Guidelines for Primary Elections 2014 of Peoples Democratic Party and Electoral Act (supra).

4. PERPETUAL MANDATORY INJUNCTION compelling the 1st – 3rd & 6th Defendants to recognize the Plaintiff as the Candidate of the 1st Defendant, and in that behalf accord him all perquisites as the 1st Defendant’s Candidate for the Federal House of Representatives election, 2015 in respect of Nnewi North/South/Ekwusigo Federal House of Representatives Constituency”.

Paragraph 26 of the plaintiff/1st respondent’s statement of claim which his counsel submits subsumes and explains the other facts upon which the reliefs the claimant seeks reads:-

“On 7/12/2014, 1st Defendant acting through the National Assembly Electoral Committee, did conduct the primary election for Nnewi North/South/Ekwusigo Federal House of Representatives Constituency wherein Plaintiff, along with 4th & 5th Defendants stood for the primary election. At the end of polls, Plaintiff emerged victorious and was declared the winner by the returning officer having polled 93 votes out of 123 accredited delegates as against 4th Defendant’s 1 votes and 5th Defendant’s 9 votes. The result of the said primary election shall be found upon at the trial”.

Paragraph 31 which learned appellant’s counsel vehemently submits contains the overriding facts within which 1st respondent’s claim is located reads:-

“The drama playing out in the submission and publication of list of candidates has thrown up three characterization of aspirants seeking to fly the 1st Defendant’s flag at the February, 2015 polls:

(a) The first group, where the Plaintiff belongs, were those who contested and won primary election conducted by 1st – 3rd Defendants in tandem with Ken Emeakayi – led State Executive Committee.

(b) The second group, where the 4th Defendant belongs, were those who emerged from a supposed primary conducted by 1st – 3rd Defendants in tandem with Rtd General Aliyu Kama – led care-taker or South-East Zonal Committee Care-Taker.

(c) The third group, where the 6th Defendant belongs, were those who emerged from a supposed primary conducted by a group known as Oguebego – led State Executive Committee in exclusion of 1 – 3 Defendants”.

In applying the foregoing principle by reading the entirety of the plaintiff/1st respondent’s statement of claim, inclusive of the reliefs he seeks, the inescapable conclusion one draws, learned 1st respondent’s counsel is right, is that the appellant has grossly misconceived the facts on the basis of which it was sued at the trial court.

It cannot be taken away from the 1st respondent, a fact which the lower court rightly conceded to him, that paragraph 31 read along with the entire statement of claim deals with the publication and submission of the many lists containing various names of the candidates of and by the appellant to INEC purportedly consequent upon appellant’s primary election. I agree that the paragraph does not dwell on “multiple primaries” of the appellant but the various lists of who is to be the appellant’s candidate in the general election each of which names purport to have emerged from the same party’s valid and relevant primary election. As a whole, and this is the finding of the lower court, 1st respondent’s case is that having participated in the appellant’s primary election conducted by the National Executive Committee of the appellant, the submission of various names other than his to the 6th respondent, INEC, as the appellant’s candidate in the 2015 general election stands in breach of Section 87 (4) (c) and (9) of the Electoral Act (2010) as amended. And the breach, this Court has held in so many of its decisions, which decisions the lower court applied to arrive at its decision being challenged in this appeal, entitles the 1st respondent to the reliefs the trial court declined jurisdiction to enquire into let alone grant. See Akpamgbo-Okadigbo Vs. Chidi (No. 1) (2015) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1466) Page 171, Ugwu Vs. P.D.P (2015) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1459) Page 478, Jev. Vs. lyortyom (2014) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1428) Page 575, Ukachukwu Vs. P.D.P. (2014) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1435) Page 134 and C.P.C. Vs. Ombugadu (2013) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1385) Page 66.

The lower court’s decision founded on the foregoing decisions of this Court cannot, certainly, be wrong. This Court has held that much in the earlier appeal No. SC. 279/2016 as well. It cannot deviate from the decision in the earlier appeal now given the same facts and the issue the instant appeal raises. It is for this reason that I find no merit in the appeal and dismiss same. The lower court’s judgment is hereby affirmed in its entirety.

Parties should bear their respective costs.

JOHN INYANG OKORO, JSC:

I read in advance the lead judgment of my learned brother, Musa Dattijo Muhammad, JSC just delivered which I agree that the appeal lacks merit and ought to be dismissed. My Lord has exhaustively, meticulously and efficiently dealt with the sole issue submitted for the determination of this appeal. I have nothing new to add. I rather adopt both the reasoning and conclusion in the lead judgment and hold that this appeal is devoid of merit. It is accordingly dismissed. I abide by all consequential orders made therein, that relating to costs, inclusive.

Appeal Dismissed.

KUDIRAT MOTONMORI OLATOKUNBO KEKERE-EKUN, JSC:

I have had a preview of the judgment of my learned brother, Musa Dattijo Muhammad, JSC just delivered. I agree with the reasoning and conclusion that this appeal lacks merit and deserves to be dismissed.

This appeal arose from the decision of the Court of Appeal, Enugu Division in Appeal No. CA/E/207/2015 delivered on 4/2/2016 wherein the court held that the trial court erred when it declined to entertain the 1st respondent’s claim on the ground that the dispute was an intra-party dispute concerning the sponsorship of a candidate for an election by a political party and that the court has no business deciding which candidate a party should sponsor. The court below at page 300 of the record held thus:

“Since the appellant herein averred that he participated in the primary conducted by the 1st-3rd respondents and the Ken Emeakayi-led State Executive Committee, he has a right to approach the court to seek redress for his complaints of manipulation of the result of the primary and the Court has the jurisdiction to entertain same. The court also has the jurisdiction and the duty to decide which of the primaries is the valid and authentic one and who actually won the primary. See C.P.C. Vs Ombugadu (supra), Ugwu Vs P.D.P. (supra).”

“I am of the considered view that the trial court will be abdicating its responsibility if it declares that the suit is not justiciable. It has a duty to say which of the two primaries is the authentic one. This is the reason while(sic) Section 87(4)(i), 4(c), (i), (ii) and (9) has been put in place and to avoid arbitrariness by some officials of the political party who may want to impose their preferred candidates who probably did not take part in primaries because of the conflicting claims by the parties. It is only the court that could resolve the issue. This is the dimension which the decision in C.C. Vs Ombugadu supra introduced.”

His Lordship, M.D. Muhammad, JSC in Azubuogu Vs Oranezi and Ors. (supra) @ 22-24 D-A concluded as follows:

“The 1st respondent having participated in the 2nd respondent’s primary election is the aspirant the Electoral Act in Section 87(4)(b) and (9) provides a platform for to seek the reliefs he circumscribes in his claim. The section has already been interpreted and applied by this Court in a seemingly endless number of its decisions a great deal of which have been cited by both sides to the appeal. In Garba v. Mohammed (2016) 16 NWLR (Pt.1537) 114 this Court per Mohammed CJN (as he then was) at pages 164-165 paragraphs H-C of the law report held as follows:

‘As for the additional jurisdiction conferred on the Federal High Court under Section 87(9) of the Electoral Act, 2010 as (as amended) quoted above, it gives any aspirant member of a registered political party who participated in a primary election conducted by a political party to choose a candidate to contest an election under its platform, who is not satisfied with the outcome of the primary election contested with other members of the same political party, to approach the Federal High Court or High Court of a State or FCT High Court for redress……… In other words, any dispute arising from the conduct of primary elections by political parties to nominate candidates to contest elections, may be bought (sic) to the Federal High Court under Section 87(9) of the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended) by an aggrieved aspirant of any political party who participated in the primary election conducted by a political party for resolution by that court. (underlining supplied for emphasis)

See also Lokpobiri V. Ogola (2016) 3 NWLR (Pt.1499) 328. The lone issue, for the foregoing, is determined against the appellant. The appeal is hereby dismissed and the judgment of the Court of Appeal in appeal No. CA/E/207/2015 delivered on 4th February 2016 affirmed.”

Having already made a pronouncement on the justiciability of the claim before the trial court, this court is bound by that decision by virtue of the doctrine of stare decisis.

I therefore hold that this appeal is devoid of merit. It is hereby dismissed.

CHIMA CENTUS NWEZE, JSC:

My Lord, Musa Dattijo Muhammad, JSC, obliged me with the draft of the leading judgement just delivered now. I agree with the reasoning and conclusion.

This court has, tolerably, settled the question of the imperious and overbearing attitude of political parties in matters concerning the nomination of their candidates. What crystalizes from several decisions of this court is that, where a political party breaches the constitutional and party guidelines in the nomination of its candidates, an aggrieved candidate has the right to interrogate the said process; and seek for redress in either of these courts – the Federal High Court, High Court of a State or the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, CPC v Ombugadu [2013] 18 NWLR (pt. 1385) 66; Ukachukwu v PDP [2014] 17 NWLR (pt. 1435) 134; Jev v Iyortyom [2014] 14 NWLR (pt. 1428) 575; Akpamgbo-Okadigbo v Chidi (No 1) [2015] 10 NWLR (pt. 1466) 171.

This development, which derives from its potency from Section 87 (9) of the Electoral Act, 2010, has been consecrated in several decisions of this court. Only one, or two of such, decisions may be cited here to illustrate this point, Uzodinma v. Izunaso (No.2) (2011) 17 NWLR (Pt.1275) 30.The above courts, in such a situation, would be, duly, seised of jurisdiction to scrutinise all the pertinent processes and construe the extant legislation with a view to determining due compliance therewith on the issue of nomination.

The stark position today, therefore, is that courts would brook no arbitrary or capricious conduct of political parties in such questions like the selection or nomination of candidates in clear indifference to the constitutive Act, namely, the Electoral Act, and their prevailing Guidelines. I need not repeat what is obvious: the observance of, and diligent adherence to, the prescriptions in the Electoral Act and Constitutions of political parties, is the only sure way to the attainment of political maturity in our democratic experiment in Nigeria, Ukachukwu v. PDP and Ors (supra).

As the lower courts found, the first respondent’s case is very simple. The National Executive Committee of the appellant [PDP] conducted primary elections on December 7, 2014 for the appellant’s candidate in the February 14, 2015, General Elections in respect of the Nnewi North/South/Ekwusigo House of Representatives Constituency. He, (the first respondent), scored the highest votes in the exercise. It was, he. contended,, unlawful for the appellant to substitute his name with that of the fourth respondent as its candidate in the said General Elections, an action contrary to Section 87 (4) ( c) of the Electoral Act, 2010.

I, entirely, endorse the reasoning of the lower court which vacated the erroneous ruling of the trial court. The first respondent is, surely, entitled to his reliefs. In the circumstance, I hereby enter an order dismissing this appeal as lacking in merit. I affirm the lower court’s judgement.

Appeal dismissed.

EJEMBI EKO, JSC:

The 1st Respondent was the plaintiff in the Suit No. FHC/AWK/CS/24/2015, the decision in which is the subject of this appeal as well as the earlier appeal No. SC. 279/2016 determined by this Court on 12th July, 2017. This appeal and the said appeal rest on the same facts and on the same issues. In the circumstance it will be incongruous, either on stare decisis or issue estoppel, for the Appellant herein to expect a contrary opinion of this same court or for it to deviate from its earlier decision in the appeal No. SC. 279/2016 delivered on 12th July, 2017.

My learned brother, HON. MUSA DATTIJO MUHAMMAD, JSC, in the Lead Judgment just delivered in this appeal has exhaustively
?

COUNSELS

Chief Tagbo Ike, for 1st Respondent.
Echezona Etiaba, Esq; with Joy Etiaba, Esq; Henry Leonards,
Esq., for the 2nd Respondent.
Fidelis Eteshi, Esq., for 3rd Respondent.
Clement Ezika, Esq; with Chukwudi Chikolue, Esq; and Gloria
Ossai, Esq., for 4th Respondent.
Nnnena Onyeama, Esq., for 5th Respondent.
Lotanna Okoli, Esq; with Nancy Shikaan, Esq., for 6th Respondent.