REV. SAMUEL UKUT & ORS v. ALL PROGRESSIVES CONGRESS & ORS
(2019)LCN/12942(CA)
In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
On Thursday, the 28th day of March, 2019
CA/C/77/2019
RATIO
JURISDICTION:DEFINITION
By way of prefatory remarks, jurisdiction, a mantra in adjudication, connotes the authority/power of a Court to determine a dispute submitted to it by contending parties in any proceeding, see Ajomale v. Yaduat (No. 1) (1991) 5 SCNJ 172; Mobil Pro. Co. Unltd. v. LASEPA (2002) 18 NWLR (Pt.798) 1; Ndaeyo v. Ogunnaya (1977) 1 IMSLR 300; Ebhodaghe v. Okoye (2004) 18 NWLR (Pt. 905) 472; Garba v. Mohammed (2016) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1537) 144;A.-G., Kwara State v. Adeyemo (2017)1 NWLR (Pt. 1546) 210; Isah v. INEC (2016) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1544) 175; Angadi v. PDP (2018) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1641) 1.PER OBANDE FESTUS OGBUINYA, J.C.A.
JURISDICTION: INGREDIENTS OF JURISDICTION
A Court of law is invested with jurisdiction to hear a matter when: 1. it is properly constituted as regards numbers and qualifications of members of the bench, and no member is disqualified for one reason or another; and 2. the subject matter of the case is within its jurisdiction, and there is no feature in the case which prevents the Court from exercising its jurisdiction; and 3. the case comes before the Court initiated by due process of law, and upon fulfillment of any condition precedent to the exercise of jurisdiction?, see Madukolu v. Nkemdilim (2006) 2 LC 2081961) NSCC (vol. 2) 374 at 379, per Bairamian F. J., Tukur v. Taraba State (1997) 6 SCNJ 81; Dairo v. UBN (2007) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1029) 164; Okereke v. Yar?Adua (2008) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1100); Saraki v. FRN (2016) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1500) 531; Oni v. Cadbury Nig. Plc. (2016) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1516) 80; Diamond Bank Ltd. v. Ugochukwu (2016) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1517) 193; Okpe v. Fan Milk Plc. (2017) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1549) 282;Bello v. Damisa (2017) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1550) 455; Osi v. Accord Party (2017) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1553) 387; PDP v. Ezeonwuka (2018) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1606) 187; Emenike v. PDP (2012) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1315) 556; Angadi v. PDP (2018) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1641) 1. These three ingredients must co-exist in order to vest jurisdiction in a Court.PER OBANDE FESTUS OGBUINYA, J.C.A.
ELECTION PETITION: WHETHER COURTS CAN HANDLE MATTERS CONCERNING THE INTERNAL AFFAIRS OF POLITICAL PARTIES AND EXCEPTIONS
It is now settled, beyond any peradventure of doubt, that Courts are derobed of the jurisdiction to entertain actions that appertain to internal affairs of a political party. This hallowed principle of law traces its paternity to the case of Onuoha v. Okafor (1983) 2 SCNLR 244: the locus classicus on the cardinal principle. However, the principle is not inelastic. It admits of exceptions. A notable one is cognizable in Section 87(9) of the Electoral Act, 2010, as amended. Due to its kingly position on the issue, it is imperative to pluck it out, verbatim ac litteratim, where it is domiciled in the statute, thus:
(9) Notwithstanding the provisions of this Act or rules of a political party an aspirant who complains that any of the provisions of this Act and the guidelines of a political party has not been complied with in the election or nomination of a candidate of a political party/or election, may apply to the Federal High Court or the High Court of State or FCT, for redress.
This provision, which is submissive to comprehension, has fallen for interpretation, before the Courts, in the election firmament in Nigeria. It has been construed, in sea of cases, to mean that where a political party disobeys the prescription of Electoral Act and its Guidelines in a primary election, involving nomination or sponsorship of candidates for an election, an aspirant has the unbridled licence of the law to approach the Court for remedy, see Emenike v. PDP (2012) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1315) 556; PDP v. Sylva (2012) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1316) 85
Another remarkable exception is deeply, rooted in the prescription of Section 31(5) and (6) of the Electoral Act, 2010, as amended. The provision donates to members of political parties the right to contest in Court where a candidate gives false information in the affidavit or any document submitted to the Independent National Electoral Commission, See PDP v. INEC (2014) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1437) 525; Ekagbara v. Ikpeazu (2016) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1503) 411; Al-Hassan v. Ishaku (2016) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1520) 230; Garba v. Mohammed (2016) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1537) 114; Ogah v. Ikpeazu (2017) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1594) 299; Agi v. PDP (2017) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1595) 386.PER OBANDE FESTUS OGBUINYA, J.C.A.
JURISDICTION: THE STATEMENT OF CLAIM IS THE MAJOR BAROMETER USED TO MEASURE WHETHER A COURT HAS JURISDICTION
Interestingly, the case-law has endorsed, in toto, a statement of claim as the major barometer to be used by the Court to measure the presence or absence of its jurisdiction, see Ikine v. Edjerode (2001) 18 NWLR (Pt. 745) 446; A.D.H. Ltd. v. A.T. Ltd. (2006) NWLR (Pt. 989) 635; Oni v. Cadbury (2016) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1516) 80; Ladoja v. Ajimobi (2016) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1519) 87; B.B. Apugo & Sons Ltd. v. O.H.M.B. (2016) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1529) 206; Yar’adua v. Yandoma (2015) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1466) 213; Akpamgbo-Okadigbo v. Chidi (No. 2) (2015) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1466) 124; Isah v. INEC (supra); Lau v. PDP (supra); Azubuogu v. Oranezi (supra); Agi v. PDP (2017) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1595) 386; A.-G, Fed. v. A.-G., Anambra State (2018) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1615) 314; Roe Ltd. v. UNN (2018) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1616) 420; F.U.T., Minna v. Olutayo (2018) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1617) 176; A.-G., Lagos State v. Eko Hotels (2018) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1619) 518.PER OBANDE FESTUS OGBUINYA, J.C.A.
JURISDICTION: HOW TO DETERMINE IF A COURT HAS JURISDICTION IN MATTERS COMMENCED BY ORIGINATING SUMMONS
Notably, in an action commenced by dint of originating summons, as in the case in hand, the affidavit in support serves as the statement of claim, see Uwazuruonye v. Gov., Imo State (2013) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1355) 28; PDP v. Ezeonwuka (2018) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1606) 187; Lau v. PDP (2018) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1608) 60; Owuru v. Adigwu (2018) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1599) 1; CBN v. Aribo (2018) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1608) 130. Relief, too, is one of the determinants of jurisdiction of Court, see Onwudiwe v. FRN (2006) 10 NWLR (Pt. 988) 382; Garba v. Mohammed (2016) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1537) 114; PDP v. Oranezi (2018) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1618) 245; Gbileve v. Addingi (2014) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1433) 394.PER OBANDE FESTUS OGBUINYA, J.C.A.
JUSTICES
MOJEED ADEKUNLE OWOADE Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
OBANDE FESTUS OGBUINYA Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
YARGATA BYENCHIT NIMPAR Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
Between
1. REV. SAMUEL UKUT
2. ELDER SUNDAY AKRASI
3. BARR. MONDAY UDOFOT – Appellant(s)
AND
1. ALL PROGRESSIVES CONGRESS (APC)
2. HON. INI OKOPIDO
3. INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION (INEC) – Respondent(s)
OBANDE FESTUS OGBUINYA, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): This appeal probes into the correctness of the decision of the High Court of Akwa Ibom State, holden at Uyo (hereinafter addressed as ?the lower Court?), coram judice: Godwin J. Abraham, CJ, in Suit No. HU/357/2018, delivered on 14th February, 2019. Before the lower Court, the appellants and the respondents were the claimants and the defendants respectively.
The facts of the case, which transformed into the appeal, are amenable to brevity and simplicity. The appellants and the second respondent are members of the first respondent: one of the front line registered political parties in Nigeria. The first respondent issued Guidelines for the conduct of its wards, local government and state congresses. In line with the Constitution and Guidelines of the first respondent, the ward and local government congresses were duly conducted on 5th May, 2018 and 15th May, 2018 respectively. The congresses produced the first appellant as the Chairman of Etinan Local Government Area, the second appellant as the Chairman of Mkpat Enin Local Government Area and the
1
third appellant as a ward Delegate from Urban II in Etinan Local Government Area. The appellants alleged that the first respondent disregarded the congresses and some elders and stakeholders of the party handpicked the second respondent, who never indicated interest, nor purchased form, to contest as the Akwa Ibom State Chapter Chairman of the party.
Sequel to these, the appellants beseeched the lower Court, via an originating summons filed on 6th November, 2018, which raised seven (7) questions, and tabled against the respondents the following reliefs:
1. A declaration that the emergence of Mr. Ini Okopido as the Akwa Ibom State Chapter Chairman of the All Progressives Congress through a process described as ?affirmation by party elders and stakeholders? is unknown to the provisions of the APC Constitution, 2014 (as amended) and the provisions of the APC Guidelines for Ward, Local Government and State Congresses issued by the National Secretariat of the APC in Abuja and forwarded to all State Chapters and Wards in Nigeria.
2. A declaration that Mr. Ini Okopido cannot lawfully continue to occupy the office of Chairman of APC in
2
Akwa Ibom State and also discharge the functions of the said office, having not emerged in the way and manner prescribed by the Constitution of the APC the APC Guidelines for Ward,
3. A declaration that there was no other Ward Congress of the APC in Akwa Ibom State apart from the one conducted on the directive of the National Working Committee of the part on the 5th day of May, 2018.
4. A declaration that there was no other Chapter Congress of the APC in Akwa Ibom State apart from the one conducted on the directive of the National Working Committee of the party on 12th May, 2018.
5. A declaration that the selection or handpicking of some persons as Ward and Chapter Excos of the APC in Akwa Ibom State by Mr. Ini Okopidi acting in concert with others was not lawful and is therefore null and void in view of the fact that no congresses were held for their emergence in the way and manner prescribed by the Constitution and Guidelines of the APC.
6. A declaration that the 1st and 2nd defendants or any person or group of persons acting on their behalf have no power in law to issue or release or publish any list of Ward and Chapter Executives of the APC in Akwa
3
Ibom State other than the list or result of the Ward and State Congresses which were validly held on the 5th day of May, 2018 and 12th day of May, 2018 and duly signed by authorized officers of the party in which the 1st, 2nd and 3rd claimants participated and won as newly elected officials of the APC.
7. A declaration that Rev. Samuel Utuk and Elder Sunday Akrasi who emerged as Chapter Chairmen of the APC in Etinan and Mkpat Enin Local Government Areas respectively as a result of the successful conduct of the Chapter Congress of 12th May, 2018 remain the authentic Chairman of Etinan and Mkpat Enin Chapters of the party and cannot rightly be substituted with other persons.
8. An order of interim injunction restraining the 2nd defendant from parading himself as the Chairman of the Akwa Ibom State Chapter of the APC pending the hearing and determination of this suit.
9. An order of this honourable Court declaring that all actions carried out or performed by the 2nd defendant in pursuance of his purported position as the Chairman of the APC in Akwa Ibom State is illegal, ultra vires, null and void and of no effect whatsoever.
4
10. An order of this honourable Court that all such list of Wards and Local Government Chapter Executives purportedly released and or recognized by the 1st Defendant or Akwa Ibom State which is not as a result of the Wards and Local Government Chapter Congresses of the party which were held on the 5th and 12th May, 2018 respectively, are hereby declared illegal, unconstitutional, null and void and of no effect whatsoever.
11. An order mandamus compelling the 1st defendant to recognize and give effect to the outcome of the Akwa Ibom State Ward and Local Government Chapter Congresses of the APC held on the 5th and 12th May, 2018 respectively as the only known authentic and valid Ward and Chapter Executives of the party.
12. An order of Court directing the 1st defendant to conduct valid and acceptable State Congress that will produce acceptable State Executive Officers in line with the guidelines and constitution of the party.
13. An order of perpetual injunction restraining the 2nd defendant from continuing to parade himself as the Akwa Ibom State Chairman of the APC.
14. An order directing the defendants to pay the sum of N100 Million Naira as damages to the claimants.
5
The originating summons was supported by affidavits, sworn to by the first and second appellants, with tons of documents annexed to it. A written address was filed along with it.
In reaction, the first and second respondents joined issue with the appellants and denied liability by filing a 2-paragraph counter-affidavit on 20th November, 2018. Later on, on 25th November, 2018, the first and second respondent filed a preliminary objection which prayed the lower Court to strike out the suit for lack of jurisdiction on grounds of non-justiciability of the claims and failure to exhaust internal remedies of the party. The appellants reacted against it.
The lower Court, duly, heard the matter and took the objection first. In a considered judgment, delivered on 14th February, 2019, found at pages 382-405 of the printed record, the lower Court upheld the preliminary objection and dismissed the suit.
The appellants were dissatisfied with the decision. Hence, on 14th February, 2019, they lodged a lone ground of appeal, copied at pages 406-408 of the record, and prayed for:
An Order of this Court setting aside the judgment of the
6
Learned Trial Judge delivered on the 14th day of February, 2018 and granting all the reliefs sought by appellant.
Thereafter, the parties filed and exchanged their briefs of argument in consonance with the procedure governing the hearing of this specie of appeal in this Court. The appeal was heard on 6th March, 2019.
During its hearing, learned counsel for the appellants, Samuel Ikpo Esq., adopted the appellants? brief of argument, filed on 28th February, 2019, as representing his arguments for the appeal. He urged the Court to allow it. Similarly, learned counsel for the first and second respondents, Chief Victor Iyanam, adopted the first and second respondents? brief of argument, filed on 1st March, 2019, as forming his reactions against the appeal. He urged the Court to dismiss it. The third respondent, which was duly served, filed no brief of argument.
In the appellants? brief of argument, learned counsel distilled a single issue for determination to wit:
Whether the Learned Trial Judge rightly declined jurisdiction to hear the suit as the suit touched and concerned Non-compliance with the Constitution and Guidelines of the 1st Respondent Party.
7
In the first and second respondents? brief of argument, learned counsel crafted a sole issue for determination viz:
Whether the learned trial Judge rightly declined jurisdiction and dismissed the originating summons.
A close look at the two sets of issues shows that they are identical in substance. In fact, the first and second respondents? issue can be, conveniently, subsumed under the appellants?. For this reasons of sameness, I will decide the appeal on the one issue formulated by the appellants: the undoubted owners of the appeal.
Arguments on the issue.
Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the lower Court was wrong to decline jurisdiction when the substance of the appellants? case was on the non-compliance with the Constitution and Guidelines of the first respondent during its congresses. He posited that the case of Onuoha v. Okafor (1983) 14 NSCC 494, which the first and second respondents relied on had been overtaken byAmaechi v. INEC (2008) 11 SC 36. He reasoned that these days, parties must comply with provisions of their Constitution and
8
Guidelines. He stated the purport of Section 223(1) of the Constitution, as amended, which is the same as Article 20 of the first respondent?s Constitution, on democratic conduct of elections in political parties. He noted that the lower Court had jurisdiction over the matter based on Section 272(1) of the Constitution, as amended. He maintained that the appellants followed the steps in the first respondent?s Guidelines.
Learned counsel posited that the first and second respondents did not deny the violation of article 20 of the first respondent?s constitution. He explained that the first and second respondents only made a sweeping denial of paragraphs 14-19 of the appellants? affidavit which amounted to no denial. He relied on Ogunsola v. Usman (2003) 6 WRN 54. He stated that appeal is by way of re-hearing. He urged the Court to do whatever the lower Court ought to have done.
On behalf of the first and second respondents, learned counsel, argued, per contra, that the lower Court could not be faulted in its reasoning and conclusion. He asserted that the claim was an intra-party dispute as defined in Kalgo v. Faruk (2008) LPELR ? 4495 (CA).
9
He insisted that the Courts have no jurisdiction on political disputes. He cited Ufomba v. INEC (2017) LPELR ? 42079 (SC); Nyako v. Ardo (2013) LPELR ? 20848 (CA). He contended that the claim was based on long concluded and forgotten congresses of the first respondent. He persisted that it was not the primaries for election of candidates of the party for elections for which Courts would have jurisdiction.
Resolution of the issue
A clinical examination of the issue reveals that it, though a stubborn one, is canalized within a slim scope. The kernel of the issue is plain. It centres on the jurisdiction of the lower Court to hear the appellants? suit which gave birth to the appeal.
By way of prefatory remarks, jurisdiction, a mantra in adjudication, connotes the authority/power of a Court to determine a dispute submitted to it by contending parties in any proceeding, see Ajomale v. Yaduat (No. 1) (1991) 5 SCNJ 172; Mobil Pro. Co. Unltd. v. LASEPA (2002) 18 NWLR (Pt.798) 1; Ndaeyo v. Ogunnaya (1977) 1 IMSLR 300; Ebhodaghe v. Okoye (2004) 18 NWLR (Pt. 905) 472; Garba v. Mohammed (2016) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1537) 144;
10
A.-G., Kwara State v. Adeyemo (2017)1 NWLR (Pt. 1546) 210; Isah v. INEC (2016) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1544) 175; Angadi v. PDP (2018) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1641) 1.
A Court of law is invested with jurisdiction to hear a matter when: ?1. it is properly constituted as regards numbers and qualifications of members of the bench, and no member is disqualified for one reason or another; and 2. the subject matter of the case is within its jurisdiction, and there is no feature in the case which prevents the Court from exercising its jurisdiction; and 3. the case comes before the Court initiated by due process of law, and upon fulfillment of any condition precedent to the exercise of jurisdiction?, see Madukolu v. Nkemdilim (2006) 2 LC 2081961) NSCC (vol. 2) 374 at 379, per Bairamian F. J., Tukur v. Taraba State (1997) 6 SCNJ 81; Dairo v. UBN (2007) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1029) 164; Okereke v. Yar?Adua (2008) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1100); Saraki v. FRN (2016) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1500) 531; Oni v. Cadbury Nig. Plc. (2016) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1516) 80; Diamond Bank Ltd. v. Ugochukwu (2016) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1517) 193; Okpe v. Fan Milk Plc. (2017) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1549) 282;Bello v. Damisa (2017) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1550) 455;
11
Osi v. Accord Party (2017) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1553) 387; PDP v. Ezeonwuka (2018) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1606) 187; Emenike v. PDP (2012) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1315) 556; Angadi v. PDP (2018) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1641) 1. These three ingredients must co-exist in order to vest jurisdiction in a Court.
Now, the appellants? chief grievance is located in the lower Court?s declination of jurisdiction to adjudicate over the matter which, they claimed, is anchored on the infraction of the first respondent?s Constitution and Guidelines. To begin with, the suit is a classic exemplification of an intra-party affair which connotes: ?a dispute between members of the party inter se or between a member or members on the one hand or and the party on the other,? see Dahiru v. APC (2017) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1555) 218 at 243 per Rhodes-Vivour, JSC; Ufomba v. INEC (2017) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1582) 175. Incidentally, the suit, as constituted, is amphibious in that it exhibits the two features/characteristics of an intra-party dispute x-rayed above.
It is now settled, beyond any peradventure of doubt, that Courts are derobed of the jurisdiction to entertain actions that appertain to internal affairs of a
12
political party. This hallowed principle of law traces its paternity to the case of Onuoha v. Okafor (1983) 2 SCNLR 244: the locus classicus on the cardinal principle. However, the principle is not inelastic. It admits of exceptions. A notable one is cognizable in Section 87(9) of the Electoral Act, 2010, as amended. Due to its kingly position on the issue, it is imperative to pluck it out, verbatim ac litteratim, where it is domiciled in the statute, thus:
(9) Notwithstanding the provisions of this Act or rules of a political party an aspirant who complains that any of the provisions of this Act and the guidelines of a political party has not been complied with in the election or nomination of a candidate of a political party/or election, may apply to the Federal High Court or the High Court of State or FCT, for redress.
This provision, which is submissive to comprehension, has fallen for interpretation, before the Courts, in the election firmament in Nigeria. It has been construed, in sea of cases, to mean that where a political party disobeys the prescription of Electoral Act and its Guidelines in a primary election, involving nomination or
13
sponsorship of candidates for an election, an aspirant has the unbridled licence of the law to approach the Court for remedy, see Emenike v. PDP (2012) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1315) 556; PDP v. Sylva (2012) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1316) 85; Gbileve v. Addingi (2014) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1433) 394; Tarzoor v. Ioraer (2016) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1500) 463; Shinkafi v. Yari (2016) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1511) 340; Al-Hassan v. Ishaku (2016) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1520) 230; Wada v. Bello(2016) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1542) 374; Garba v. Mohammed (2016) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1537) 114; Dahiru v. APC (2017) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1555) 218; Ufomba v. INEC (2017) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1582) 175; PDP v. Ezeonwuka (2018) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1606) 187; Lau v. PDP (2018) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1608) 60; Maihaja v. Geidam (2018) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1610) 454; Mato v. Hember (2018) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1612) 258; Azubuogu v. Oranezi (2018) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1613) 447; Mailantarki v. Tongo (2018) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1614) 69; APC v. Karfi (2018) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1616) 479; PDP v. Oranezi (2018) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1618) 245; Ugwuegede v. Asadu (2018) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1628) 460; Nduul v. Wayo (2018) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1646) 548; Aghodo v. Adenomo (2018) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1636) 264.
Another remarkable exception is deeply, rooted in the
14
prescription of Section 31(5) and (6) of the Electoral Act, 2010, as amended. The provision donates to members of political parties the right to contest in Court where a candidate gives false information in the affidavit or any document submitted to the Independent National Electoral Commission, See PDP v. INEC (2014) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1437) 525; Ekagbara v. Ikpeazu (2016) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1503) 411; Al-Hassan v. Ishaku (2016) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1520) 230; Garba v. Mohammed (2016) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1537) 114; Ogah v. Ikpeazu (2017) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1594) 299; Agi v. PDP (2017) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1595) 386.
Interestingly, the case-law has endorsed, in toto, a statement of claim as the major barometer to be used by the Court to measure the presence or absence of its jurisdiction, see Ikine v. Edjerode (2001) 18 NWLR (Pt. 745) 446; A.D.H. Ltd. v. A.T. Ltd. (2006) NWLR (Pt. 989) 635; Oni v. Cadbury (2016) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1516) 80; Ladoja v. Ajimobi (2016) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1519) 87; B.B. Apugo & Sons Ltd. v. O.H.M.B. (2016) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1529) 206; Yar?adua v. Yandoma (2015) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1466) 213; Akpamgbo-Okadigbo v. Chidi (No. 2) (2015) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1466) 124; Isah v. INEC (supra);
15
Lau v. PDP (supra); Azubuogu v. Oranezi (supra); Agi v. PDP (2017) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1595) 386; A.-G, Fed. v. A.-G., Anambra State (2018) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1615) 314; Roe Ltd. v. UNN (2018) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1616) 420; F.U.T., Minna v. Olutayo (2018) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1617) 176; A.-G., Lagos State v. Eko Hotels (2018) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1619) 518. Notably, in an action commenced by dint of originating summons, as in the case in hand, the affidavit in support serves as the statement of claim, see Uwazuruonye v. Gov., Imo State (2013) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1355) 28; PDP v. Ezeonwuka (2018) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1606) 187; Lau v. PDP (2018) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1608) 60; Owuru v. Adigwu (2018) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1599) 1; CBN v. Aribo (2018) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1608) 130. Relief, too, is one of the determinants of jurisdiction of Court, see Onwudiwe v. FRN (2006) 10 NWLR (Pt. 988) 382; Garba v. Mohammed (2016) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1537) 114; PDP v. Oranezi (2018) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1618) 245; Gbileve v. Addingi (2014) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1433) 394.
In due loyalty to the expectation of the law, I have consulted the record, the bedrock of the appeal, especially at the residences of the reliefs and the 33-paragraph affidavit which colonize pages 3-5 and 7-12
16
of it respectively. I have perused them with the finery of a toothcomb. Admirably, they are obedient to easy appreciation. The gravamen of the appellants? grouse, decipherable from the copious affidavits, is that the first respondent discarded its ward and local government congresses, which produced them as local government Chairmen and ward Delegate, and settled for affirmation by its elders and stakeholders which parented the second respondent as Akwa Ibom State party Chairman. The fourteen wordy reliefs are, also, weaved around the first respondent?s failure or neglect to utilize the results of the congresses. Put differently, the suit is not, in the least, an offspring of any pre-election, conducted by the first respondent, for nomination and sponsorship of candidates for election. Nor is it an offshoot of giving false information to Independent National Electoral Commission.
It flows, that the matter does come within the constricted four walls of Section 87(9) or Section 31(5) of the Electoral Act, 2010, as amended, displayed above. Contrariwise, the casus belli in the suit pertains to dispute as to occupation of
17
party offices within the leadership ladder of the first respondent. In other words, it is about leadership and membership tussle of a political party which fall, squarely, within the perimeter of domestic affairs of the first respondent which the Court is drained of the jurisdiction to entertain, see Okotie-Eboh v. Manager (2004) 18 NWLR (Pt. 905) 242; Emenike v. PDP (supra); PDP v. Sylva (supra); Ufomba v. INEC (supra). Indubitably, the prolix reliefs orbit outside the narrow compass of Sections 87(9) and 31(5) of the Electoral Act 2010, as amended, and ipso facto and de jure, impotent to impregnate the Court with jurisdiction. In sum, the matter is a quintessence of a political question which is not justiciable ? incapable of being disposed of judicially, see Ugwu v. Ararume (2007) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1048) 365; Ufomba v. INEC (supra). In effect, the Court is not the forum competens to redress the wrongs perceived by the appellants. The proper venue to ventilate such local affairs is the usually inbuilt internal mechanism of a political party.
?It stems from this brief legal anatomy, that the action was/is trapped in the intractable web of the second ingredient of
18
jurisdiction in that its subject-matter, internal affairs political party, falls outside the jurisdiction of the lower Court and that feature, non-justiciable political issue, debars it from exercising jurisdiction over it. Where a Court is not clothed with the jurisdiction to entertain a matter, the proceedings germinating from it, no matter the quantum of diligence, dexterity, artistry, sophistry, transparency and objectivity injected into it, will be marooned in the vortex of nullity, see Elugbe v. Omokhafe (2004) 18 NWLR (Pt. 905) 319; Lokpobiri v. Ogola (2016) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1499) 328; Garba v. Mohammed (supra); Isah v. INEC (supra).
In the twilight of the decision, which monopolises pages 382-405 of the clean mountainous record, the lower Court, at page 404, lines 13-16, thereof, found:
The questions raised by the claimants in the case before (sic) relate to the manner of election of party officers. It is a matter that remains within the domain of the domestic preserve of the political party. Such questions are not justiciable. The Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain them.
In the light of the juridical survey made on the issue, after
19
due consultation with the law, the lower Court?s solemn finding is immaculate and has not fractured the law. In effect, it will smell of judicial sacrilege to interfere with a finding that is not hostile to the law. As a result, all the castigation, which learned appellants? counsel lavished against the decision, are lame and peter into insignificance.
For the sake of completeness, the learned appellants? counsel had implored this Court to do what the lower Court failed to do and grant the reliefs. Learned counsel, either intentionally or inadvertently, failed to predicate the prayer on any law. Nevertheless, the solicitation is presumed to be erected on the provision of Section 15 of the Court of Appeal Act, as amended.
Unarguably, the confirmation of the lower Court?s finding, that it was not invested with the requisite jurisdiction to hear the suit, constitutes a serious coup de grace on the appellants? enticing invitation to this Court to employ the all-pervading provision of Section 15 of the Court of Appeal Act in the determination of it. The reason is not far-fetched. An appellate Court will be bestowed with jurisdiction where a
20
lower Court, whence an appeal emanates, is endowed with the jurisdiction, see C.G.G. (Nig) Ltd v. Ogu (2005) 8 NWLR (Pt. 927) 366; Ikechukwu v. Nwoye (2015) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1446) 367; Yar?Adua v. Yandoma (2015) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1448) 123; Lafferi v. NAL Merchant Bank (2015) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1478) 64; Egbuchu v. CMB Plc (2016) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1513) 192; PDP v. Sylva (2012) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1316) 85; B.O.I. Ltd. v. Awojugbagbe (2018) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1615) 220; Ugo-Ngadi v. FRN (2018) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1620) 29. The converse is the law. Where a lower Court is denied jurisdiction over a matter, an appellate Court will not be equipped with jurisdiction to deal with it. This Court is only empowered to employ the provision of Section 15 of the Court of Appeal Act when a lower Court is infused with the jurisdiction to entertain a matter. It follows from these, that want of jurisdiction of lower Court to hear the action, because it was/is caught in the nest of internal affairs of a political party, is contagious. It contaminates the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 15 of the Court of Appeal which ?Until it is awakened into action from its sleep by such a complainant, it remains a
21
contended tiger sleeping in its lair?, see Ejowhomu v. Edok-Eter Ltd. (1986) 5 NWLR (Pt. 39) 1 at 35, per Aniagolu, JSC.
This finding, with due reverence, exposes the poverty of learned appellants? counsel?s dazzling arguments on the issue. It will smack of transgression of the law for this Court to dabble into the consideration of the action in the absence of corresponding jurisdiction of the lower Court. In the result, I dishonour the appellants? enticing invitation to deploy the provision of Section 15 of the Court of Appeal Act over their suit in order not to insult and annoy the law. In the end, I have no choice than to resolve the singular issue against the appellants and in favour of the respondents.
On the whole, having resolved the mono issue against the appellants, the destiny of the appeal is obvious. It is bereft of any tinge of merit and deserves the penalty of dismissal. Consequently, I dismiss the appeal. I affirm the decision of the lower Court delivered on 14th February, 2019. The parties shall bear the respective costs they incurred in prosecution and defence of the ill-fated appeal.
22
MOJEED ADEKUNLE OWOADE, J.C.A.: I read in advance the judgment delivered by my learned brother Obande Festus Ogbuinya, JCA. I agree with the reasoning and conclusion and I also resolved the sole issue in the appeal against the Appellant. The Appeal lacks merit and I also dismiss the appeal. I abide with the order as to costs.
YARGATA BYENCHIT NIMPAR, J.C.A.: I was afforded the privilege of reading in draft the judgment just delivered by my learned brother, FESTUS OBANDE OGBUINYA, JCA and I am in total agreement with him in the reasoning and resolution of the appeal. He incisively dealt with the question of intra party and brought out the distinguishing features between intra party and pre- election.
Jurisdiction is fundamental to any adjudication and is usually donated by the Constitution or statute. It is usually determined from the claim before the Court. The claim in this instance is not covered by what the Court can delve into and therefore, the Court is powerless and cannot go into it. The narrow window allowed is purely for pre-election matters and, it is the area covered by Section 87(9) of the Electoral Act 2010 as Amended.
23
The Court below has no jurisdiction over disputes between members or leadership tussle in a political party. See PDP V SYLVA (2012) 13 NWLR (Pt.1316) 85.
I also dismiss the appeal and abide by all other orders made therein.
24
Appearances:
Samuel Ikpo, Esq. with him, Anieti Etuk, Esq.
For Appellant(s)
Chief Victor Iyanam with him, Eddy Idungikan, Esq. for the 1st and 2nd respondents.
No legal representation for the 3rd respondentFor Respondent(s)
Appearances
Samuel Ikpo, Esq. with him, Anieti Etuk, Esq.For Appellant
AND
Chief Victor Iyanam with him, Eddy Idungikan, Esq. for the 1st and 2nd respondents.
No legal representation for the 3rd respondentFor Respondent
