UBAH v. APC & ORS
(2020)LCN/15619(CA)
In The Court Of Appeal
(OWERRI JUDICIAL DIVISION)
On Friday, December 04, 2020
CA/OW/450/2020
Before Our Lordships:
Uchechukwu Onyemenam Justice of the Court of Appeal
Jamilu Yammama Tukur Justice of the Court of Appeal
Mohammed Baba Idris Justice of the Court of Appeal
Between
LADY UCHENNA ONYEIWU UBAH APPELANT(S)
And
1. ALL PROGRESSIVES CONGRESS (APC) 2. INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION (INEC) 3. SENATOR IFEANYI ARARAUME 4. DR. EDITH CHIDIMMA UWAJUMOGU 5. HONOURABLE MATHEW OMEGARA RESPONDENT(S)
RATIO:
ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION SHOULD BE CONSISTENT
“The law is further settled that formulation of issues for determination in an appeal must be consistent and fall within the scope of the grounds of appeal filed. The issues cannot be formulated to be wider than the grounds of appeal from which it derives its existence….”
The Court has always discouraged the practice of splitting a ground of appeal into a number of issues. See A – G, BENDEL STATE VS. AIDEYAN (1989) 4 NWLR (PT. 118) 646; ADELAJA VS. FANOIKI (1990) 2 NWLR (PT. 131) 137; AGU VS. IKEWIBE (1991) 3 NWLR (PT. 180) 385. The splitting of a ground into more than one issue renders the issues wider than the grounds of appeal complained of. See also HIGHGRADE MARITIME SERVICES LTD VS. FIRST BANK (NIG) LTD (1991) 1 NWLR (PT. 167) 290. MOHAMMED BABA IDRIS, J.C.A.
THE SUCCESS OF AN APPEAL DEPENDS ON THE CONTENT AND QUALITY
The Supreme Court also, in the case of ENGR. GEORGE T. A. NDUUL VS. BARR. BENJAMIN WAYO & ORS (2018) LPELR – 45151 (SC) on proliferation of issues reiterated thus:
“It must be stated right away that this Court and indeed all appellate Courts frown at the proliferation of issues for determination. It is not the number of issues distilled for determination that determines the success of an appeal but their content and quality. Issues for determination should not be unnecessarily prolix and unwieldy. They should be a clear and concise statement of the complaint against the judgment, which is the subject of the appeal. The danger in proliferating the issues for determination is that they often obscure the real issues in the appeal. It serves no useful purpose and it is a practice that should be avoided. See:Ogbuanyinya Vs Okudo (No. 2) (1990) 4 NWLR (146) 551 @ 567; Clay Industries (Nig.) Ltd vs. Aina & Ors (1997) 8 NWLR (pt. 516) 208; Ogunyade vs. Oshunkeye (2007) 15 NWLR (Pt.1057) 218.“MOHAMMED BABA IDRIS J.C.A
THE CONCEPT OF LOCUS STANDI
The concept of locus standi is one that is traceable to the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria most especially Section 6(6)(b). In determination whether the Plaintiff has locus standi, he must show that the act complained of affects rights or obligation peculiar or personal thereto and that there is threat to such right. See the case of ILORI VS. BENSON (2000) 9 NWLR (PT. 673) 570. MOHAMMED BABA IDRIS J.C.A
THE CAUSE OF ACTION MUST BE EXAMINED BEFORE DETERMINING IF A PARTY HAS A LOCUS STANDI
In order to determine whether or not a party has a locus standi to file an action in a Court of law, the cause of action brought before the Court must be critically examined and in determining the cause of action, it is the duty of the Court to look at the Writ of Summons and statement of claim which in this case, this Court is to look at the Amended Originating Summons and the affidavit in support of same. MOHAMMED BABA IDRIS J.C.A
THE ISSUE OF JURISDICTION CAN BE RAISED AT ANY TIME
It is worthy of note here that an issue of competence of a suit is an issue of jurisdiction and being an issue of jurisdiction, it can be raised at anything time even for the 1st time on appeal up to the Supreme Court. See the cases of MIN, WORKS & HOUSING VS. SHITTU (2007) 16 NWLR (PT. 1060) 351, OBASEKI VS. ORUKWO (2007) 17 NWLR (PT. 1062) 138.
Time does not run against a party raising jurisdiction. See the case of OJO VS. INEC (2008) 13 NWLR (PT. 1105) 577. Even the Court can suo motu raise the issue of jurisdiction where the parties neglect to do so. See also the case of NWAKA VS. H.O.S EBONYI STATE (2008) 3 NWLR (PT. 1073) 156. MOHAMMED BABA IDRIS J.C.A
THE EFFECT OF LACK OF JURISDICTION
It is therefore on the above findings that I strongly rest to disregard the argument of the 3rd Cross Respondent in its entirety. It is also my very strong view that the challenge of the competence of the suit by the Cross-Appellant which is an issue of jurisdiction amounts to a challenge of the entire judgment of the Court whose jurisdiction is being challenged as jurisdiction is the bedrock upon which the Court can hear and determine matters before it.
Once the jurisdiction of a Court is being attacked, then the whole foundation upon which the suit rest from the origination of the suit to judgment becomes shaky. This Court is called at all times to do justice and not suffer injustice on grounds of technicalities and this especially in election related cases where the collective will of the masses are in issue. MOHAMMED BABA IDRIS J.C.A
THE COURT DEALS WITH THE SUBSTANCE AND NOT THE TECHNICALITIES TO THE DICTATES OF JUSTICE
See the case of NNEJI VS. CHUKWU (1988) 3 NWLR (PT. 81) 184 AT PAGE 209 wherein the Apex Court reiterated thus:
“Technicalities deal with legal forms but not necessarily with substance. The Courts exist to do substantial justice not formal and the technical modes of procedure should be subservient to the dictates of justice. If therefore the observance of any rule will produce an obvious injustice, a Court of justice will naturally prefer justice to the technicalities the rule imposes.”
It is on this note that I disregard the argument of the 3rd Cross Respondent as the said argument cannot be sustained considering my findings above. MOHAMMED BABA IDRIS J.C.A
MOHAMMED BABA IDRIS, J.CA. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): By an Originating Summons dated 4th September, 2020 which was further amended and filed on the 28th of September, 2020 by the Appellant as Plaintiff at the Trial Court, wherein the following questions were raised thus:
1. Whether the 1st Defendant is bound to accept the result of its Senatorial Primaries for the Imo North Senatorial District as declared by the Chairman of the Electoral Committee Senator Surajudeen Ajinbola Basiru by virtue of the provisions of the guideline for the said election made pursuant to the provisions of the Constitution of the All-Progressives Congress.
2. Whether, the 1st Defendant having lawfully and successfully conducted the party primaries on the 3rd day of September, 2020 and which primaries produced MR. FRANK IBEZIM, as the winner and candidate of the 1st Defendant for the Imo North Senatorial District election have a duty to present the said FRANK IBEZIM to the 2nd Defendant as senatorial candidate of the 1st Defendant for the Imo North Bye Election.
3. Whether the 2nd Defendant is duty bound to accept and present FRANK IBEZIM as Senatorial candidate of the 1st Defendant in the Imo North Senatorial Bye Election.
The Appellant sought for the following reliefs:
1. A declaration that only the Chairman of the Primary Electoral Committee of the All-Progressives Congress as the returning officer for the Imo North Senatorial District Bye Election can validly declare and make return in the said primary election by virtue of the guidelines for the election made pursuant to the Constitution of the All-Progressives Congress.
2. A declaration that the return and declaration of MR FRANK IBEZIM as winner of the Imo North Senatorial Bye Election primaries by Senator Surajudeen Ajibola Basiru, the Chairman of the Electoral Committee for the said primaries as valid.
3. A declaration that the 1st Defendant is bound to accept and present to the 2nd Defendant as its Senatorial District Candidate the name of MR FRANK IBEZIM and no other person having emerged the winner of Imo North Senatorial District Primaries of the 1st Defendant.
4. An Order restraining the 1st Defendant by itself or through whosoever, however named from presenting any person other than MR FRANK IBEZIM who won the primaries, to the 2nd Defendant as candidate of the 1st Defendant for the afore-stated Imo North Senatorial District Election.
5. An order directing the 2nd Defendant not to accept any other name from the 1st Defendant other than MR FRANK IBEZIM who emerged winner in the primaries held on 3rd September, 2020 and thus the 1st Defendant’s candidate for the Imo North Senatorial District Bye-Election.
6. An order directing the 2nd Defendant to present MR FRANK IBEZIM as the 1st Defendant’s candidate to the exclusion of any other person for the Imo North Senatorial District Bye Election to be held on the 31st day of October, 2020.
Before going into the appeal, a summary of the facts involved in this appeal is provided hereunder.
It is the claim of the Appellant that sometime in 2019, the Senator representing Imo North Senatorial District died and was buried and the 1st Respondent immediately decided to conduct primaries among its interested members on the 3rd of September, 2020 to elect and choose a candidate for the senatorial election.
The Appellant also claimed that she was one of the interested members of the 1st Respondent who contested the said primary election on the 3rd September, 2020 and lost but a candidate named Mr. Frank Ibezim was returned for the 1st Respondent.
The Appellant also claims that the 1st Respondent has since delayed the presentation of the winner to the 2nd Respondent to the detriment of the Imo North Senatorial District and the Appellant. The Appellant further claim that except an order is made by the Court, mischievous members of the 1st Respondent may forge and return anybody except the winner, Frank Ibezim as candidate of the 1st Respondent and that is the reason, she filed the suit leading to this Appeal.
The Respondents as Defendants at the Trial Court, each filed a Counter Affidavits to the Amended Originating Summons. The Court heard the matter and the parties thereafter adopted their respective affidavits and written addresses and the matter was adjourned to 6th November, 2020 for judgment.
The Trial Judge, Honourable Justice T. G. Ringim delivered judgment in the Suit No. FHC/OW/CS/101/2020 on the 6th of November, 2020 dismissing the suit and granted the consequential orders as contained in the said judgment.<br< p=”” style=”box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;”></br<>
Dissatisfied with the judgment of the trial Court, the Appellant filed a Notice of appeal on the 6th November, 2020 and the substantive one filed on the 19th November, 2020 comprising of Eight (8) grounds of appeal. Parties in the appeal before this Court filed and exchanged their respective briefs of argument.
In the Appellant’s brief of argument as settled by his counsel Emmanuel Emelike Nwonye Esq., and dated 25th November, 2020 and filed 26th November, 2020 June, 2020, the following issues for determination were distilled from the grounds of appeal as follows:
1. Whether the lower Court was right in making orders in favour of the 3rd Defendant who made no claims and had no Counter-Claim in this suit and who sought no orders in his Counter Affidavit and further affidavit. (Ground 1).
2. Whether in the circumstances of the case if it was just, equitable, proper and lawful. (Ground 1).
3. Whether the lower Court was right in making far reaching orders against Frank Ibezim who was not a party in the suit stripping him of his position as Senatorial Candidate of APC, when he was not given a chance to present a defence. (Ground 1, 2 and 3).
4. Whether the orders made against the said Frank Ibezim did not erode his fundamental Right to fair hearing. (Ground 1, 3 and 4).
5. Whether the orders made by the lower Court was not made without jurisdiction considering that the Court itself accepted that Frank Ibezim was a necessary party to the suit but was not joined. (Ground 7 and 8)
6. Whether the lower Court was right to dismiss gestations 1, 2 and 3 of the Originating Summons rather than transfer the questions to the General Cause list for pleadings and trial. (Ground 3, 5 and 6 of the Notice of Appeal).
The 1st Respondent filed its Respondent Brief of Argument dated 1st December, 2020 and filed on the same dated as settled by its Counsel, A. I. Nwachukwu Esq., and he adopted the issues for determination raised by the Appellant as follows:
Whether the Appellant had the requisite Locus standi to institute the action in the Court below as to entitle her to file this Appeal.
The 2nd Respondent also filed a Brief of Argument dated 1st December, 2020 and filed on the same date. The Reply Brief was settled by the 2nd Respondent’s Counsel, Obum J. Obumneme Esq. The 2nd Respondent’s Counsel in the said Brief of Argument raised the following issue for determination thus:
Whether the 2nd Respondent Compliance with the Final Judgment delivered by the Trial Court on the 6th of November, 2020 is not in the interest of justice.
The 3rd Respondent’s Brief of Argument is dated 30th November, 2020 and filed on 1st December, 2020 as settled by his Counsel, Ekene Richie Iremeka Esq.
The 3rd Respondent’s Counsel raised a Notice of Preliminary Objection in the said brief challenging the competence of the appeal as follows:
a. Issue A to D which are four in number are distilled from Ground One of the Ground of Appeal.
b. Issues C, D, and F which are three in number are distilled from Ground One, two, three, four, five and six of the Notice of Appeal.
c. Issues number C, D and F are distilled from Ground three of the Ground of Appeal.
d. Issue number E is distilled from Ground 7 and 8 but is argued together with Issue numbers C and D which are invalid having been distilled from both grounds one and three.
The 3rd Respondent’s Counsel also raised the following issues for determination:
1. Whether the lower Court was right in making orders in favour of the 3rd Defendant who made no claim and had no Counter claim in this suit and who sought no orders in his Counter-Affidavit (Ground 1)
2. Whether in the circumstances of the case, if it was just, equitable, proper and lawful. (Ground 2).
3. Whether the lower Court was right in making far reaching orders against Frank Ibezim who was not a party in the suit stripping him of his position as senatorial candidate of APC, when he was not given a chance to present a defence. (Ground 1, 2 and 3).
4. Whether the orders made against the said FRANK IBEZIM did not erode his fundamental right to fair hearing. (Ground 1, 3 and 4).
5. Whether the orders made by the lower Court was not made without jurisdiction considering that the Court itself accepted Frank Ibezim was a necessary party to the suit but was not joined. (Ground 7 and 8).
6. Whether the lower Court was right to dismiss gestations (sic) 1, 2 and 3 of the originating summons rather than transfer the questions to the general cause list for pleadings and trial. (Ground 3, 5 and 6 of the Notice of Appeal).
The 4th Respondent also filed his Brief of Argument dated 30th November, 2020 and filed on the 1st December, 2020 as settled by his Counsel, Waheed A. Olajide Esq.
The 4th Respondent’s Counsel argued in the Brief of Argument, preliminary issues of law in respect of the issues and Ground of Appeal as set out in the Appellant Brief of Argument before it proceeded to argue the sole issue for determination he raised as it relates to the appeal thus:
Considering the mode with which the suit was commenced and the reliefs claimed therein, whether or not the trial Court was right to have heard the matter and made a consequential order that affects the interest of a third party. (Grounds 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the Grounds of Appeal).
For want of time, the summary of arguments of the parties in their respective Briefs of Argument shall be introduced in the determination of the issues as would be required during my consideration of the issues and the argument made by the parties.
Before I go ahead, it is important that I first consider the Preliminary objection raised by the 3rd Respondent’s Counsel in the 3rd Respondent Brief of Argument and also the preliminary issues raised by the 4th Respondent’s Counsel in the 4th Respondent’s Brief of Argument.
First, I will address the preliminary objection of the 3rd Respondent.
The 3rd Respondent’s Counsel has argued that it is the law that more than one issue for determination cannot be distilled or formulated from one ground of appeal as doing otherwise will be tantamount to proliferation of issues as was held in NNPC VS. JACOBS & ORS (2012) LPELR – 9290 (CA) AT PAGE 11 PARAGRAPHS A – F per Agbo, JCA.
The 3rd Respondent’s Counsel also argued that in the instant appeal, four (4) issues were formulated from Ground 1, while three issues were formulated from Ground 3 and that this amounts to proliferation of issues and thus, liable to be struck out for being incompetent.
The 3rd Respondent’s Counsel also argued that the invalid and incompetent issues C and D were argued together with the valid issues number E formulated from Ground 7 and 8 of the Notice of Appeal. He further argued that this same vice affected or is applicable to Issue number F formulated from Grounds 3, 5 and 6 of the ground of appeal and that it is pertinent to note that the Issues numbers C, D and F were formulated from Ground 3 and thus the lumping of Grounds 5 and 6 with issue F formulated from Ground 3 renders the entire appeal incompetent and the same applies to grounds 2 and 4 which were argued together with the invalid and incompetent issues C and D.
In conclusion, the 3rd Respondent’s Counsel submitted that having argued the said issues together with valid grounds, the entire issues are contaminated by the invalid and incompetent issues and therefore liable to be struck out and relied on the case of IKPEAZU VS. OTTI (2016) 8 NWLR (PT. 1513) PAGE 38 AND 95 PARAGRAPHS A – D.
The preliminary issues raised by the 4th Respondent in paragraphs 4.01 – 4.07 contained at pages 4 – 7 of the 4th Respondent’s Brief of Argument are similar to that of the 3rd Respondent’s preliminary objection which he argued and which argument has already been summarized. Therefore, for want of time, I would not go into summarizing the said argument but go straight to the second leg of the argument by the 4th Respondent Counsel argued in paragraph 4.08 – 4.11 of the 4th Respondent Brief of Argument.
The 4th Respondent’s Counsel has argued that the second virus that affects the Appellant’s appeal has to do with lack of leave of either the trial Court or this Court to appeal on issues of mixed law and facts or facts alone.
The 4th Respondent’s Counsel also argued that Grounds 5 and 8 raises issues of mixed law and facts or facts in that, the said grounds 5 and 8 of the Notice of Appeal questioned the evaluation of the facts by the trial Court which has rendered the two grounds to be a ground of facts or mixed law and fact and leave of Court is a sine qua non to validly appeal on issues of facts or mixed law and facts.
The 4th Respondent argued that the consequence of not obtaining leave is that the affected grounds, issues formulated thereon and the arguments proffered will be liable to be struck out for incompetence. Counsel therefore urged this Court to strike out grounds 5 and 8 as well as issues E and F of the Appellant and discountenance the arguments of the Appellant in respect of those issues. On this point, counsel cited the case of AKANBI & ORS VS. C. O. P. KWARA (2018) LPELR – 44049 (CA) PAGES 11 – 12, PARAS A and ABUBAKAR VS. WAZIRI & ORS (2008) LPELR – 54 (SC) PAGES 8 – 9 PARAS E – A.
RESOLUTION OF THE NOTICE OF PRELIMINARY OBJECTION RAISED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT AND THE PRELIMINARY ISSUES RAISED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT
The principle governing formulation of issues for determination is that the issues so formulated must arise from the grounds of appeal filed. The principle frowns on the proliferation of issues. It is also of crucial importance to ensure that the issue formulated must be related to and circumscribed by a ground or grounds of appeal before the Court. See the case of MRS. HAWA GANKON VS. UGOCHUKWU CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES LTD (1993) LPELR – 1303 (SC) (P. 10, paras. D – F) per Adolphus Godwin Karibi-Whyte, JSC.
Also, in the case of ABE VS. UNILORIN & ANOR (2013) LPELR – 20643 (SC), the supreme Court per Clara Bata Ogunbiyi, JSC (Pp. 27 – 28, paras. F – C) held thus:
“The law is further settled that formulation of issues for determination in an appeal must be consistent and fall within the scope of the grounds of appeal filed. The issues cannot be formulated to be wider than the grounds of appeal from which it derives its existence….”
The Court has always discouraged the practice of splitting a ground of appeal into a number of issues. See A – G, BENDEL STATE VS. AIDEYAN (1989) 4 NWLR (PT. 118) 646; ADELAJA VS. FANOIKI (1990) 2 NWLR (PT. 131) 137; AGU VS. IKEWIBE (1991) 3 NWLR (PT. 180) 385. The splitting of a ground into more than one issue renders the issues wider than the grounds of appeal complained of. See also HIGHGRADE MARITIME SERVICES LTD VS. FIRST BANK (NIG) LTD (1991) 1 NWLR (PT. 167) 290.
I have looked carefully at the issues raised by the Appellant Counsel side by side the grounds of appeal to determine whether there was proliferation of issues as argued by the 3rd Respondent’s Counsel and the said argument is not farfetched as it is very clear from the issues for determination formulated by the Appellant and which is contained at page 4 and 5 of the Appellant Brief of Argument which I will reproduce hereunder for want of emphasis thus:
A. Whether the lower Court was right in making orders in favour of the 3rd Defendant who made no claims and had no Counter-Claim in this suit and who sought no orders in his Counter affidavit and further affidavit. (Ground 1).
B. Whether in the circumstances of the case, if it was just, equitable, proper and lawful. (Ground 1).
C. Whether the lower Court was right in making far reaching orders against Frank Ibezim who was not a party in the suit stripping him of his position as Senatorial candidate of APC, when he was not given a chance to present a defence. (Ground 1, 2 and 3).
D. Whether the orders made against the said Frank Ibezim did not erode his fundamental Right to fair hearing. (Ground 1, 3 and 4).
E. Whether the orders made by the lower Court was not made without jurisdiction considering that the Court itself accepted that Frank Ibezim was a necessary party to the suit but was not joined. (Ground 7 and 8).
F. Whether the lower Court was right to dismiss gestations 1, 2 and 3 of the Originating summons rather than transfer the questions to the General Cause list for pleadings and trial. (Ground 3, 5 and 6).
Looking at the above reproduced issues for determination raised by the Appellant’s Counsel from the Ground of Appeal, it is clear that:
a. Issues A, B, C and D were formulated from Ground 1
b. Issues C, D and F were formulated from Grounds 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6
c. Issues C, D and F were formulated from Ground 3.
d. Issues E was formulated from Grounds 7 and 8 which would have freed it from the principle against proliferation of issues but the Appellant Counsel argued Issue E together with Issues C and D and has thus contaminated its validity. This is borne out of the fact that the point is fairly settled in quite a number of decisions that arguments or submissions on incompetent issues and/or grounds of appeal cannot be lumped together with those of competent issues for determination. Where this is done as in this case, it will not be the business of the Court to sift the chaff from the grains, an exercise that would clearly involve arguments in respect of the valid issues from the invalid ones. As was held by this Court in IKPEAZU V OTTI & ORS (2016) LPELR – 40055 (SC), such an exercise may involve the Court descending into the arena of dispute which will often becloud the judgment of the Court. See also the cases of KOREDE V ADEDOKUN (2001) 1 NWLR (PT. 736) 483 AT 499; CPC & ANOR V OMBUGADU & ANOR (2013) LPELR – 21007 (SC); KHALIL V YAR’ADUA (2003) 16 NWLR (PT. 847) 446 AT 481; JAMES AFOLABI V THE STATE (2016) LPELR – 40300 (SC); GEO-SOURCE NIG. LTD V BIARAGBARA (1997) 5 NWLR (PT. 506) 607.
As it turns out, issue E which is argued with the proliferated issues C and D together with all the arguments made thereto, could become incompetent as well having in mind the authorities already cited on the attitude of the Court on proliferation of issues.
The Supreme Court also, in the case of ENGR. GEORGE T. A. NDUUL VS. BARR. BENJAMIN WAYO & ORS (2018) LPELR – 45151 (SC) on proliferation of issues reiterated thus:
“It must be stated right away that this Court and indeed all appellate Courts frown at the proliferation of issues for determination. It is not the number of issues distilled for determination that determines the success of an appeal but their content and quality. Issues for determination should not be unnecessarily prolix and unwieldy. They should be a clear and concise statement of the complaint against the judgment, which is the subject of the appeal. The danger in proliferating the issues for determination is that they often obscure the real issues in the appeal. It serves no useful purpose and it is a practice that should be avoided. See:Ogbuanyinya Vs Okudo (No. 2) (1990) 4 NWLR (146) 551 @ 567; Clay Industries (Nig.) Ltd vs. Aina & Ors (1997) 8 NWLR (pt. 516) 208; Ogunyade vs. Oshunkeye (2007) 15 NWLR (Pt.1057) 218.”
It is clear from all the authorities that this Court and even the 3rd Respondent’s Counsel has cited on proliferation of issues, that the effect of proliferation of issues is that, any such issues complained of would be deemed incompetent and according struck out. However, it is also clear that this Court can look the other way in the interest of substantial Justice as was seen in the case of HON. ADEYEMI SABIT IKUFORIJI VS. FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA (2018) LPELR – 43884 (SC) (Pp. 12-13, para. A – A) wherein the Apex Court per Ejembi Eko, JSC reiterates on proliferation of issues for determination thus:
“I agree, as submitted by the Appellant’s counsel relying on OKONOBOR v. D. EDEGBE & SONS TRANSPORT CO. LTD (2010) 17 NWLR (pt. 1221) 181, that appellate Courts frown at proliferation of Issues. See also UNITY BANK PLC v. EDWARD BOUARI (2008) 7 NWLR (pt.1086) 372. However, as recent decisions of this Court, particularly CPL DESMOND ONONUJU v. THE STATE (2013) LPELR 20803 (SC); PATRICK MICHAEL & ORS. v. BANK OF THE NORTH (2015) LPELR – 24690 (SC), demonstrate; the Courts, in their discretion exercised in the interest of justice, when parties proliferate issues from valid grounds of appeal, still reframe issues and determine the appeal on such reframed issues. When the appellant proliferates issues from one ground of appeal, the appeal Court can, in its discretion or at its liberty, elect to prefer and adopt the respondent’s issue that is either not offensive or which is more succinct and clear, as this Court did in PATRICK MICHAEL & SONS v. BANK OF THE NORTH (supra). The purpose of formulating issues for determination of the appeal is merely to enable the parties narrow down the issues raised in the grounds of appeal. See LABIYI v. ANRETIOLA (1992) 8 NWLR (pt. 258) 138 at 159; ADELAJA v. FANOIKI (1990) 2 NWLR (pt. 131) 148.” Before I make any further statement, I am not forgetting the argument of the 4th Respondent Counsel that Grounds 5 and 8 of the Notice of Appeal raises issues of mixed law and facts and that the said grounds questioned the evaluation of the facts by the trial Court and that leave which is a sine qua non to validly appeal on same was not obtained. The said ground 5 and 8 are reproduced thus:
Ground 5
“The lower Court erred in law when it held at pages 16 and 17 of its Judgment as follows:
“it is trite that election related complaint made by way of originating summons must seek the determination of construction relating to Electoral Act or party Constitution or guidelines. See LAU V PDP & ORS (2017) LPELR – 42800 (SC) D – C. In this context, since the contents of the 2nd and 3rd questions for determination, as set out on the face of this Amended Originating summons, relate not to any instrument or enactment, same shall be discountenanced for being incompetent.”
Ground 8
“The lower Court erred in law when page 22 of its judgment it held as follows:
“this fact of disqualification of the Plaintiff, Ibezim Frank, the 5th Defendants and others was also contained in paragraph 3 (f) (g) and (h) and Exhibit A and B attached to the Counter affidavit of the 4th defendant. This piece of evidence was never denied nor controverted by the Plaintiff as the adverse party. It is trite that affidavit evidence which is not denied nor controverted by the adverse party is deemed admitted by the adverse party.”
In as much as I agree with the argument of the 4th Respondent’s Counsel that leave is required where the Notice of Appeal raises issues of mixed law and facts to validly appeal on same, I however find that this appeal is one against the final Judgment of the Trial Court and as such no leave is required to appeal against same as such, the Preliminary Issue raised by the 4th Respondent Counsel on this point fails. See Section 241(1)(a) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) which states thus:
“An appeal shall lie from decisions of the Federal High Court or a High Court to the Court of Appeal as of right in the following cases – a. final decisions in any civil or criminal proceedings before the Federal High Court or a High Court sitting at first instance.”
The excerpt from the Constitution above is clear and straightforward. It does not require any interpretation since it speaks in a very explicit way. The decision appealed against here is a final decision of the Federal High Court Owerri, sitting as a Court of first instance and Being a final judgment, the Appellant does not require leave whether the grounds are grounds of mixed law and fact or any ground whatsoever and this is elementary, see the cases of VICTOR VS. FUTA AKURE (2013) LPELR – 22887 (CA); ECO INTERNATIONAL BANK PLC VS. NIGERIA UNION LOCAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES; JALINGO LGC & ANOR (2014) LPELR – 24171 (CA); AQUA LTD VS. ONDO STATE SPORTS COUNCIL (1988) 4 NWLR (PT. 91) 622; MU’AZU VS. BANI MUSA HOLDINGS LTD (2011) ALL FWLR (PT. 594) 172 and KWARA STATE MIN. OF HEALTH VS. MILI ELECT. ENT. (2011) ALL FWLR (PT. 602) 1757.
That being sorted out, I move unto the conclusion of my findings and decision on the competency of the issues for determination raised by the Appellant.
On the authority of HON. ADEYEMI SABIT IKUFORIJI VS. FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA (SUPRA) therefore, and in the interest of substantial justice, this Court will adopt the issues of determination raised by the 1st Respondent in the determination of this appeal and in doing so, I am of the strong view that the preliminary objection filed by the 3rd Respondent does not succeed. The said preliminary objection argued by the 3rd Respondent and the preliminary issue raised by the 4th Respondent’s Counsel on this point is hereby dismissed.
It is also worthy of mention that the fact that the Appellant didn’t file any reply to the Notice of Preliminary Objection does not stop this Court from determining the merit of the same neither will it make this Court to deem the non-filing of the Reply by the Appellant as an admission of the facts argued in the Notice of Preliminary Objection.
This Court will now proceed to determine the issue raised by the 1st Respondent in the 1st Respondent’s Brief of Argument which I have now adopted thus:
Whether the Appellant had the requisite locus standi to institute the action in the Court below as to entitle her to file this appeal.
The 1st Respondent’s Counsel has argued that the Appellant has no locus standi to institute the action in the Court below and therefore not entitled to file the appeal. Counsel also argued that looking at the affidavit in support of the Amended Originating Summons and the reliefs sought therein, there is no allegation of any wrong done to her but instead she was fighting the cause of the winner of the primary bye election, Frank Ibezim who was not even a party in the suit.
The 1st Respondent’s Counsel thus urged this Court to strike out the originating summons for being incompetent in that the present Appellant lacked the locus standi to institute the action at the trial Court thereby depriving the trial Court of the jurisdiction to hear the suit.
Also, the argument of the Respondent’s Counsel in paragraphs 4.24 – 4.25 of the 4th Respondent’s Brief of argument cannot go unnoticed by me.
The 4th Respondent’s Counsel had argued that the 3rd Respondent at the trial Court argued that the Appellant lacks the necessary locus standi to institute the suit and that the trial Court did not countenance that submission of the 3rd Respondent but went ahead to assume jurisdiction and did not make any finding of fact concerning the legal status of the Appellant with respect to her right to institute the action and neither was the issue of locus standi the ratio or the reason that underlines the judgment of the trial Court.
I will first of all treat the issue of the failure of the trial Court to make findings of fact concerning the legal status of the Appellant when the same was raised by the 3rd Respondent at the trial Court.
RESOLUTION OF THE APPEAL
The 3rd Respondent at the trial Court challenged the capacity of the Appellant to institute the action at the trial Court. See Paragraph 4(f) of the Counter affidavit of the 3rd Respondent contained at page 567 of the Record of Appeal and in paragraph 7(i) of the said Counter Affidavit contained at page 573 of the Record of Appeal, the 3rd Respondent challenged the jurisdiction of the Court.
The 4th Respondent also in his Counter Affidavit at paragraph 5 and 8(a) contained in page 551 and 552 of the Record of Appeal challenged the capacity of the Appellant and that the Appellant has no locus standi to bring the action.
It is surprising however that upon my careful perusal of the judgment and confirming the contention of the 4th Respondent Counsel, the trial judge failed to consider this very strong issue of locus standi that was brought before it. It is disappointing to say the least that the trial judge would leave out the consideration of such foundational issue that affects his jurisdiction as a judge. It is trite that the Court of law is required to consider and determine all issues brought before it as failure to do so would amount to a denial of fair hearing and occasion a miscarriage of justice. See the case of BRAWAL SHIPPING LTD VS. F. I. ONWADIKE CO. LTD (2000) 11 NWLR (PT. 678) 387 AT 403 PARA E – F.
The crucial nature of the principle of fair hearing is that in the consequence of its breach, the proceedings no matter how well conducted would amount to an exercise in futility.
The issue of locus standi which is a jurisdictional issue ought to have been visited first by the trial Court before meddling into other business for determination before it but no, it seemed like he was in so much hurry to deliver the judgment and failed to take note the fact that a serious issue was starring him straight in the face. Jurisdiction is the blood that gives life to the survival of an action. See the case of UTIH VS. ONOYIVWE (1991) 1 SCNJ 25 AT 49. It is this importance that makes any proceeding conducted in its absence no matter how brilliantly conducted to become a nullity.
It is therefore pertinent that at any point the issue of jurisdiction comes to play in any proceeding, it must be given preference by the Court before taking any further step to avert waste of precious time. The Court is not even supposed to wait for the issue of jurisdiction to be formally raised by the parties, if there are glaring facts before it, he cannot show a blind eye just as the trial judge chose to show in this case thereby resulting in the delivery of a perverse judgment. See the case of ATOLAGBE VS. SHORUN (1985) LPELR – 592 (SC) wherein the Apex Court defined a perverse judgment thus:
“Perverse simply means persistent in error, different from what is reasonable or required, against weight of evidence. A decision may be perverse where the Trial Court judge took into account matters which he ought not to have taken into account or where the judge shuts its eyes to the obvious.”
I am of the view that the failure of the trial Court to consider the fundamental issue of jurisdiction goes to the root of the proceedings and even the judgment of the trial Court.
This Court is now empowered to take a look at the said issue of the locus standi of the Appellant which the trial Court had so ignored.
The term locus standi connotes the legal capacity a person has to institute an action in Court. See the case of INAKOJU VS. ADELEKE (2007) 4 NWLR (PT. 1025) 423.
This is a status which a party must have before he can be heard in Court. In order to determine this status which is a condition precedent to determination on the merits, the claim of the Plaintiff must reveal:
a. Legal or justiciable right
b. Show sufficient or special interest adversely affected.
c. Justiciable cause of action.
See the case of OWODUNI VS. REGISTERED TRUSTEES OF CCC (2000) 10 NWLR (PT. 675) 315.
The concept of locus standi is one that is traceable to the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria most especially Section 6(6)(b). In determination whether the Plaintiff has locus standi, he must show that the act complained of affects rights or obligation peculiar or personal thereto and that there is threat to such right. See the case of ILORI VS. BENSON (2000) 9 NWLR (PT. 673) 570.
In order to determine whether or not a party has a locus standi to file an action in a Court of law, the cause of action brought before the Court must be critically examined and in determining the cause of action, it is the duty of the Court to look at the Writ of Summons and statement of claim which in this case, this Court is to look at the Amended Originating Summons and the affidavit in support of same.
I have already reproduced the questions for determination raised in the said Originating Summons and the reliefs sought somewhere in this judgment and looking at the said questions and reliefs sought by the Appellant, it all surrounds the interest of one person ‘FRANK IBEZIM’ at a point I had to look so many times to be sure that the said FRANK IBEZIM was a party to the suit at the trial Court but to my disappointment, he is not and it made me wonder, how well can a person carry the cross of another who does not even care so much to institute the action himself. The said Frank Ibezim could have been joined as a party to at least defend the fight but no he was not, if the action was instituted by another person who is not the Appellant, the Appellant would not have suffered any hardship arising from the litigation, why then the whole fuss about a matter that should not be your business in the first place?
The two ways of determining whether a party has sufficient interest in instituting the suit is:
1. Whether the complainant could have been joined as a party to the suit if some other party commenced the action.
2. Whether the Complainant will suffer some hardship and injury arising from the litigation if some other person instituted the action. See the case of K LINE INC VS. K R INT. (NIG) LTD (1993) 5 NWLR (PART 292) PAGE 159.
A challenge of a Plaintiff’s locus is also a challenge of a Court’s jurisdiction because both the locus standi of a Plaintiff and the jurisdiction of a Court relate to the competence of the court to adjudicate on a suit. If a Plaintiff lacks locus standi, the proper order the Court should make is to strike out the suit. See the case of DOUGLAS VS. DOUGLAS (2001) 11 NWLR (PT. 723) AT PAGE 420.
Having in mind the authorities I have cited and my examination of the affidavit in support of the Amended Originating Summons, the question for determination raised therein, and the reliefs sought, I do not have the mind at all to say that the Appellant had the right to institute the suit leading to this appeal as it seems to me that she was a mere busy body taking up a fight that is not hers in the first place. It is my decision therefore, that the Appellant not having any locus standi, the trial Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the action and determine same. The Suit No: FHC/OW/CS/101/2020 is hereby struck out and the judgment in its entirety is declared a nullity, same having been made without any jurisdiction and thus set aside. This Appeal is hereby Struck Out.
CROSS-APPEAL
By an Originating Summons dated 4th September, 2020 which was further amended and filed on the 28th of September, 2020 by the Appellant as Plaintiff at the trial Court, wherein the following questions were raised thus:
1. Whether the 1st Defendant is bound to accept the result of its Senatorial Primaries for the Imo North Senatorial District as declared by the Chairman of the Electoral Committee Senator Surajudeen Ajinbola Basiru by virtue of the provisions of the guideline for the said election made pursuant to the provisions of the Constitution of the All-Progressives Congress.
2. Whether, the 1st Defendant having lawfully and successfully conducted the party primaries on the 3rd day of September, 2020 and which primaries produced MR. FRANK IBEZIM, as the winner and candidate of the 1st Defendant for the Imo North Senatorial District election have a duty to present the said FRANK IBEZIM to the 2nd Defendant as senatorial candidate of the 1st Defendant for the Imo North Bye Election.
3. Whether the 2nd Defendant is duty bound to accept and present FRANK IBEZIM as Senatorial candidate of the 1st Defendant in the Imo North Senatorial Bye Election.
The Appellant sought for the following reliefs:
1. A declaration that only the Chairman of the Primary Electoral Committee of the All-Progressives Congress as the returning officer for the Imo North Senatorial District Bye Election can validly declare and make return in the said primary election by virtue of the guidelines for the election made pursuant to the Constitution of the All-Progressives Congress.
2. A declaration that the return and declaration of MR FRANK IBEZIM as winner of the Imo North Senatorial Bye Election primaries by Senator Surajudeen Ajibola Basiru, the Chairman of the Electoral Committee for the said primaries as valid.
3. A declaration that the 1st Defendant is bound to accept and present to the 2nd Defendant as its Senatorial District Candidate the name of MR FRANK IBEZIM and no other person having emerged the winner of Imo North Senatorial District Primaries of the 1st Defendant.
4. An Order restraining the 1st Defendant by itself or through whosoever, however named from presenting any person other than MR FRANK IBEZIM who won the primaries, to the 2nd Defendant as candidate of the 1st Defendant for the afore-stated Imo North Senatorial District Election.
5. An order directing the 2nd Defendant not to accept any other name from the 1st Defendant other than MR FRANK IBEZIM who emerged winner in the primaries held on 3rd September, 2020 and thus the 1st Defendant’s candidate for the Imo North Senatorial District Bye-Election.
6. An order directing the 2nd Defendant to present MR FRANK IBEZIM as the 1st Defendant’s candidate to the exclusion of any other person for the Imo North Senatorial District Bye Election to be held on the 31st day of October, 2020.
Before going into the appeal, below is a summary of the facts involved in this Cross appeal:
It is the claim of the Appellant/Cross Respondent that sometimes in 2019, the Senator representing Imo North Senatorial District die and was buries and the 1st Respondent/Cross Appellant immediately decided to conduct primaries amongst its interested members on the 3rd of September, 2020 to elect and choose a candidate for the senatorial election.
The Appellant/Cross Respondent also claimed that the Appellant/Cross Respondent was one of the interested members of the 1st Respondent/Cross Appellant who contested the said primary election on the 3rd September, 2020 and lost but a candidate named Mr. Frank Ibezim was returned for the 1st Respondent/Cross Appellant.
The Appellant/Cross Respondent also claims that the 1st Respondent/Cross Appellant has since delayed the presentation of the winner to the 2nd Respondent/Cross Respondent to the detriment of the Imo North Senatorial District and the Appellant/Cross Respondent. The Appellant/Cross Respondent further claim that except an order is made by the Court, mischievous members of the 1st Respondent/Cross Appellant may forge and return anybody except the winner, Frank Ibezim as candidate of the 1st Respondent/Cross Appellant and that is the reason she filed the suit leading to this appeal.
The Respondents/Cross Respondents as Defendants at the trial Court, each filed a Counter Affidavit to the Amended Originating summons. The Court heard the matter and the parties thereafter adopted their respective affidavits and written addresses and the matter was adjourned to 6th November, 2020 for judgment.
The trial judge, Honourable Justice T. G. Ringim delivered judgment in the Suit No. FHC/OW/CS/101/2020 on the 6th of November, 2020, dismissing the suit and granted the consequential orders as contained in the said judgment.
Dissatisfied with the judgment of the trial Court, the Cross Appellant filed a Notice of Cross appeal on the 13th November, 2020 and comprising of seven (7) grounds of appeal. The Cross Appellant abandoned Ground Two of the Ground of Cross Appeal leaving Grounds 1, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 as the only valid grounds of appeal. Parties in the Cross Appeal before this Court filed and exchanged their respective briefs of argument.
In the Cross Appellant’s brief of argument as settled by his counsel A. I. Nwachukwu Esq., and dated 27th November, 2020 and filed 27th November, 202, the following issues for determination which were distilled from the grounds of appeal are as follows:
1. Whether the suit instituted in the Trial Court was competent. This is formulated from Ground Five and Six of the Grounds of Appeal.
2. Whether the orders made by the Trial Court after the dismissal of the suit which were not sought by the Appellant/Cross Respondent in the originating summons were properly made. This is formulated from Ground One of the Grounds of Appeal.
3. Whether the Trial Court was right in holding that Chukwuma Frank Ibezim and four other aspirants were disqualified from participating in the senatorial Primary bye election of the Cross-Appellant. This is formulated from Ground Four of the Ground of Appeal.
4. Whether the Trial Court was justified in hearing the suit as an originating summons. This is formulated from Ground three of the Grounds of Appeal.
The 2nd Cross Respondent filed its Brief of Argument dated 1st December, 2020 and filed on the same date settled by its Counsel, Obum J. Obumneme Esq.
The following issues for determination which were distilled from the grounds of appeal are as follows:
Whether the 2nd Respondent compliance with the final judgment delivered by the trial Court on the 6th of November, 2020 is not in the interest of justice.
The 3rd Cross-Respondent filed his Brief of Argument dated 1st December, 2020 and filed on the same date as settled by his Counsel E. R. Iremeka Esq. The following issues for determination was raised by the 3rd Cross Respondent thus:
i. Whether the suit instituted in the trial Court was competent. (Ground 5 and 6)
ii. Whether the orders made by the Trial Court after the dismissal of the suit which were sought by the Appellant/Cross Respondent in the originating summons were properly made. (Ground 1).
iii. Whether the trial Court was right in holding that Chukwuma Frank Ibezim and four other aspirants were disqualified from participating in the senatorial primary bye-election of the Cross Appellant? (Ground 4).
iv. Whether the trial Court was justified in hearing the suit as an originating summons? (Ground 3).
The 4th Cross Respondent also filed his Brief of Argument dated 30th November, 2020 and filed on 1st December, 2020 and settled by his Counsel W. A. Olajide Esq. The following issue for determination was raised by the 4th Cross Respondent thus:
Considering the mode with which the suit was commenced and the reliefs claimed therein, whether or not the trial Court was right to have heard the matter and made a consequential order that affects the interest of the third party.
The various issues raised by the respective Counsels were argued in their respective Briefs of Argument. However, for want of time, the argument shall be summarized as I deal with the argument of parties hereon.
RESOLUTION OF THE CROSS – APPEAL
That having been said, I hereby adopt the issues raised by the Cross Appellant thus:
1. Whether the suit instituted in the Trial Court was competent.
2. Whether the orders made by the Trial Court after the dismissal of the suit which were not sought by the Appellant/Cross Respondent in the originating summons were properly made.
3. Whether the Trial Court was right in holding that Chukwuma Frank Ibezim and four other aspirants were disqualified from participating in the senatorial Primary bye election of the Cross-Appellant.
4. Whether the Trial Court was justified in hearing the suit as an originating summons.
ISSUE ONE
Whether the suit instituted in the Trial Court was competent.
The Cross Appellant has argued that the suit instituted at the trial Court was incompetent on the grounds that the Appellant/Cross Respondent who filed same did not have a locus standi to institute the action as there is no allegation in the affidavit in support of the originating summons where the Appellant/Cross Respondent complained of any wrong done to her rather she was fighting the cause of the winner of the bye election, Frank Ibezim and that the Appellant/Cross Respondent did not fulfill the conditions precedent to instituting an action by originating summons in Order 3 Rules 6 and 7 of the Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2019 as the Appellant/Cross Respondent did not claim any personal interest under a deed, will, enactment or other written instrument which is a condition precedent and failure to fulfill makes the suit incompetent.
The 3rd Cross- Respondent on the other hand has argued that the issue of locus standi does not arise from the judgment of the lower Court being appealed against and also that the issue of competence of the suit was not raised at the trial Court.
The 4th Cross Respondent’s Counsel also argued that the Cross Appellant went beyond what is allowed having appealed against the entire judgment and that it is wrong in law because the filing of an appeal does not relieve the Respondent of the task of defending the judgment on appeal.
Before I deal with the issue of locus standi as raised by the Cross Appellant, it has become pertinent that I deal with the argument of the 3rd Cross Respondent that the issue of locus standi does not arise from the judgment of the lower Court and that the issue of competence of suit was not raised at the trial Court and then the argument of the 4th Cross Respondent that the Cross Appellant went beyond what is allowed in law by appealing against the whole judgment.
It is worthy of note here that an issue of competence of a suit is an issue of jurisdiction and being an issue of jurisdiction, it can be raised at anything time even for the 1st time on appeal up to the Supreme Court. See the cases of MIN, WORKS & HOUSING VS. SHITTU (2007) 16 NWLR (PT. 1060) 351, OBASEKI VS. ORUKWO (2007) 17 NWLR (PT. 1062) 138.
Time does not run against a party raising jurisdiction. See the case of OJO VS. INEC (2008) 13 NWLR (PT. 1105) 577. Even the Court can suo motu raise the issue of jurisdiction where the parties neglect to do so. See also the case of NWAKA VS. H.O.S EBONYI STATE (2008) 3 NWLR (PT. 1073) 156.
It is therefore on the above findings that I strongly rest to disregard the argument of the 3rd Cross Respondent in its entirety.
It is also my very strong view that the challenge of the competence of the suit by the Cross-Appellant which is an issue of jurisdiction amounts to a challenge of the entire judgment of the Court whose jurisdiction is being challenged as jurisdiction is the bedrock upon which the Court can hear and determine matters before it.
Once the jurisdiction of a Court is being attacked, then the whole foundation upon which the suit rest from the origination of the suit to judgment becomes shaky. This Court is called at all times to do justice and not suffer injustice on grounds of technicalities and this especially in election related cases where the collective will of the masses are in issue. See the case of NNEJI VS. CHUKWU (1988) 3 NWLR (PT. 81) 184 AT PAGE 209 wherein the Apex Court reiterated thus:
“Technicalities deal with legal forms but not necessarily with substance. The Courts exist to do substantial justice not formal and the technical modes of procedure should be subservient to the dictates of justice. If therefore the observance of any rule will produce an obvious injustice, a Court of justice will naturally prefer justice to the technicalities the rule imposes.”
It is on this note that I disregard the argument of the 3rd Cross Respondent as the said argument cannot be sustained considering my findings above.
Back to the issue of locus standi raised by the Cross Appellant, I hereby adopt all my findings and conclusion and decision made in determining whether the Appellant in the main appeal now the Appellant/Cross Respondent in the Cross Appeal has the locus standi to institute the suit leading to this Cross Appeal and also that I refuse to agree with the argument of both the 3rd and 4th Cross Respondents that the said FRANK IBEZIM who it seemed the Appellant/Cross Respondent was fighting for, is a privy to the suit. In this particular case, the said FRANK IBEZIM cannot be forced to take an action which affects his own interest and peculiar to him just because someone decided to carry his matter and fight his fight. If he wanted to take action on any wrong done to him, he could have instituted an action to take up his fight by himself and there is also no proof that he has induced anyone to fight for him. Therefore, the authorities cited by the 4th Cross Respondent is not applicable in this instance and this Court is not one to act on speculations.
I will also like to add that it is trite that where a Court discovers that it has no jurisdiction to determine a matter, the only option left is to strike out the matter. See INAKOJU VS. ADELEKE (2007) 4 NWLR (PT. 1025) 427, AT 574. It is therefore on this authority that I make a pronouncement striking out the suit leading to this Cross Appeal in its entirety and further order that the judgment given in the said suit is accordingly struck out.
The Cross Appeal therefore succeeds on the strength of issue one. All other issues arising therefore now amounts to nothing.
In the final result, the trial Court acted without jurisdiction and therefore its judgment delivered on the 6th of November, 2020 in Suit No. FHC/OW/CS/101/2020 cannot stand. The judgment is therefore accordingly hereby set aside and the Suit No. FHC/O/CS/101/2020 is hereby struck out for want of jurisdiction. I make no orders as to cost.
UCHECHUKWU ONYEMENAM, J.C.A.: I agree.
JAMILU YAMMAMA TUKUR, J.C.A.: I agree.
Appearances:
E. E. Nwonye Esq, with him, C. A. Eleonu Esq and U. K. Anyanwu Esq For Appellant(s)
A. I. Nwachukwu Esq – for the 1st Respondent/Cross Appellant
O. J. Abumnere Esq with him, O. M. Nwankwo Esq, I. S. Mohammed Esq and V. O. Etta Esq – for the 2nd Respondent/Cross Respondent
K. C. Nwufo, SAN with him, E. R. Iremeka Esq and U. N. Isaac Esq – for the 3rd Respondent/Cross Respondent
W. A. Olajide, Esq with him, E. Nwosu Esq and N. B. Okafor Esq – for the 4th Respondent/Cross Respondent
I. D. Ihearikwa Esq – for the 5th Respondent/Cross Respondent For Respondent(s)