APC v. SANI & ORS
(2022)LCN/16244(CA)
In the Court of Appeal
(SOKOTO JUDICIAL DIVISION)
On Thursday, July 28, 2022
CA/S/100/2022
Before Our Lordships:
Chidi Nwaoma Uwa Justice of the Court of Appeal
Elfrieda Oluwayemisi Williams-Dawodu Justice of the Court of Appeal
Abba Bello Mohammed Justice of the Court of Appeal
Between
ALL PROGRESSIVES CONGRESS APPELANT(S)
And
1. HON. MAINASARA ABUBAKAR SANI 2. ALH. RABIU IBRAHIM 3. ENGR AMINU GANDA (On Behalf of Themselves & Other Members of The State, Local Government Areas and Ward Executives Of APC In Sokoto State) 4. HON. ISA SADIQ ACIDA 5. HON. HASSAN BELLO 6. ABUBAKAR MOH’D YABO (For Themselves & Other Members That Purportedly Emerged from The Wards, Local Government and State Congresses of APC In Sokoto State) 7. INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION (INEC) RESPONDENT(S)
RATIO
THE MEANING OF “PRE-ELECTION MATTER”
Section 285 (14) (a) of the 1999 Constitution which was one of the laws upon which the Court made its finding states thus:
“285 (14) For the purpose of this section, “pre-election matter”
Means any suit by –
(a) an aspirant who complains that any of the provisions of the Electoral Act or any Act of the National Assembly regulating the conduct of primaries of political parties and the provisions of the guidelines of a political party for conduct of party primaries has not been complied with by a political party in respect of the selection or nomination of candidates for an election.” PER WILLIAMS-DAWODU, J.C.A.
ELFRIEDA OLUWAYEMISI WILLIAMS-DAWODU, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): This appeal emanated from the judgment of the Federal High Court, Sokoto in Suit No. FHC/S/CS/14/2022 delivered on May 19th, 2022 by Hon. Justice J. K. Omotosho wherein amongst others, the preliminary objection raised by the Appellant (1st Defendant at the Court below) which challenged the jurisdiction of the Court was overruled.
At the Court below, the 1st to 3rd Respondents who were the Plaintiffs instituted the said Suit as card carrying members of the All Progressives Congress (APC) Sokoto State Chapter, claimed that they were the newly elected State Chairman, Deputy Chairman and State Secretary at the Appellant’s Congress which took place at Five Star Ginginya Hotel Sokoto on 16th October, 2021 and the election was conducted by a 7 man Appellant’s electoral Committee chaired by one Senator Usman Jibrin Wowo.
On the other hand, the Appellant asserted that it was the 7 man Electoral Committee under the Chairmanship of Suleiman Abubakar (Iyan Akko) that was appointed to conduct the State Congress which it did on October 16th, 2021 at the Sokoto State Secretariat along Sultan Abubakar Road Sokoto. The Appellant for that reason disowned the Committee under Senator Usman Jibrin Wowo and the election of the 1st to 3rd Respondents.
In consequence, the Appellant did not recognize the 1st to 3rd Respondents as duly elected for the offices of the State Chairman, State Deputy Chairman and Secretary and instead recognized and sworn in the 4th Respondent as the Appellant’s State Chairman.
According to the 1st and 3rd Respondents, it was at the point of being sworn in that they were denied as the Appellant changed position and swore in the 4th to 6th Respondents as the State Chairman, State Deputy Chairman and Secretary instead.
Being aggrieved, the 1st to 3rd Respondents on April 8th, 2022, filed their said Suit vide an Originating Summons against which the Appellant as aforesaid raised a preliminary objection challenging the competence of the action and the jurisdiction of the Court below. The Court overruled the objection and dismissed the case of the 1st to 3rd Respondents as barred by Statute.
Dissatisfied with the decision, the Appellant has appealed against the part of the Court’s decision which overruled its objection. The Appellant’s Notice and Two (2) Grounds of Appeal are dated and filed May 31st, 2022 and seek the following reliefs in the main:
“i. An order allowing the appeal of the Appellant on the issue of lack of jurisdiction of the trial Court to entertain the originating summons filed before it.
ii. An order setting aside that part of the decision of the trial Court which held that it has the requisite jurisdiction to entertain the originating summons in Suit No. FHC/S/CS/14/2022 as constituted before it.
iii. An order striking out the originating summons in Suit No. FHC/S/CS/14/2022 initiated before the trial Court on ground of lack of jurisdiction of the trial Court to have entertained the action.
At the Court below, the 1st to 3rd Respondents sought the following reliefs in the main:
1. A declaration that the decision of the 1st Defendant made on the 4th April, 2022, to unilaterally change and substitute the name (sic) of the Plaintiffs who emerged from the Congress election organized and conducted by the 7-man Electoral Committee constituted by the leadership of the All Progressives Congress (APC) and who returned the Plaintiffs as the duly elected State Executives Committee in accordance with the provision of the Constitution of the All Progressives Congress (APC), is unlawful.
2. A declaration that by the interpretation of Section 223 (1) (a) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), Section 82 (3) of the Electoral Act, 2022 and Article 20 of the Constitution of the All Progressives Congress (APC), the Congress election organized and conducted by the 7-man electoral Committee constituted by the leadership of the All Progressives Congress (APC) and monitored by the 5th Defendant, that produced the Plaintiffs and others as the duly elected State Executives Committee of the 1st Defendant in Sokoto State is valid and cannot be jettisoned or discountenanced pursuant to the decision of the party made on the 4th of April, 2022.
3. A declaration that the 1st Defendant cannot recognize and/or inaugurate any other person who did not emerge from the Congress election that was organized and conducted by the 7-Man Electoral Committee constituted by the leadership of the All Progressives Congress (APC) and monitored by the 5th Defendant.
4. A declaration that the purported report cosigned by persons who are not members of the 7-Man Electoral Committee constituted by the leadership of the All Progressives Congress (APC) to conduct the State Congress in Sokoto State is invalid and cannot be recognized by the 1st and 5th Defendants.
5. An order directing the All Progressives Congress (APC) to give and ascribe due recognition to the Plaintiffs as the duly elected State Executive Committee of APC in Sokoto State having emerged elected from the Congress election organized and conducted by the 7-Man Electoral Committee constituted by the leadership of the All Progressives Congress (APC) and monitored by the 5th Defendant.
6. An order of perpetual injunction restraining 2nd, 3rd & 4th Defendants from acting or parading themselves as the State Chairman, Deputy Chairman and Secretary or the State Executive Committee of the All Progressives Congress (APC), Sokoto State.
In compliance with the Rules of this Court the parties filed and exchanged their briefs. Mr. N. N. Anaka Esq., settled the brief on behalf of the Appellant, which was dated and filed July 18th, 2022 and deemed as properly filed and served on July 22nd, 2022. He urged at the hearing that the Appellant’s appeal be allowed. The brief of the 1st to 3rd Respondents dated and filed July 21st, 2022, deemed as properly filed and served on July 22nd, 2022, settled by Abubakar N. Ahmad was argued by the learned Silk, Nureni Jimoh, who urged that the appeal be dismissed. The 7th Respondent’s brief dated July 23rd, 2022 and filed July 24th, 2022 was argued by Abdulaziz Sani SAN who also urged that the appeal be dismissed.
It is necessary to note that the 4th, 5th and 6th Respondents did not file any brief and therefore had nothing to urge on the Court.
NOTICE OF PRELIMINARY OBJECTION BY THE 1ST TO 3RD RESPONDENTS
The 1st to 3rd Respondents raised preliminary objection challenging the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain the instant appeal on the grounds that it is academic, lacks utilitarian value and is of no benefit, did not flow from the decision of the Court and for being incompetent. The Appellant’s Reply to the objection is dated and filed July 24th 2022.
In the main the thrust of the objection is that it is academic and has no utilitarian value, more so as the Appellant would derive no tangible benefit there from. Further that it is a rehash of the argument at the Court below and the Appellant failed to show what substantial wrong was occasioned and to be heard on appeal. In response, the Appellant asserted that it is an aggrieved litigant with an automatic right of appeal and that the jurisdictional issue which was overruled is crucial to adjudication even at the appellate level. That it is of no consequence that the matter was found to be unmeritorious at the end of the day.
I have very carefully considered the arguments for and against the objection and having so carefully done, I proceed thus; one appreciates greatly when consideration is given to the much needed judicial time to ensure that every matter is thoroughly considered and determined given the heavy docket all over, of the Court of Appeal of Nigeria. Indeed, the need for economy of time cuts across all stakeholders in the administration of justice delivery and for that reason, it is incumbent particularly on the legal practitioners as Ministers in the Temple of Justice to ensure that judicial time is economically utilized not only in the aspect of preliminary objections but also with institution of suits generally. Being an objection on jurisdiction, the objection is hereby overruled as jurisdictional issue may be raised at any stage.
Appellate Courts are urged generally to ensure as much as possible and within their jurisdiction to conclude matters on their merit and avoid sending back to the Court below in order to assist in saving and restoring time that might already have been lost all in pursuit of doing substantial justice to all the parties. It is in that vein that I shall proceed to consider this appeal on its merit as it involves the vexed issue of jurisdiction.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PARTIES
APPELLANT’S LONE ISSUE
“Whether the Court below had the requisite jurisdiction to entertain Suit No. FHC/S/CS/14/2022 instituted before it by the 1st -3rd respondents against the appellant and 4 others regard being had to the cause of action constituted in the matter.”
Mr. Anaka, learned Appellant’s Counsel submitted that the cause of the action complained about by the 1st to 3rd Respondents in their Originating Summons is the issue of political party leadership in the State Executive Committee within Sokoto State Chapter of the Appellant and referred to paragraphs 12-15, 17-18, 33 and 36 of the 1st Respondent’s affidavit in support as well as reliefs 2, 5 and 6 sought in the Originating Summons. The contention by the 1st to 3rd Respondents is that they are the persons duly elected as Sokoto State Executive Committee Officers and not the 4th – 6th Respondents. The foregoing being the issue, he submitted that the cause of action is not justiceable as it is an internal affair of the Appellant and in support cited the cases of IBRAHIM V. GAYE 2002 13 NWLR PT. 784 267, ALL PROGRESSIVES CONGRESS (APC) V. MOSES 2021 14 NWLR PT. 1796 278 and JEGEDE V. INEC 2021 4 NWLR PT. 1797 409. He argued that the Court was wrong to have placed reliance on the case of APC V. UMAR 2019 NWLR PT. 1675 564, Section 285 (14) (a) of the 1999 Constitution as amended which defines a “pre-election matter” and Section 82 (3) of the Electoral Act, 2022. He argued further that the facts and circumstances in the case of APC V. UMAR supra are radically different from those of the instant appeal. And that no ground could be found in law for the Court below to have assumed jurisdiction in the Suit by the 1st to 3rd Respondents. In conclusion therefore urged this Court to resolve the lone issue in favour of the Appellant allow the appeal and set aside that part of the decision which held that the Court is vested with jurisdiction to determine the Suit and to strike out the Originating Summons.
1ST TO 3RD RESPONDENTS’ SUBMISSION
The 1st to 3rd Respondents submitted the following lone issue:
“Whether the trial Court rightly dismissed the preliminary objection filed by the Appellant.”
The learned Silk, Mr. Nureni Jimoh, submitted for the 1st to 3rd Respondents that in some appropriate cases the Court has the power to entertain suits on the internal affairs of a political party and in support cited the cases of UGWU V. ARARUME 2007 12 NWLR PT. 1048 367, ODEDO V. INEC 2008 17 NWLR PT. 1117 554 and AMAECHI V. INEC 2008 5 NWLR PT. 1080 227. That claims against the nomination of members or leaders of the political party is not justiceable and the jurisdiction of the Courts would be ousted. However, a case involving substitution of democratically elected party executives as the instant, the Court can rightly intervene to protect internal party democracy and prevent arbitrariness he contended. In support, he referred to Section 82 (3) of the Electoral Act, 2022 and the cases of NGUROJE & ORS V. EL- SUDI 2012 LPELR-20865 P.79 and AJIGA & ORS V. OLANREWAJU 2015 LPELR-40919 P.21-22. And that the decision of the apex Court in the case of APC V. UMAR supra is most applicable as the instant case is one of pre-election. Further that Section 285 (14) (c) of the 1999 Constitution and reliefs 1, 2 and 3 of the principal reliefs sought by the 1st to 3rd Respondents attest to the pre-election nature of the Suit. In conclusion, he urged that the appeal be dismissed.
7TH RESPONDENT’S SUBMISSION
The 7th Respondent adopted the lone issue distilled by the Appellant herein.
Mr. Abdulaziz Sani, the learned Silk for the 7th Respondent submitted that the Courts can interfere when political parties fail to comply with their constitution and guidelines to ensure that justice is done to the aggrieved party members and cited in support the cases of OMAJALI V. DAVID 2019 17 NWLR PT. 1702 438, AMAECHI V. INEC 2007 18 NWLR PT. 1065 170 and MATO V. HEMBER 2018 5 NWLR PT. 1612 295 where the apex Court emphasized the duty of the 7th Respondent to ensure that political parties comply with the provision of the Electoral Act and their respective constitutions. He asserted that the 7th Respondent carried out its statutory role creditably such that the Court made reference to it in its decision. He submitted based on the case of APC V. UMAR supra that the 1st to 3rd Respondents’ Suit is justiceable, of pre-election nature and cited the cases of MAKANJUOLA V. IGP 2020 13 NWLR PT. 1741 301, APC V. UDUJI 2020 2 NWLR PT. 1709 541 and GARBA V. APC 2020 2 NWLR PT. 1708 345 amongst others. Therefore he submitted that compliance was compulsory with the provision of Section 285 (9) of the 1999 Constitution as amended and cited the cases of APC V. LERE supra, BELLO V. YUSUF 2019 15 NWLR PT.1695 250 and SALIM V. CPC 2013 6 NWLR PT. 1351 501. In conclusion, the learned Silk urged that the appeal be dismissed as the Court was on sound footing in its judgment.
THE POSITION OF THE COURT
I have very carefully and calmly read through all the processes filed and the Record in respect of this appeal before this Court. Having so very carefully done I proceed thus to consider the singular issue by the Appellant which is hereunder reproduced for ease of reference:
SOLE ISSUE
“Whether the Court below had the requisite jurisdiction to entertain Suit No. FHC/S/CS/14/2022 instituted before it by the 1st – 3rd respondents against the appellant and 4 others regard being had to the cause of action constituted in the matter.”
The Court below stated the grouse of the 1st to 3rd Respondents thus on page 318 of the Record:
“The grouse of the Plaintiffs is that the 1st Defendant did not comply with its guidelines and Electoral Act when it allegedly substituted and changed the names of the Plaintiffs for the names of the 2nd – 4th Defendants as the duly elected executive members of the Sokoto State Chapter of the 1st Defendant.”
The Court in its wisdom concluded that with the facts deposed to, the 1st to 3rd Respondents’ Suit could be entertained under Section 285 (14) (a) of 1999 Constitution and found strength in that position in the case of APC V. UMAR supra. See page 319 of the Record. It therefore in the overall, concluded as follows on page 320 of the Record:
“Consequently, this suit is not an internal affairs of the party, thus the Court will assume jurisdiction over this suit.”
Having so concluded it assumed jurisdiction, considered the Suit in the light of a pre-election matter and found that it was barred by statute because it was filed outside the statutory fourteen (14) days to file notice of appeal in pre-election matters. It therefore held thus on page 323 of the Record:
“This suit being a pre-election matter is caught by the statute of limitation and has no room to wriggle out. The Plaintiffs slept on their right and will reap the consequences of their action.”
As aforesaid, the Appellant’s complaint is that the cause of action in respect of the Suit filed by the 1st to 3rd Respondents is not justiceable as it is an internal affair of the Appellant, being one on the leadership in the Appellant’s State Executive Committee within Sokoto State Chapter.
Section 285 (14) (a) of the 1999 Constitution which was one of the laws upon which the Court made its finding states thus:
“285 (14) For the purpose of this section, “pre-election matter”
Means any suit by –
(a) an aspirant who complains that any of the provisions of the Electoral Act or any Act of the National Assembly regulating the conduct of primaries of political parties and the provisions of the guidelines of a political party for conduct of party primaries has not been complied with by a political party in respect of the selection or nomination of candidates for an election.”
As already stated, the grievance of the 1st to 3rd Respondents was based on the alleged non-recognition of their successful congress election conducted in the Giginya Hotel Sokoto on October 16th, 2021 which produced them as winners and the Appellant’s failure to swear them into the respective party leadership positions as contained in paragraphs 12 to 18 on pages 11-13 of the Record.
In my view and humbly, the foregoing facts remove the case of the 1st to 3rd Respondents from the application of Section 285 (14) (a) of the 1999 Constitution as amended which involves pre-election matters. The thrust of the aforesaid Section 285 (14) (a) is in respect of the conduct of party primaries which according to Section 84 of the Electoral Act as amended is different from the issue of vying for and filling executive party leadership offices or positions as complained about in the instant appeal. See Section 152 of the Electoral Act as amended.
The position of the trial Court to the effect that the case herein falls within pre-election matters as contained in the Record was fortified by the case of APC V. UMAR Supra as opposed to the case of APC. V. Moses supra. In my considered view and humbly, the case of A.P.C. V. MOSES supra instead applies herein. Therein at page 284 the Apex Court instructively described what is meant by “pre-election matter” in Section 285 (14) (c) (a) of the 1999 Constitution thus:
“speaks of aspirants, who complain about the conduct of party primaries in respect of the selection or nomination of candidates for an election, aspirants, who challenge actions, decisions or activities of INEC, in respect of their participation in an election and political parties that challenge actions, decisions or activities of INEC, in respect of nominations of candidates for an election, timetable for an election, registration of voters and other activities in respect of preparation for an election.
This definition does not admit of congresses that may or may not one day lead to an election. In Suit No. PH/4634/2019, filed by the first set of respondents, they did not claim to be aspirants complaining about the conduct of any primaries or challenging actions, decisions or activities of INEC. They challenged guidelines issued for the conduct of Congresses…”
From the foregoing, respectfully in my view, it is clear that the Suit by the 1st and 3rd Respondents cannot in any way be likened to what transpired in the A.P.C. V. UMAR’s case. The Congress or Congresses in issue herein as there were two (2) conducted which clearly can be seen in the Record, were not in any way said to be geared to or linked towards elections. They were simply as can be seen from the Record for the occupation of party leadership positions simpliciter. See Exhibit H, the Report of Committee on the Sokoto Congress held on October 16th, 2021 pages 63 -71 and all the paragraphs in support of the 1st to 3rd Respondents’ Originating Summons particularly paragraphs 18, 20 and 21 on pages 12 and 13 of the Record. In my respectful view and humbly, that the Congresses were for the forthcoming Elections in 2023 as mentioned by the trial Court, could not be readily seen neither was it so mentioned except read into the case or so assumed. Therefore as most instructively explained by the Apex Court in the case of A.P.C. V. MOSES supra, the issues in the instant appeal fall outside Section 285 (14) (a) of the 1999 Constitution and therefore not pre-election matter as opposed to what was held at the Court below. See the case of EMMANUEL SOLOMON & ANOR V. PEOPLES DEMOCRATIC PARTY (PDP) & ANOR. APPEAL NO. CA/ABJ/CV/658/2020, Judgment delivered on 29th Day of September, 2020.
It is pertinent to note that the reliefs being sought by the Appellant herein specifically relief no. ii is unclear and would appear in my view and humbly to be approbating and reprobating the position of the Appellant.
In the result, this appeal is hereby allowed. The Originating Summons in Suit No. FHC/S/CS/14/2022 by the 1st to 3rd Respondents is hereby struck out as incompetent for the reasons aforestated. Parties are to bear their respective costs.
CHIDI NWAOMA UWA, J.C.A.: I had read a draft of the leading judgment just delivered by my learned brother, ELFRIEDA OLUWAYEMISI WILLIAMS-DAWODU, JCA. I agree with the reasoning and conclusions contained therein and I adopt same as mine. Accordingly, I also strike out the Originating Summons in Suit No. FHC/S/CS/14/2022 for lack of jurisdiction. I abide by the order made as to cost.
ABBA BELLO MOHAMMED, J.C.A.: I had the privilege of reading the draft of the leading judgment just delivered by my learned brother, ELFRIEDA OLUWAYEMISI WILLIAMS-DAWODU, JCA. I agree entirely with His Lordship’s reasoning and conclusions, and I adopt all as mine. Accordingly, I also strike out the Originating Summons in Suit No. FHC/S/CS/14/2022 for being incompetent and for lack of jurisdiction.
Appearances:
Mr. N. N. Anaka, For Appellant(s)
Mr. Nureni Jimoh, SAN, with him, Emmanuel Dike, Oluwole Adaja, Abubaka N. Ahmad, Hajarat Gbolagade, and D. T. Sati- Amobi, – for 1st to 3rd Respondent
Mr. Ishaka M. Dikko, SAN, with him, Mr. Sadiq E. L, Yakub Ibrahim and Mr. Umar Usman Kolos, – for 4th to 5th Respondent
Mr. Adeola Adedipe, with him, Mr. B. M. Jodi, Mr. Oladimeji Ekengba, Mr. Edwin C. Muokwudo, and Mr. F. M. M. Jodi, – for 6th Respondent.
Mr. Abdulziz Sani, SAN, with him, Ms. Esther, T. Agbge, and Mr. Hassan Aminu, – for 7th Respondent For Respondent(s)
