GAGARAWA & ORS v. PDP & ORS (2022)

GAGARAWA & ORS v. PDP & ORS

(2022)LCN/16710(CA)

In The Court Of Appeal

(KANO JUDICIAL DIVISION)

On Friday, January 14, 2022

CA/KN/39/2021

Before Our Lordships:

Habeeb Adewale Olumuyiwa Abiru Justice of the Court of Appeal

Abubakar Muazu Lamido Justice of the Court of Appeal

Usman Alhaji Musale Justice of the Court of Appeal

Between

1. ALHAJI MUKHTAR IBRAHIM GAGARAWA 2. ALHAJI MUSA ABUBAKAR KAZAURE 3. MALLAM YAHUZA GABARI (FOR THEMSELVES AS LEADERS OF AMINU IBRAHIM LED FACTION OF PEOPLES DEMOCRATIC PARTY OF NIGERIA JIGAWA CHAPTER) APPELANT(S)

And

1. PEOPLES DEMOCRATIC PARTY (PDP) 2. NATIONAL EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE, PDP 3. NATIONAL WORKING COMMITTEE, PDP 4. INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION 5. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, JIGAWA STATE 6. DEPARTMENT OF STATE SERVICES (DSS) 7. NIGERIA SECURITY AND CIVIL DEFENCE CORP. RESPONDENT(S)

RATIO

THE CARDINAL PRINCIPLE OF INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES

It is trite that in interpreting a statute, the Court must consider the words used in order to discover their ordinary meaning, and then give use to their ordinary meaning as they relate to the subject matter – Anya Vs Anya (2020) 9 NWLR (Pt 1729) 411, Citi Bank (Nig) Ltd Vs Ikediashi (2020) 13 NWLR (Pt 1741) 337, Chukwuogor Vs Chukwuogor (2021) 15 NWLR (Pt 1799) 357, Bayero Vs Agundi (2021) 16 NWLR (Pt 1802) 347. It is also elementary that in interpreting a statute, nothing is to be added to or taken from its provisions – Attorney General, Federation Vs Attorney General, Lagos State (2013) 16 NWLR (Pt 1380) 249, Federal Republic of Nigeria Vs Bankole (2014) 11 NWLR (Pt 1418) 337, Elias Vs Federal Republic of Nigeria (2021) 16 NWLR (Pt 1800) 495, N.U.P Vs INEC (2021) 17 NWLR (Pt 1805) 305. PER ABIRU, J.C.A.

THE POSITION OF LAW ON THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT

WHETHER OR NOT A COURT OF LAW CAN ADD TO OR SUBTRACT FROM THE PROVISIONS OF A STATUTE

It is trite that jurisdiction is a hard matter of law that can only be determined in the light of the enabling statute. A Court of law cannot add to or subtract from the provisions of a statute. As a matter of law, a Court must blindly follow and apply the jurisdictional limits and limitations as contained or provided in a statute. In this and other situations, the statute is the master and all that a Court of law can do is to interpret the provisions of a statute to obtain or achieve the clear intentions of the lawmaker. A Court cannot do more than this – Attorney General Federation Vs Abubakar (2008) 16 NWLR (Pt 1112) 135, Elelu-Habeeb Vs Attorney General, Federation (2012) 13 NWLR (Pt 1318) 423, Bot Vs Jos Electricity Distribution Plc supra, Crestar Integrated Natural Resources Ltd Vs The Shell Petroleum Development Company (Nig) Ltd (2021) 16 NWLR (Pt 1800) 453. PER ABIRU, J.C.A.

WHETHER OR NOT IT IS THE CASE OF A PLAINTIFF THAT DETERMINES THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT

The Courts have held that it is the case of the plaintiff as endorsed on the writ of summons and elaborated in the statement of claim or any other originating process that determines the jurisdiction of the Court – Elelu-Habeeb Vs Attorney General, Federation supra, Merill Guaranty Savings & Loans Ltd Vs WorldGate Building Society Ltd (2013) 1 NWLR (Pt 1336) 581, Crestar Integrated Natural Resources Ltd Vs The Shell Petroleum Development Company (Nig) Ltd supra. PER ABIRU, J.C.A.

THE DUTY OF THE COURT WHEN DETERMINING A CASE MADE BY A PARTY

HABEEB ADEWALE OLUMUYIWA ABIRU, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): This appeal is against the judgment of the High Court of Jigawa State delivered in Case No JDU/41/2020 by Honorable Justice Musa Ubale on the 8th of January, 2021. The Appellants were the claimants before the lower Court and they commenced the action by an Originating Summons wherein they presented the following questions for determination:
i. Whether, in view of the provisions of Section 15 of the Peoples Democratic Party Constitution as amended in 2017, Electoral Guidelines 2020 and the documented resolutions of the first Respondent that there was no ward congress held in 2020 in Jigawa State Chapter, there was a Ward Congress in its Jigawa State Chapter and election of Ward Executive Committees and Ward Delegates in the Twenty Seven Local Government Areas of Jigawa State.
ii. If the answer to question one above is in the negative, whether, in view of the failure of the first Respondent to conduct Ward Congress in January 2020 and subsequent scheduled dates and failure to elect Ward Executives in the Twenty Seven Local Government Areas of Jigawa State, it has the power under the provisions of Sections 18 and 25 of the Peoples Democratic Party Constitution as amended in 2017 to conduct Local Government Areas and State Congresses
iii. If the answers to questions one and two above are in the negative, whether the first Respondent’s letter dated 14th December, 2020 with Reference No PDP/DOM/GF.2/VOL.1A/20-2017 scheduling Local Government and State Congresses on the 17th December, 2020 and 20th December, 2020 respectively is not illegal, unconstitutional, null and void and thereby necessitating same being set aside.

Consequent upon the determination of the above questions, the Appellants sought the following reliefs:
i. A declaration that, by virtue of the failure of the first Respondent to conduct valid ward congresses in all the Twenty Seven Local Government Areas of Jigawa State, its failure to conduct all scheduled ward congresses in the State in the Year 2020 and its resolutions to that effect, the first Respondent is in violation of Sections 15, 18 and 25 of the Peoples Democratic Party Constitution as amended in 2017.
ii. A declaration that, by virtue of the failure of the first Respondent to conduct valid ward congresses in all the Twenty Seven Local Government Areas of Jigawa State, its failure to conduct all scheduled ward congresses in the State in the Year 2020 and its resolutions to that effect, the first Respondent has no power under the Peoples Democratic Party Constitution as amended in 2017 to conduct Local Government and State Congresses.
iii. A declaration that the directives of the first Respondent as contained in its letter dated 14th December, 2020 with Reference No PDP/DOM/GF.2/VOL.1A/20-2017 scheduling Local Government and State Congresses on the 17th December, 2020 and 20th December, 2020 is illegal, unconstitutional, null and void.
iv. An order of the Honorable Court setting aside the issuance of and instructions in the first Respondent’s letter dated 14th December, 2020 with Reference No PDP/DOM/GF.2/VOL.1A/20-2017 scheduling Local Government and State Congresses on the 17th December, 2020 and 20th December, 2020 respectively for being illegal, unconstitutional, null and void ab initio.
v. An order of the Honorable Court directing the first Respondent to conduct Ward Congresses in the Twenty Seven Local Government Areas of its Jigawa State Chapter.
vi. An order of perpetual injunction restraining the first Respondent from conducting Local Government and State Congresses in the Twenty Seven Local Government Areas of Jigawa State until valid ward congresses have been held in accordance with the provisions of Section 15 of the Peoples Democratic Party Constitution as amended in 2017 and Electoral Guidelines 2020.

The Originating Summons was supported by an affidavit of seven paragraphs, with several sub-paragraphs, deposed to by the second Appellant and to which was attached several exhibits. It was also supported by a written address. The case of the Appellants in support of their claims was that parallel ward congresses were conducted in the Twenty Seven Local Government Areas of Jigawa State Chapter of the first Respondent by two factions of the Party, inclusive of their own faction led by Aminu Ibrahim, sometimes in March 2020 and consequent on which the Committee of the first Respondent on the Ward Congresses presented a report suggesting to the third Respondent to either order for fresh congresses or broker an acceptable consensus between the two factions, and to be followed by concerted efforts at mending fences and promoting unity among the members. It was their case that, based on the report, the National Organizing Secretary of the first Respondent wrote an internal memorandum to the third Respondent intimating the need to order fresh congresses in Jigawa State and hold a high-powered reconciliation meeting of the factions.

It was the case of the Appellants that by letters dated the 24th of July, 2020, 20th of August, 2020 and 21st of August, 2020 and signed by the National Chairman, the first and second Respondents informed the Chairman of the fourth Respondent of the suspension of the party congresses in five States, including Jigawa, and of the dates for the conduct of the fresh congresses in the five States. It was their case that by an internal memorandum dated 19th of November, 2020 and signed by the National Chairman of the first Respondent, the third Respondent notified the second Respondent of the status of the congresses conducted in twenty-five States, including Jigawa State, and that, subsequently, the third Respondent commenced moves to reconcile the two factions of the Party in Jigawa State.

It was the case of the Appellants that, while the reconciliatory moves were ongoing, the third Respondent addressed a letter dated the 14th of December, 2020 to the fourth Respondent of its plan to conduct Local Government and State Congresses in December, 2020. It was their case that the conduct of the Local Government and the State Congresses without first sorting out the issue of the Executives at the Ward level was a breach of the Constitution of the first Respondent.

The first to the third Respondents filed a counter-affidavit in response and this was supported by a written address of arguments on the Originating Summons. It was their case was that the Ward Congresses of the first Respondent in all the wards in Jigawa State was conducted on the 16th of March, 2020 and that it was witnessed by the officers of the fourth Respondent. It was their case that the Ward Congresses were not at any time cancelled nor was fresh Ward Congresses ordered and that the outcome of the Ward Congresses was approved and ratified by the second Respondent at its 90th meeting held on the 19th of November, 2020. It was their case that it was sequel to the ratification that the first Respondent wrote the letter dated 14th of December, 2020 to the fourth Respondent to intimate it of its desire to conduct Local Government and State Congresses on the 17th of December, 2020 and 20th of December, 2020 respectively. It was their case that the entire complaints of the Appellants and their claims were in respect of the leadership tussle of the first Respondent in Jigawa State.

The first to the third Respondents also filed a notice of preliminary objection challenging the jurisdiction of the lower Court to hear and determine the matter on the ground, amongst others, that the complaints of the Appellants were in respect of intra-party affairs. On their part, the sixth and the seventh Respondents filed separate motions on notice praying that they be struck out from the suit as the claims of the Appellants disclosed no cause of action against them.

Counsel to the parties filed all the necessary processes and arguments on the preliminary objection of the first to the third Respondents and the motions of the sixth Respondent and of the seventh Respondent. The lower Court took arguments on the preliminary objection and the Originating Summons together. The sixth Respondent and the seventh Respondent did not attend Court to move their respective motions and they were deemed abandoned and struck out. The lower Court delivered a considered judgment wherein it upheld the preliminary objection of the first to the third Respondent and held that proceeding further to consider the case of the Appellants on the merit was unhelpful and it dismissed the claims of the Appellants. The lower Court deliberated in the judgment thus:
“I have carefully looked at the Originating Summons of the claimants vis-à-vis the 14 annexures which documents are all addressing the issue of Ward Congress in the 1st Defendant’s Jigawa State Chapter. And upon all the exhibits, i.e. the correspondences, it was averred by the claimants in their affidavit in support of the Originating Summons, paragraph 3(r), that there was a move by the National Working Committee of the 1st Defendant to resolve the discrepancies. This shows that, as rightly submitted by the defendants/Applicants that the issue is purely intra-party issue and the corpus of legal authorities progressively point to the fact that Court cannot and will not interfere in intra-party affairs. It is like a family in a great house. And where issues arise, they settle among themselves without interference from a non-family member. …
I have run through the whole claims and issues for determination, it is clear the whole questions for determination have to do with the domestic affairs of the 1st defendant which is an intra-party affair. It was held in the Olafeso’s case … that the issue of inviting the Courts to make declarations as to the provisions of the PDP Constitution, which provisions regulate the internal working of the party would amount to the Courts prying into the domestic affairs of the party. Any action in whatever form or guise brought by a political party against its members within a party, and which is designed to emasculate the jurisdiction of the Court, being fraught with intraparty issues must be resisted by the Court…
In conclusion therefore, it is my view which I so hold that the matter before me deals with the Congress of the 1st Defendant to choose or elect its leadership in the Ward, Local Government and State levels in Jigawa State which is purely an intra-party dispute and therefore not justiciable. In the circumstances therefore, no further proceedings would help the case as such the matter is hereby dismissed.”

The Appellants were dissatisfied with the judgment of the lower Court and they caused their Counsel to file a notice of appeal dated the 8th of January, 2020 and containing three grounds of appeal against it. In arguing the appeal, Counsel to the Appellants filed a brief of arguments dated the 22nd of March, 2021 on the 23rd of March, 2021. In response, Counsel to the first to the third Respondents filed a notice of preliminary objection dated the 26th of April, 2021 on the 15th of June, 2021 challenging the competence of the appeal, as well as a brief of arguments, encompassing submissions on both the preliminary objection and the substantive appeal, also dated the 26th of April, 2021 on the 15th of June 2021. Counsel to the Appellants filed a reply brief of arguments dated the 29th of June, 2021 and filed the same day. The fourth to the seventh Respondents filed no processes in the appeal. At the hearing of the appeal, Counsel to the Appellants and Counsel to the first to third Respondents relied on and adopted their arguments in their respective briefs of arguments on both the preliminary objection and the substantive appeal.

The Court will commence its deliberations in this appeal with the resolution of the preliminary objection of the first to the third Respondents. By the notice of preliminary objection, the first to the third Respondents prayed the Court to strike out the appeal on the ground that the case of the Appellants in the lower Court was a pre-election matter within the provisions of Section 285(12) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, as amended by the Fourth Alteration, and as such this appeal should have been heard and concluded within a period of sixty days from the date of its filing on the 8th of January, 2020 and that failure to so hear and conclude its hearing within the prescribed sixty days rendered the appeal incompetent and liable to be struck out. Counsel to the first to third Respondents placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of All Progressives Congress Vs Umar (2019) LPELR-47296(SC) in support of the assertion that the action as filed by the Appellants was a pre-election matter which ought to have been heard and determined within sixty days of the appeal being filed.

In their response to the preliminary objection, Counsel to the Appellants stated that the contention of the first to the third Respondents that the case of the Appellants was a pre-election matter was inconsistent with the case canvassed by the first to the third Respondents in the lower Court where they maintained that it was an intra-party dispute. Counsel stated that it is settled law that an appeal is a continuation of hearing of the matter before the lower Court and parties thereto cannot and will not be allowed to make a case on appeal different from that canvassed before the lower Court, except with the leave of Court. Counsel stated that it was too late in the day for the first to the third Respondents to contend that the matter was a pre-election matter.

Counsel stated that, going further, the best way to determine whether the action of the Appellants before the lower Court was a pre-election matter was to consider the case made out on the Originating Summons and in the affidavit in support. Counsel stated it was apparent from these processes that the case of the Appellants was an invitation to the lower Court to interpret some provisions of the Constitution of the first Respondent, a pure civil suit on the leadership of the party in Jigawa State and was not a pre-election matter within the provisions of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, as amended. Counsel stated that the case law authority relied upon by the Counsel to the first to the third Respondents was quoted out of context and he urged the Court to dismiss the preliminary objection.

The Court must say from the outset that the preliminary objection of the first to the third Respondents is totally misconceived, not well-thought out and downright frivolous. The dispute leading up to the commencement of the case in the lower Court arose from the expression of the desire by the first Respondent to conduct Local Government and State Congresses for the election of its party leaders in Jigawa State. The time limits provided for in Section 285(11) and (12) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended by the Fourth Alteration Act No 21 of 2017), and upon which the first to the third Respondents predicated their ground of their objection, are explicitly stated to be applicable to pre-election matters.

Section 285(14) thereof defined a pre-election matter to mean 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 in respect of the selection or nomination of candidates for an election.
b. An aspirant challenging the actions, decisions or activities of the Independent National Electoral Commission in respect of his participation in an election or who complains that the provisions of the Electoral Act or any Act of the National Assembly regulating elections in Nigeria has not been complied with by the Independent National Electoral Commission in respect of the selection or nomination of candidates and participation in an election; and
c. A political party challenging the actions, decisions or activities of the Independent National Electoral Commission disqualifying its candidate from participating in an election or a complaint that the provisions of the Electoral Act or any other applicable law has not been complied with by the Independent National Electoral Commission in respect of the nomination of candidates of political parties for an election, timetable for an election, registration of voters and other activities of the Commission in respect of preparation for an election.

It is trite that in interpreting a statute, the Court must consider the words used in order to discover their ordinary meaning, and then give use to their ordinary meaning as they relate to the subject matter – Anya Vs Anya (2020) 9 NWLR (Pt 1729) 411, Citi Bank (Nig) Ltd Vs Ikediashi (2020) 13 NWLR (Pt 1741) 337, Chukwuogor Vs Chukwuogor (2021) 15 NWLR (Pt 1799) 357, Bayero Vs Agundi (2021) 16 NWLR (Pt 1802) 347. It is also elementary that in interpreting a statute, nothing is to be added to or taken from its provisions – Attorney General, Federation Vs Attorney General, Lagos State (2013) 16 NWLR (Pt 1380) 249, Federal Republic of Nigeria Vs Bankole (2014) 11 NWLR (Pt 1418) 337, Elias Vs Federal Republic of Nigeria (2021) 16 NWLR (Pt 1800) 495, N.U.P Vs INEC (2021) 17 NWLR (Pt 1805) 305.

Applying these principles of interpretation to the wordings of Section 285(14) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended by the Fourth Alteration Act No 21 of 2017), it is obvious that disputes arising from the conduct of Ward Congress, Local Government Congress or State Congress election by a political party do not come with the definition of the pre-election matters referred to and covered by the provisions of Section 285 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended by the Fourth Alteration Act No 21 of 2017). Thus, the time limits provided for in Section 285(11) and (12) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended by the Fourth Alteration Act No 21 of 2017) are not applicable in this matter and do not act to bar the appeal of the Appellants in any way or manner.
This point was made by this Court in the case of Peoples Democratic Party Vs Badaire (2019) LPELR-47063(CA) and it has been reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in the cases of All Progressives Congress Vs Lere (2020) 1 NWLR (Pt 1705) 254, All Progressives Congress Vs Uduji (2020) 2 NWLR (Pt 1709) 541, All Progressives Congress Vs Moses (2021) 14 NWLR (Pt 1796) 278, Aguma Vs All Progressives Congress (2021) 14 NWLR (Pt 1796) 351. The case of All Progressives Congress Vs Umar supra relied upon by Counsel to the first to the third Respondents was considered and departed from by the Supreme Court in the cases of All Progressives Congress Vs Moses supra, Aguma Vs All Progressives Congress supra and it does not represent the present position of the law on the subject.

The preliminary objection of the first to the third Respondents fails and it is hereby dismissed.

In the substantive appeal, Counsel to the Appellants distilled two issues for determination and these were:
i. Whether, considering the facts and circumstances of this case, the lower Court was wrong in declining jurisdiction to hear and determine the Appellants’ suit.
ii. Whether the lower Court, as a Court of first instance was wrong in not considering the Appellants’ suit on the merits.

Counsel to the first to the third Respondents conceded the two issues for determination as formulated by Counsel to the Appellants. This Court agrees with the two issues for determination and shall resolve them seriatim.

Issue One
Whether considering the facts and circumstances of this case, the lower Court was wrong in declining jurisdiction to hear and determine the Appellants’ suit.

In arguing the first issue for determination, Counsel to the Appellants answered the question posed in the issue for determination in the negative. Counsel stated that the gravamen of the case of the Appellants in the lower Court was that the decision of the first to the third Respondents to conduct Local Government and State Congresses elections without conduct of conclusive Ward Congress elections was in breach of the provisions of the Constitution of the first Respondent. Counsel stated that the case presented by the Appellants disclosed a justiciable cause of action and he referred to the case of Yalaju-Amaye Vs Associated Registered Engineering Contractors (1990) LPELR-3511(SC) in defining the meaning and essence of Constitution of a registered association.

Counsel stated that the intent of making the Constitution of the first Respondent was to ensure that the conduct of its members and the operation of the party follow certain laid down agreed democratic principles to achieve fairness, equity, tranquility and transparency in the party and that it is what protects the members of the party from the arbitrariness of its leaders. Counsel stated that the focus of the case of the Appellants was leadership of the first Respondent at the ward level in Jigawa State and that the first to the third Respondents cannot breach the Constitution of the first Respondent without any redress being available to the objects of their actions. Counsel referred to and quoted from the case of PDP Vs Sherrif (2017) LPELR-42736(SC) in asserting that the Constitution of a party is supreme and its supremacy must be upheld even by the Court.

Counsel stated that political parties in Nigeria are not meant to operate like a lawless society with no respect for the provisions of their Constitution and that where they fail to adhere strictly to the provisions of their Constitution, just as the Courts have jurisdiction to consider claims on breaches of provisions of Articles of Association of a company, they have jurisdiction to determine matters bordering on breaches of the party Constitution and he referred to the cases of Lau Vs PDP (2017) LPELR-42800(SC) and APC Vs Karfi (2018) 6 NWLR (Pt 1616) 479. Counsel stated that since the case of the Appellants as contained in the originating processes were about breaches of the Constitution of the first Respondent, it fell squarely within the jurisdiction of the lower Court and that the lower Court was thus in error and it occasioned a miscarriage of justice when it described the Appellants’ case as bordering on intra-party issues over which it had no jurisdiction to hear and determine.

Counsel thereafter traversed through the case of the Appellants on the Originating Summons to buttress his arguments and he urged this Court to assume jurisdiction to hear and determine the claims of the Appellants as a Court of first instance in line with its inherent powers enshrined in Section 16 of the Court of Appeal Act. Counsel requested the Court to resolve the first issue for determination in favour of the Appellants.

In his response arguments, Counsel to the first to the third Respondents eulogized on the importance of a Court having jurisdiction to hear and determine a matter and he reiterated that it is the case as conveyed in the originating processes of a claimant that determines the jurisdiction of a Court and he referred to some case law authorities. Counsel reproduced the reliefs sought on the Originating Summons before the lower Court and stated that it was deducible therefrom that the complaints of the Appellants were on the organizing and conducting of first Respondent’s Congresses to select its party leaders in Jigawa State. Counsel stated that the complaints are purely on matters within the domestic affairs of the first Respondent and that it amounted to an intra-party dispute and which by law is not justiciable and he referred to the cases of Onuoha Vs Okafor (1983) 14 NSCC 494, Dalhatu Vs Turaki (2003) 15 NWLR (Pt 843) 310, Olafeso Vs Ogundipe (2018) LPELR-44305(CA), Peoples Democratic Party Vs Ogundipe (2018) LPELR-43887(CA).

Counsel further referred to and quoted extensively from cases of Ufomba Vs INEC (2017) LPELR-42079(SC) and PDP Vs Badaire (2020) All FWLR (Pt 1024) 170 on the non-justiciability of leadership tussles within political parties and stated that the Appellants concede that their complaints are on leadership tussle within the first Respondent in Jigawa State. Counsel stated that it was irrelevant that the complaints of the Appellants raised the issue of breach of the Constitution of the first Respondent and that a holistic look at the case of the Appellants shows that it was predicated on holding of Congresses to choose the Ward, Local Government and State leaders of the first Respondent in Jigawa State. Counsel stated that the lower Court was correct in declining to hear the case of the Appellants and he urged the Court to resolve the issue for determination in favour of the first to the third Respondents.

The question arising for resolution under the first issue for determination is whether the lower Court possessed the requisite jurisdiction to hear and determine the case presented to it by the Appellants.

Jurisdiction is the authority which a Court has to decide matters that are litigated before it or take cognizance of matters presented in a formal way for its decision. It is the power of the Court to decide a matter in controversy and presupposes the existence of a duly constituted Court with control over the subject matter and the parties. Jurisdiction defines the power of Courts to inquire into facts, apply the law, make decisions and declare judgment. It is the legal right by which Judges exercise their authority – Abacha Vs Federal Republic of Nigeria (2014) 6 NWLR (Pt 1402) 43, Nyame Vs Federal Republic of Nigeria (2021) 6 NWLR (Pt 1772) 289, Statoil (Nig) Ltd Vs Inducon (Nig) Ltd (2021) 1 NWLR (Pt 1774) 1, National Union of Road Transport Workers Vs Mahe (2021) 13 NWLR (Pt 1793) 276, Muyideen Vs Nigerian Bar Association (2021) 13 NWLR (Pt 1794) 393. It is the blood, life wire, bedrock and foundation of adjudication and without it the labourers therein, that is both the litigants and counsel on the one hand and the Judge on the other hand, labour in vain – Attorney General of Lagos State Vs Dosunmu (1989) 3 NWLR (Pt 111) 552, Securities and Exchange Commission Vs Ifegwu (2021) 8 NWLR (Pt 1778) 326, Ihim Vs Muduagwu (2021) 5 NWLR (Pt 1770) 584, Bot Vs Jos Electricity Distribution Plc (2021) 15 NWLR (Pt 1798) 53.

It is trite that jurisdiction is a hard matter of law that can only be determined in the light of the enabling statute. A Court of law cannot add to or subtract from the provisions of a statute. As a matter of law, a Court must blindly follow and apply the jurisdictional limits and limitations as contained or provided in a statute. In this and other situations, the statute is the master and all that a Court of law can do is to interpret the provisions of a statute to obtain or achieve the clear intentions of the lawmaker. A Court cannot do more than this – Attorney General Federation Vs Abubakar (2008) 16 NWLR (Pt 1112) 135, Elelu-Habeeb Vs Attorney General, Federation (2012) 13 NWLR (Pt 1318) 423, Bot Vs Jos Electricity Distribution Plc supra, Crestar Integrated Natural Resources Ltd Vs The Shell Petroleum Development Company (Nig) Ltd (2021) 16 NWLR (Pt 1800) 453.

The Courts have held that it is the case of the plaintiff as endorsed on the writ of summons and elaborated in the statement of claim or any other originating process that determines the jurisdiction of the Court – Elelu-Habeeb Vs Attorney General, Federation supra, Merill Guaranty Savings & Loans Ltd Vs WorldGate Building Society Ltd (2013) 1 NWLR (Pt 1336) 581, Crestar Integrated Natural Resources Ltd Vs The Shell Petroleum Development Company (Nig) Ltd supra.

It is trite law that in determining the case made by a party, a Court must read all the paragraphs of the pleadings of the party together to get a flowing story of the party and not a few paragraphs in isolation and it is the totality of the pleadings that states the case of the party – Okochi Vs Animkwoi (2003) 18 NWLR (Pt 851) 1 and Mobil Oil Plc Vs Drexel Energy and Natural Resources Ltd (2004) 1 NWLR (Pt 853) 142.

Reading the Originating Summons and its accompanying processes and documents together, it is clear that the dispute leading up to this case arose from the conduct of Ward Congress elections to choose the leaders of the Peoples Democratic Party, the first Respondent, in all the Wards in Jigawa State, and which elections the Appellants said were inconclusive, and the subsequent decision of the first to third Respondents to conduct Local Government and State Congresses elections in Jigawa State. It is clear from the originating processes that the entire action is in respect of a leadership tussle between two factions of the first Respondent in Jigawa State. The Appellants, by their own description, represent a fraction of the Peoples Democratic Party in Jigawa State and their Counsel conceded that the matter was indeed on a leadership tussle.

The lower Court was thus correct when it classified the complaints of the Appellants as matters pertaining to an intra-party dispute of the first Respondent.

An intra-party dispute has been defined as a dispute between members of a political party inter-se or between a member or members, on the one hand, against the political party, on the other hand – Peoples Democratic Party Vs Kwara State Independent Electoral Commission (2006) 3 NWLR (Pt 968) 565, Kalgo Vs Faruk (2008) LPELR 4495(CA), Labour Party Vs Oyatoro (2016) LPELR 40135(CA), Dahiru Vs All Progressives Congress (2017) 4 NWLR (Pt 1555) 218, Peoples Democratic Party Vs Badaire (2020) All FWLR (Pt 1024) 170.

The complaints of the Appellants in their originating processes come squarely within this definition.

The position of the law on the jurisdiction of the Courts to hear and determine complaints on matters pertaining to intra-party disputes of political party has been set and settled by the Supreme Court. In the case of Peoples Democratic Party Vs Badaire supra, this Court, relying on several decisions of the Supreme Court, reiterated this position of the law thus:
“The law, as a general rule, is that an intra – party matter is entirely within the party’s internal affairs, exclusively and completely outside the province or competence of Courts or Tribunals – Bakam Vs Abubakar (1991) 6 NWLR (Pt 199) 564, Abdulkadir Vs Mamman (2003) 14 NWLR (Pt 839) 1, Jang Vs INEC (2004) 12 NWLR (Pt 886) 46, Amaechi Vs INEC (2007) 9 NWLR (Pt 1040) 504, Ugwu Vs Ararume (2007) 12 NWLR (Pt 1048) 367 at 499 500, Pam Vs All Nigeria Peoples Party (2008) 4 NWLR (Pt 1077) 224, Ehinlanwo Vs Oke (2008) 16 NWLR (Pt 1113) 357, Nobis-Elendu Vs INEC (2015) 16 NWLR (Pt 1485) 197, Shinkafi Vs Yari (2016) 7 NWLR (Pt 1511) 340. An exception provided by statute to this general rule is contained in Section 87 (9) of the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended) and which reads:
‘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 selection or nomination of a candidate of a political party for election, may apply to the Federal High Court or the High Court of a State or FCT, for redress.
This provision has been interpreted as by the Courts to invest both the Federal High Court and the State High Court with jurisdiction to entertain complaints regarding the selection or nomination of a candidate of a political party for election – Salim Vs Congress for Progressive Change (2013) 6 NWLR (Pt 1351) 501, Gassol Vs Tutare (2013) 14 NWLR (Pt 1374) 225, Ahmed Vs Ahmed (2013) 15 NWLR (Pt 1377) 274. It is however, a very narrow and limited jurisdiction which has not derogated from the non-justiciability of a political party’s wide discretionary powers of choosing one of its members for the elective office – Adedayo Vs Peoples Democratic Party (2013) 17 NWLR (Pt 1382) 1, Wushishi Vs Imam (2017) 18 NWLR (Pt 1597) 175, Peoples Democratic Party Vs Ezeonwuka (2018) 3 NWLR (Pt 1606) 187, Maihaja Vs Gaidam (2018) 4 NWLR (Pt 1610) 454 and Angadi Vs Peoples Democratic Party (2018) 15 NWLR (Pt 1641) 1.
… the Courts are unanimous that to come within the limited jurisdiction conferred by Section 87(9) of the Electoral Act. The subject matter of the dispute must relate to the selection or nomination of a candidate for election by a political party and the complaint must be in respect of non-compliance with the provisions of Electoral Act and the Guidelines of a political party, the Federal High Court and the State High Court have no jurisdiction to entertain any other subject matter or complaint under the provisions of the section – Agi Vs Peoples Democratic Party (2017) 17 NWLR (Pt 1595) 386, Wushishi Vs Imam supra, Peoples Democratic Party Vs Ezeonwuka supra, Angadi Vs Peoples Democratic Party supra, Nduul Vs Wayo (2018) 16 NWLR (Pt 1646) 548. Thus, the Courts have stated that the conditions precedent for bringing an action under Section 87 (9) of the Electoral Act are (i) there must first have been a primary for the selection or nomination of a candidate by a political party; (ii) the exercise for the primary must have been in respect of an election; (iii) the complainant must be an aspirant who took part or ought to have taken part in his political party’s primaries and it must be shown that the political party did not comply with a provision of Electoral Act and/or its Guidelines for the nomination or selection done – Ikedife Vs APGA (2014) LPELR 22921(CA), Ukachukwu Vs Peoples Democratic Party (2014) 17 NWLR (Pt 1435) 134, Maihaja Vs Gaidam supra, All Progressives Congress Vs Karfi (2018) 6 NWLR (Pt 1616) 479 and Ugwuegede Vs Asadu (2018) 10 NWLR (Pt 1628) 460.
Dovetailing from the above, the Courts have held that disputes arising from leadership tussles or election of executive members of a political party do not come within the subject matter quotient of the jurisdiction of the Courts under Section 87(9) of the Electoral Act – Abdulkadir Vs Mamman supra, Umeh Vs Okwu (2014) LPELR 24063(CA), Maduemezia Vs Uwaje (2015) LPELR 24542(CA), Ufomba Vs INEC (2017) 13 NWLR (Pt 1582) 175, Olafeso Vs Ogundipe (2018) LPELR 44305(CA), Peoples Democratic Party Vs Ogundipe (2018) LPELR 43887(CA).”
This position of the law has not changed and it was reiterated by this Court in the cases of Ukut Vs All Progressives Congress (2019) LPELR-47203(CA), All Progressives Congress Vs Okpo (2020) LPELR-49766(CA), Peoples Democratic Party Vs All Progressives Congress (2020) 9 NWLR (Pt 1730) 425 and by the Supreme Court in the cases of Eze Vs Peoples Democratic Party (2019) 1 NWLR (Pt 1652) 1, All Progressives Congress Vs Moses (2021) 14 NWLR (Pt 1796) 278, Aguma Vs All Progressives Congress (2021) 14 NWLR (Pt 1796) 351. It is irrelevant that the complaints include breach of Constitution of the political party. In Jegede Vs Independent National Electoral Commission (2021) 14 NWLR (Pt 1797) 409 the Supreme Court at pages 562-563G-E put it thus:
“Courts have no jurisdiction over the internal affairs of a political party, except where a statute expressly gives a Court jurisdiction to deal with any internal affair of a political party. The practice of the Court is not to run associations (corporations or unincorporated associations) for the members. It leaves the members to run their association. In this case, the 2nd respondent, a registered political party being a voluntary organization, the questions of who should hold offices in it, whether it can appoint its member to hold office in acting capacity or authorize a member to exercise powers of an office in it and whether it has violated its own Constitution by appointing a member to hold a particular office in it or to discharge the functions of that office, cannot be entertained by any Court. Those questions deal with the internal administration of the internal affairs of the political party. Those are non-justiciable questions.”

The case presented by the Appellants was clearly outside the purview of the jurisdiction vested in the lower Court. The finding of the lower Court that the complaints of the Appellants were non-justiciable, and consequent on which it declined jurisdiction to hear and determine them, was correct and it is unimpeachable. The first issue for determination is resolved in favour of the first to the third Respondents.

Issue Two
Whether the lower Court, as a Court of first instance was wrong in not considering the Appellants’ suit on the merits.

In arguing the second issue for determination, Counsel to the Appellants answered the question posed in the issue for determination in the positive and he traversed through the highlights of the case of the Appellants before the lower Court and stated that it is settled law that a Court, especially if it a Court of first instance, had a duty to adjudicate on all the issues raised before it and he referred to the cases Olasanya Vs Olasanya (1983) 1 SCNLR 139 and Ajuwon Vs Akanni (1993) 5 NWLR (Pt 316) 182. Counsel stated that the lower Court had a duty to evaluate all the oral and documentary evidence presented to it by the parties and to come to decision thereon and that the failure of the lower Court to do so amounted to a breach of the Appellants right to fair hearing as enshrined in the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and he referred to the cases of Tar Vs Ministry of Commerce and Industry (2019) All FWLR (Pt 1002) 893, Brawal Shipping Limited Vs F.I. Onwadike Co Ltd (2000) FWLR (Pt 23) 1254, Dingyadi Vs INEC (No. 1) (2010) All FWLR (Pt. 550) 1204.

Counsel referred to several cases including Zenith Plastic Industries Ltd Vs Samotech (2018) LPELR-44056(CA) and Adeyinka Vs Agbakwuru (2019) LPELR-46824(CA) on the meaning and essence of the doctrine of fair hearing. Counsel stated that the failure of the lower Court to hear and determine the substantive claims of the Appellants amounted to failure of the lower Court to hear or give the Appellants an opportunity to be heard on the claims. Counsel urged the Court to resolve the second issue for determination in favour of the Appellants.

Counsel to the first to the third Respondents conceded that the lower Court, being a Court of first instance, ought to have proceeded to consider and determine the substantive suit of the Appellants, even after finding that it had no jurisdiction to entertain the claim, in case it turns out on appeal that it was wrong on the issue of jurisdiction and he referred to the case of PDP Vs Badaire supra. Counsel stated that, however, failure of the lower Court to so consider the substantive claims of the Appellants did not amount to denial of fair hearing as the Appellants failed to show the miscarriage of justice occasioned to them by the failure and he referred to the case of Mekwunye Vs Lotus Capital Limited (2018) LPELR-45546(CA).

Counsel stated that the Appellants cannot complain of miscarriage of justice as their Originating Summons before the lower Court was not supported by a competent affidavit in that the persons alleged to have supplied the information deposed therein to the deponent were not in a position to possess such information and that an originating summons not supported by a competent affidavit is itself incompetent and he referred to the case of Keyamo Vs House of Assembly, Lagos State (2003) All FWLR (Pt 146) 925. Counsel stated that it was a requirement of the evidence Act that an informant of a deponent to an affidavit can only pass information within his personal knowledge, otherwise the entire deposition will amount to hearsay evidence, which is inadmissible and he referred to the cases of UBA Ltd Vs SGB Ltd (1996) 10 NWLR (Pt 478) 381, Permanent Secretary, Bureau for Local Government & Chieftaincy Affairs Vs Bologi (Nig) Ltd (2017) LPELR-42989(CA). Counsel thereafter proceeded to canvass arguments on the merits of the substantive case before the lower Court and he concluded by urging the Court to resolve the second issue for determination in favour of the first to third Respondents.

Now, one of the most firmly established principles of judging and judgment writing is that it is incumbent on a lower Court in the judicial hierarchy to resolve all the issues for determination raised or submitted by the parties for adjudication and not select one or some of the issues and decide the case thereon. The rationale for this is so that if it turns out on a further challenge that its findings on the selected issue or issues are wrong, the higher Court will not be faced with a dilemma of whether to remit the case to the lower Court for determination of the other issues it neglected to resolve or to take over the functions of the lower Court and determine the outstanding issues on the merits; a situation which creates the possibility of inadequate justice occurring, a possibility that should not have a place in the administration of justice system. Where the lower Court resolves all the issues, the higher Court will only have to contend with determining the correctness of its findings on the other issues – Brawal Shipping Nig. Ltd Vs F. I. Onwadike Co Ltd (2000) 6 SCNJ 508 at 522, Ovunwo Vs Woko (2011) 17 NWLR (Pt 1277) 522, Iwunze Vs Federal Republic of Nigeria (2013) 1 NWLR (Pt 1334) 119 and University of Calabar Vs Akintunde (2013) 3 NWLR (Pt 1340) 1, Honeywell Flour Mills Vs Ecobank Nigeria Ltd (2018) LPELR 45127(SC), Onwe Vs State (2018) 5 NWLR (Pt 1612) 217.
It is irrelevant that the issue resolved by the lower Court was on jurisdiction, it must still go further to resolve the other issues raised and canvassed by the parties – Arewa Paper Converters Ltd Vs NDIC (Nigeria Universal Trust Bank Ltd) (2006) 7 SCNJ 457, Stowe Vs Ben-Stowe (2012) 9 NWLR (Pt 1306) 450, Sarki Vs All Progressive Congress (2020) 1 NWLR (Pt 1706) 515 at 546C-F. This was the directive of the Supreme Court in National Union of Road Transport Workers Vs Road Transport Employers Association of Nigeria (2012) 10 NWLR (Pt 1307) 170 when it stated that the Court of Appeal, being the penultimate Court in our judicial system, when confronted with the issue of jurisdiction should decide the issue one way or the other and then proceed to determine the main appeal thereby affording the Supreme Court the benefit of its opinion. In Okonji Vs Njokanma (1991) 7 NWLR (Pt. 202) 131 at 150 G-H, the Supreme Court, per Uwais, JSC, explained the matter thus:
“It is the duty of the Court, whether of first instance or appellate to consider all the issues that have been joined by parties and raised before it for determination. If the Court fails to do so without a valid reason, then it has certainly failed in its duty, for in our judicial system, it is a fundamental principle of administration of justice that every Court has a duty to hear, determine and resolve such question.”
The rule is however not absolute. It admits exceptions, i.e. situations where, after resolving a determinant issue in a matter, a lower Court need not proceed to resolve other issues in the matter. These are: (i) where the issue resolved is one of breach of right of fair hearing, which renders the entire proceedings a nullity, the Court need not proceed to resolve the other issues – Idakwo Vs Ejiga (2002) 13 NWLR (Pt 783) 156, Orugbo Vs Una (2002) 16 NWLR (Pt 792) 175, C. N. Okpala & Sons Ltd Vs Nigerian Breweries Plc (2018) 9 NWLR (Pt 1623) 16; (ii) where the lower Court is restricted by statute from going forth to determine the other issues; (iii) where an intermediate Court finds that the lower Court acted without jurisdiction, it should not proceed to pronounce on the merit of the issues argued if the same issues would still arise at the fresh hearing of the case by the same lower Court or by a Court of coordinate jurisdiction– Sanusi Vs Ameyogun (1992) 4 NWLR (Pt 237) 527 at 550-551. Tiga Green Farms Agricultural (Nig) Ltd Vs Mitsui O. S. K. Lines Ltd (2005) 17 NWLR (Pt 953) 70 at 86-87 and Five Star Industry Ltd Vs Bank of Industry Ltd (2017) LPELR 44029(CA); and (iv) where the issue resolved by the lower Court is one of jurisdiction and it is on a ground which has been settled beyond peradventure by the Supreme Court and on which the Supreme Court has been unanimously resolute, such that the resolution of the other issues will amount to an academic exercise –KLM Royal Dutch Airlines Vs Toba (2014) LPELR-23993(CA).
The issue of non-justiciability of complaints pertaining to the internal affairs of a political party, an intra-party dispute, resolved by the lower Court in this case is one that has been set and settled by a long line of decisions of this Court and of the Supreme Court, without any deviation. The present position of the law on the point is so assured that the question, whether the Courts have jurisdiction to hear and determine matters pertaining to intra-party dispute of a political party, will be answered with mathematical certainty. Thus, though it is desirable for a Court that is not the final one in the judicial hierarchy to proceed with the hearing of the substantive suit after making a finding of lack of jurisdiction, it is stretching it too far, in the circumstances of this case, to say that failure to do so amounts to a breach of the Appellants’ right to fair hearing.

On the facts of the case, a consideration of the substantive claims of the Appellants would have amounted to an academic exercise and it is settled law that Courts do not engage in such exercises – Virgin Atlantic Airways Vs Amaran (2021) 12 NWLR (Pt 1789) 91, Peoples Democratic Party Vs Jarigbe (2021) 14 NWLR (Pt 1796) 239.
The deliberations by the lower Court on the substantive claims of the Appellants would have made no difference to the outcome of the case. The law is that where the issue not resolved by a Court is not crucial and it is merely theoretical and of no practical utilitarian value such that its determination makes no practical or tangible addition to the outcome of the matter or to the decision of the lower Court, pronouncing on it is an exercise in futility and failure to do so cannot have any effect on the decision of the Court – Agbakoba Vs Independent National Electoral Commission (2008) 18 NWLR (Pt 1119) 489, Independent National Electoral Commission Vs Atuma (2013) LPELR-20589(SC), Lawson Vs Okoronkwo (2019) 3 NWLR (Pt 1658) 66, Moses Vs Giadom (2021) 14 NWLR (Pt 1796) 329.

The submissions of Counsel to the Appellants on the second issue for determination are thus totally misconceived. The second issue for determination is resolved in favour of the first to the third Respondents.

This case should never have come to Court. It is obvious that it was commenced by the Counsel to the Appellants for the sole purpose of profiting from the greed and desperation of the Appellants to have the first to the third Respondents decide the controversy over the Ward Congress elections in favour of their faction of the first Respondent in Jigawa State. There was no viable cause of action. The appeal is devoid of any merit and it is hereby dismissed. The judgment of the High Court of Jigawa State delivered in Case No JDU/41/2020 by Honorable Justice Musa Ubale on the 8th of January, 2021 dismissing the claims of the Appellants is affirmed. The first to the third Respondents are awarded the cost of this nonsensical appeal assessed at N500,000.00. These shall be the orders of the Court.

ABUBAKAR MU’AZU LAMIDO, J.C.A.: I have had the privilege of reading in draft the judgment delivered by my learned brother HABEEB ADEWALE OLUMUYIWA ABIRU, JCA and I am in complete agreement with the reasoning and conclusion reached therein. The appeal is without merit and it is accordingly dismissed. I abide by all other consequential orders as contained in the lead judgment.

USMAN ALHAJI MUSALE, J.C.A.: I had the benefit of reading in draft the lead judgment delivered by my learned brother, HABEEB ADEWALE. O. ABIRU, JCA. I am in agreement with the reasoning and conclusions reached. The appeal is also dismissed by me and I abide by the consequential orders made therein.

Appearances:

Ibrahim Aliyu Nassarawa, with him, Adekunle Taiye Falola, Muhammamed Yakubu and Halima Kabir Sulaiman For Appellant(s)

Sule Umar, with him, A. G. Wakil – for 1st – 3rd Respondents
No appearance for the 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th Respondents For Respondent(s)