CASE TITLE: OJEZUA v. IGHODALO & ORS (2024) LPELR-62830(CA)
JUDGMENT DATE: 28TH AUGUST, 2024
PRACTICE AREA: ELECTORAL MATTERS
LEAD JUDGMENT: PETER CHUDI OBIORAH, J.C.A.
SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT:
INTRODUCTION:
This appeal borders on Electoral Matters.
FACTS:
This is an appeal against the judgment of the Federal High Court sitting in Abuja, delivered on the 26th day of June, 2024 by Honourable Justice O. A. Egwuatu. The Appellant instituted this suit against the Respondents by way of originating summons filed on 6th March, 2024, whereby he set down the following questions for determination and sought certain reliefs tied to the question, to wit:
1. Whether the 1st Defendant was validly nominated as the candidate of the 2nd Defendant in the forthcoming gubernatorial election of Edo State in the Primary Election held on the 22nd February 2024, having regards to the flagrant breach of the provisions of Section 84(5)(b)(i) and (ii) of the Electoral Act 2022, INEC’s Regulations and Guidelines for the conduct of Political Party Primaries, Article 50(3) of the Constitution of the People’s Democratic Party (as amended in 2017) and Article 8(m) of the People’s Democratic Party guideline for Governorship primary election?
2. Whether the purported nomination of the 1st Defendant as the candidate of the 2nd Defendant for the September 2024 Edo State Gubernatorial Election at the Primary Election held on the 22nd February, 2024, is not invalid, wrongful, illegal and unconstitutional, the same having been (sic) in total contravention of the provisions of Section 84(5)(b)(i) and (ii) of the Electoral Act 2022, INEC Regulations and Guidelines for the conduct of Political Party Primaries, Article 50(3) of the Constitution of the People’s Democratic Party (as amended in 2017) and Article 8(m) of the People’s Democratic Party guideline for Governorship primary election.
3. Whether having regards to the provisions of Section 84(13) of the Electoral Act, 2022 the 3rd Defendant is obligated to accept the purported nomination of the 1st Defendant as the candidate of the 2nd Defendant for the September 2024 Edo State Gubernatorial Election, the 1st Defendant’s purported nomination on the 22nd February 2024, having being (sic) in flagrant violation and in contravention of the provisions of Section 84(5)(b)(i) and (ii) of the Electoral Act 2022, INEC Regulations and Guidelines for the conduct of Political Party Primaries, Article 50(3) of the Constitution of the Peoples Democratic Party (as amended in 2017) Article 8(m) of the Peoples Democratic Party guideline for Governorship Primary Election.
In this suit, the Appellant basically seeking to invalidate the return of the 1st Respondent as the winner of the 2nd Respondent’s Edo State gubernatorial primary election of the Peoples Democratic Party. In opposition to the Appellant’s case, the 1st Respondent and 2nd Respondent respectively filed preliminary objections challenging the jurisdiction of the trial Court to hear and determine the suit on several grounds, including the ground that the Appellant did not exhaust the internal dispute resolution mechanism of the People’s Democratic Party to question or challenge the return of the 1st Respondent as the candidate of the 2nd Respondent before rushing to Court to file this originating summons.
In its judgment delivered on June 26, 2024, the Court upheld the preliminary objections and stated that the Appellant’s suit was premature and struck out the suit without making any pronouncement on its merit.
The Appellant was dissatisfied with the judgment hence this appeal.
ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION:
The appeal was determined on:
“1. Whether, having regard to the totality of the affidavit and documentary evidence placed before the trial Court, the Court was not wrong in holding that the Appellant institution of the suit was premature to warrant the striking out of the suit for want of jurisdiction.
2. Whether the trial Court was NOT WRONG in holding that the Court had a duty to abstain from proceeding further to resolve the merits of the case and to terminate the proceedings before it after finding that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the suit.”
DECISION/HELD:
In the final analysis, the appeal was found unmeritorious and was therefore dismissed.
RATIOS:
- COURT- POWER OF COURT: Instance(s) where the Court of Appeal will not invoke its powers under Section 15 of the Court of Appeal Act to re-hear a pre-election matter
- COURT- DUTY OF COURT- Whether the failure of the Court to pronounce on the merits of a matter warrants the setting aside of the judgment
- ELECTORAL MATTERS- POLITICAL PARTY- Binding nature of party constitution/guidelines on its members; whether an aspirant can exercise a right of action over dispute arising from party primary elections without first exhausting the internal mechanisms
- ELECTORAL MATTERS- PRE-ELECTION MATTERS- Duty of Court to consider and determine substantive issues in pre-election matters on merits even after dismissing same for lack of competence
- ELECTORAL MATTERS- PRE-ELECTION MATTERS- Essence of Section 285(8) of the Constitution to suspend ruling on preliminary objection/ interlocutory issue in election matters till final judgement
- ELECTORAL MATTERS- ELECTION- Importance of time in election matter
To read the full judgment or similar judgments, subscribe to Prime or Primsol
