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:
To read the full judgment or similar judgments, subscribe to Prime or Primsol
Introduction The legal profession has always been known for its high standards and unique demands,…
CASE TITLE: UNITY BANK PLC v. ALONGE (2024) LPELR-61898(CA) JUDGMENT DATE: 4TH APRIL, 2024 JUSTICES:…
CASE TITLE: ODIONYE v. FRN (2024) LPELR-62923(CA) JUDGMENT DATE: 5TH SEPTEMBER, 2024 PRACTICE AREA: CRIMINAL LAW…
CASE TITLE: EFFIONG v. MOBIL PRODUCING (NIG.) UNLTD (2024) LPELR-62930(CA)JUDGMENT DATE: 27TH SEPTEMBER, 2024PRACTICE AREA:…
CASE TITLE: ONWUSOR v. STATE (2024) LPELR-63031(CA) JUDGMENT DATE: 12TH NOVEMBER, 2024 PRACTICE AREA: CRIMINAL…
By Femi Falana SAN Introduction Last week, President Bola Tinubu ordered the immediate termination of…