CASE TITLE: LABOUR PARTY & ORS v. OKO & ANOR (2022) LPELR-58649(CA)
JUDGMENT DATE: 30TH SEPTEMBER, 2022
PRACTICE AREA: ELECTORAL MATTERS
LEAD JUDGMENT: JOSEPH EYO EKANEM, J.C.A.
SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT:
INTRODUCTION
This appeal borders on Electoral Matters.
FACTS
This appeal is against the judgment of the Federal High Court, holden at Abakaliki delivered on 3/8/2022 by F.O. Riman, J.
The plaintiff/1st Respondent instituted an action against the Appellants and 2nd Respondent at the trial Court, seeking amongst other reliefs, a declaration that the purported withdrawal of the Plaintiff as the validly nominated gubernatorial candidate of the 1st Defendant in Ebonyi State for the 2023 general elections and the purported substitution of the Plaintiff with any other person as the gubernatorial candidate of Labour Party in Ebonyi State for the 2023 general election, is unlawful and a gross violation of the provisions of Section 31 and 35 of the Electoral Act 2022, a declaration that the appointment of the 4th Defendant as the state Chairman of Labour Party in Ebonyi State by the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants is a violation of Articles 7 and 17(iii) of the Labour Party Constitution (as amended 2019) and the Plaintiff’s appointment letter dated 25/05/2022.
The originating processes were served on the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Appellants on 22/7/2022 at the National Secretariat of the 1st Appellant, by delivery to one Ositadinma Chidinma, a secretary. The 4th Appellant was served on 28/7/2022 by substituted means, based on the order of the trial Court. The Appellants did not file any process in response. The matter was adjourned to 4/8/2022 for a hearing. It however came up at the trial Court on 2/8/2022 for hearing in the absence of counsel for the 1st-4th Appellants though the 4th Appellant attended Court on that date. The 1st – 3rd Appellants were not in Court, though they were served with a hearing notice on 1/8/2022. The trial Court heard the matter on 2/8/2022 and delivered judgment on the following day. Judgment was entered in favour of the 1st Respondent. Aggrieved, the Appellants lodged an appeal at the Court of Appeal.
ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION
The appeal was determined on the following issues thus:
“(1) Whether the proceedings of 2nd August 2022 and the judgment therefrom dated 3rd August 2022 are not liable to be set aside, the appellants having been denied their right to fair hearing in all the circumstances?
(2) Whether the Court below had jurisdiction to entertain the issue of who becomes the state caretaker committee chairman of the 1st appellant, a political party and the pre-emptive nomination issue submitted by the 1st respondent which is outside the limited window for judicial intervention under Section 84(14) of the Electoral Act 2022?
(3) Whether the Court below was right to grant the reliefs sought in the originating summons and make the consequential order in all the circumstances of the case?”
DECISION/HELD
In the final analysis, the appeal succeeded and was allowed. Consequently, the judgment of the trial Court was set aside.
RATIOS:
- ELECTORAL MATTERS – JURISDICTION: Whether Courts have jurisdiction to interfere in the internal affair of a party as regards its choice of candidate for political office; exceptions to the same
- ELECTORAL MATTERS – SUBSTITUTION OF CANDIDATE: Position of the law as regards the substitution of candidates by a political party
- PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – SERVICE OF COURT PROCESS(ES): How to effect service of Court process(es); whether there can be a waiver of the requirement of personal service
- PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – SERVICE OF COURT PROCESS(ES): Instance where a party will not be deemed to have waived his right to challenge proper service of originating summons on him
I really learnt a lot