Categories: Be the FIRST to KNOW

Power of Political Party to Substitute/Withdraw its Candidate for Election

CASE TITLE: INEC v. NNPP (2023) LPELR-59789(CA)

JUDGMENT DATE: 22ND FEBRUARY, 2023

PRACTICE AREA: ELECTORAL MATTERS

LEAD JUDGMENT: JAMES GAMBO ABUNDAGA, J.C.A.

SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT:

INTRODUCTION:

This appeal borders on pre-election matters.

FACTS:

This appeal is against the judgment of the Federal High Court, sitting in Abuja in Suit No: FHC/ABJ/CS/2195/2022, delivered on 10th January 2023 by Hon. Justice J. K. Omotosho.

As part of its preparation for the 2023 general election, the Appellant released the timetable and schedule of activities which includes timelines for the conduct of primary elections by registered political parties. The timetable and schedule of activities which was released on 26th February 2022 were issued to all political parties inclusive of the Respondent. The Respondent conducted its primary election and submitted the names of its candidates in various elective positions to the Appellant.

Thereafter, some of the candidates, whose names had already been submitted by the Respondent to the Appellant, voluntarily and willingly withdrew their candidature, and also allegedly tendered their letters of resignation as members of the political party. The case of the Respondent was that it communicated the voluntary withdrawal of the candidates and its intention to conduct fresh primaries in accordance with the Electoral Act, 2022 to the Appellant vide notices served on the Appellant for the conduct of the said primaries on 11th and 16th November 2022, but received no response from the Appellant and therefore proceeded to conduct its primaries in the affected constituencies on 17th November 2022.

Thereafter, it conveyed the list of the new candidates to the Appellant vide a letter dated 23rd November 2022 and received by them on 24th November 2022. However, the Respondent maintained that the list was rejected by the Appellant, which claimed that the withdrawal and substitution were against the law as it failed to comply with the timetable and schedule of activities for the 2023 general elections and the provisions of the Electoral Act, 2022. Meanwhile, the Appellant published the final list of validly nominated candidates for the Presidential and National Assembly on 20th September 2022 and that the Governorship and State Houses of Assembly on 4th October 2022.

The rejection of its list of substituted candidates displeased the Respondent, which was prompted thereby to institute a case at the Federal High Court for redress. The Respondent did so vide an originating summons. At the conclusion of the trial, the trial Court delivered judgment in favour of the Respondent. Aggrieved by the judgment, the Appellant lodged an appeal at the Court of Appeal.

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION:

The appeal was determined on the following issues thus:

“1. Whether the lower Court was not in error when it held that the Respondent’s suit was not statute-barred.

2. Whether the lower Court was not in error when it countenanced the list of candidates submitted by the Respondent to the Appellant on the ground that it was in compliance with the Electoral Act, 2022.”

DECISION/HELD:

In the final analysis, the appeal was dismissed for lacking of merit. Accordingly, the judgment of the Federal High Court was affirmed. Furthermore, the Court of Appeal directed the Appellant to place the names of the candidates that emerged from the fresh primaries conducted on 17th November 2022 on the ballot paper for the 2023 general elections.

RATIOS:

  • ELECTORAL MATTERS – POLITICAL PARTY PRIMARY: Effect of absence of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) at a party primary election which it was duly notified of
  • ELECTORAL MATTERS – SUBSTITUTION OF CANDIDATE: Power of political party to substitute/withdraw its candidate for election; whether the time frame for substitution/withdrawal of candidate for election provided by INEC in its election timetable can supersede the time frame provided under the Electoral Act

ACTION – CAUSE(S) OF ACTION: What determines a cause of action in a suit that is commenced by originating summons 

lawpavilion

Recent Posts

Attorney General’s Consent: A Legal Requirement for Garnishee Proceedings Against the Government?

Introduction The latest decision by the Tax Appeal Tribunal (TAT) on Value Added Tax (VAT)…

3 days ago

5 Ways CaseManager Can Enhance Your Team Performance and Tasks

What is LawPavilion CaseManager Software?Key Features of CaseManager Software:5 Ways CaseManager Can Help Your TeamConclusion…

4 days ago

Whether an Aggrieved Party Must Exhaust All the Remedies Available to Him in Law Before Resorting to Court

CASE TITLE: FADAIRO & ORS v. NASU & ANOR (2024) LPELR-62868(CA) JUDGMENT DATE: 12TH JULY,…

4 days ago

Position of the Law Regarding the Requirement of Consent of the Attorney General Before Garnishee Proceedings Can Lie Against Any Government

CASE TITLE: CBN v. OCHIFE & ORS (2025) LPELR-80220(SC) JUDGMENT DATE: 24TH JANUARY, 2025 PRACTICE…

4 days ago

Application of the Doctrine of Stare Decisis

CASE TITLE:  SUIMING ELECTRICAL LTD v. FRN & ORS (2025) LPELR-80179(SC) JUDGMENT DATE: 29TH JANUARY,…

4 days ago

Whether a Bank is Bound to obey the Mandate of a Customer

CASE TITLE: ETHIOPIAN AIRLINES v. POLARIS BANK LTD & ANOR (2025) LPELR-80188(SC) JUDGMENT DATE: 17TH…

4 days ago