Whether A Dispute Arising from Political Party Congress Conducted to Elect Executive Members of the Party Is a Pre-Election Matter

CASE TITLE: STATE WORKING COMMITTEE PDP NASARAWA STATE v. ONAWO & ORS (2025) LPELR-81122(CA)
JUDGMENT DATE: 5TH MAY, 2025
PRACTICE AREA: ELECTION
LEAD JUDGMENT: BIOBELE ABRAHAM GEORGEWILL, J.C.A.

SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT:

INTRODUCTION:

This appeal borders on Electoral Matters.

FACTS:

This is an interlocutory appeal against the ruling of the High Court of Nasarawa State, Doma Division [trial Court], presided over by Abudulahi H. Shams Shama J.

On the one hand, according to the Claimants/1st – 16th Respondents, they are registered members of the 17th Respondent and had written a letter to the Acting National Chairman of the 17th Respondent, wherein they complained against the plan by the Appellant together with the 17th – 18th Respondents to deny them their right to participate in the Congresses of the 17th Respondent in Nasarawa State. The Appellant together with the 17th – 18th Respondents did not resolve the complaint of the 1st – 16th Respondents. Faced with no other option, the 1st – 16th Respondents commenced an action before the trial Court, against the Appellant and the 17th – 18th Respondents.

On 26/9/2024, the trial Court granted an order of interim injunction restraining the Appellant together with the 17th – 18th Respondents from conducting the 17th Respondent’s Congresses in Nasarawa State on 28/9/2024 or on any other date. The suit was then adjourned to 3/10/2024 for the hearing of the Motion on Notice for Interlocutory Injunction. However, the Appellant and the 17th – 18th Respondents proceeded with the conduct of the Local Government Congress of the 17th Respondent in Nasarawa State, and on 3/10/2024, the trial Court extended the lifespan of the Order of Interim Injunction in the presence of Counsel for the 17th Respondent and then adjourned the suit to 8/10/2024 for the pending application.

On the other hand, according to the Appellant, the 1st to 13th Respondents, who had no business in the Suit before the trial Court, had connived with the 15th Respondent, the only aspirant that purchased the Nomination Form for and participated in the Nasarawa State PDP Congress, to file the Suit before the trial Court, wherein they obtained an Interim Injunction stopping the holding of the Congress. In response, the Appellant filed a Motion on Notice to set aside the Interim Orders stopping the holding of the Congresses. The Appellant also filed a Notice of Preliminary Objection challenging the jurisdiction of the trial Court. However, upon the expiration of the Exparte Order of Interim Injunction, the 17th Respondent conducted its Nationwide Congresses, including that of Nasarawa State.

The trial Court was informed of the pendency of the Appellant’s Notice of Preliminary Objection, as well as Motion on Notice to set aside its earlier Orders of Interim Injunction but it rather than proceed to hear the Appellant’s Notice of Preliminary Objection and Motion to set aside its earlier Orders of Interim Injunction proceeded with the hearing of the 1st – 16th Respondents’ Motion to set aside the 17th Respondent’s Congresses, hence this Appeal.

The trial Court proceeded to adjourn all the pending applications, including the Appellant’s Notice of preliminary objection challenging the competence of the 1st – 16th Respondent’s suit and the jurisdiction of the trial Court to entertain the 1st – 16th Respondents’ suit.

Dissatisfied, the appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal.

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION:

The Court adopted the issues formulated by the Appellant, viz:

1. Whether the lower Court has jurisdiction to entertain, hear, and determine Suit No. NSD/LF89/2024 between Sen. Mohammed Onawo & Ors. v. The Peoples Democratic Party & Ors being purely an intra-party issue bordering on congress and/or leadership of a Political party?

2. Whether the lower Court breached the Appellant’s right to a fair hearing when it proceeded to hear the 1st – 16th Respondents’ application to set aside the congresses of the 17th Respondent without allowing the Appellant to file its counter-affidavit and written address?

3. Whether the lower Court acted outside its jurisdiction when it heard the 1st – 16th Respondents’ motions to set aside the congresses of the 17th Respondent without hearing the Appellant’s pending Applications to set aside the Court’s Orders and Form 48 being first heard and determined?

DECISION/HELD:

In conclusion, the Court allowed the appeal.

RATIOS:         

• ACTION- COMPETENCE OF AN ACTION/A SUIT: Effect of an incompetent action
• COURT- JURISDICTION: Importance of Jurisdiction; conditions that must be satisfied before a Court is competent to exercise its jurisdiction in respect of any matter
• COURT- JURISDICTION: What confers jurisdiction on a Court
• ELECTORAL MATTERS- POLITICAL PARTY: Whether Courts have jurisdiction to intervene in the internal affair of a political party
• ELECTORAL MATTERS- INTRA-PARTY DISPUTE(S): What is an intra-party dispute
• ELECTORAL MATTERS- PRE-ELECTION MATTERS: Whether a dispute arising from political party congress conducted to elect executive members of the party is a pre-election matter
• PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE- ABUSE OF COURT/JUDICIAL PROCESS(ES): What constitutes an abuse of Court process; effect/consequence of same
• PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE- PRELIMINARY OBJECTION: Whether a preliminary objection should be considered and determined first before dealing with the merits of an appeal

To read the full judgment or similar judgments, subscribe to Prime or Primsol