WHETHER AN EXERCISE TO ELECT THE LEADERS OF A POLITICAL PARTY CAN BE REGARDED AS A PRE-ELECTION MATTER

If you find this case helpful and would like to access more cases like this, please subscribe to LawPavilion PRIME here

CASE TITLE: APC v. UMAR & ORS (2019) LPELR-47296(SC)

JUDGMENT DATE: 8^TH MARCH, 2019

PRACTICE AREA: ELECTORAL MATTERS

LEAD JUDGMENT: AMIRU SANUSI, J.S.C.

SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT:

INTRODUCTION

This appeal borders on Electoral Matters.

FACTS

This is an appeal against the Ruling of the Court of Appeal, Port Harcourt division, delivered on the 12th day of December 2018.

The present respondents as plaintiffs filed Originating Summons on 8th March 2018 before the High Court of Rivers State, Bori division (the trial Court) in Suit No.BHC/78/2018, against the appellant herein, as defendant. The appellant/defendant did not respond to the Originating Summons by filing a counter-affidavit in reply to the averments contained in the affidavit supporting the Originating Summons. In addition, the respondents also filed before the same trial Court an application for an interlocutory injunction against the appellant’s/defendant’s decision to proceed with its arrangement to conduct its congresses in spite of the pendency of the suit before the trial Court which it was fully aware of. The apparent reason for the application for interlocutory injunction filed by the respondents against the defendant/appellant was apparently because the plaintiffs/respondents, being registered members of the defendant/appellant were eligible to take part in the affairs of the appellant and are also entitled to vie for elective offices as member of the executives of the appellant (party) or as delegates of the party as well as for elections into government electives position in Rivers State or in Nigeria in general.

It is also the grouse of the respondents/plaintiffs, that as per the Originating Summons, they paid for nomination forms to participate in the ward congresses of the appellant (party) but they were stopped by the party officials from taking part in the exercise, leading to their being disenfranchised and that it was sequel to that, that they approached the trial Court for redress.

The trial Court took arguments on the interlocutory injunction/application and on the 11th of May, 2018 it delivered its ruling in favour of the plaintiffs/respondents granting all the reliefs sought in the interlocutory injunction application. The trial Court later granted the mandatory injunction subsequently applied for by the respondents when the appellant/defendant failed to file any counter affidavit in opposition to the application for mandatory injunction before the trial Court granted same on 30th May, 2018 nullifying the Ward, Local Government and State Congresses conducted by the appellant on 12th, 19th, 20th and 21st of May, 2018 vide a ruling.

In a considered judgment, delivered by the trial Court on 10th October 2018, the trial Court granted all the reliefs sought in the Originating Summons. Aggrieved by the judgment of the trial Court, the appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal, Port Harcourt division, vide a Notice of Appeal dated 22nd of October, 2018 filed on 23rd October, 2018, albeit, without seeking and obtaining leave of either the trial Court or the Court of Appeal being a consent judgment. The Court of Appeal upon noticing that, struck out that application on 12th December 2018. Sequel to that, the appellant further appealed to the Supreme Court to display its dissatisfaction.

The Respondent filed a Notice of Preliminary Objection in which he challenged the competence of this appeal.

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION

The grounds upon which the preliminary objection was predicated are as follows:

1. Appeal No.CA/PH/461/2018 is a pre-election matter.
2. The said appeal mentioned above is based on the decision of the High Court, Rivers State delivered on 10th October 2018.
3. That the said appeal was filed on 23rd October 2018 without obtaining the leave of the Court below.

4.That the lower Court on 12th December 2018 held that the judgment of the Court on 10th October 2018 which was the subject matter of the appeal is a consent judgment by virtue of Section 241 (2) (c) of the 1999 Constitution.

5. That the said appeal (i.e NO.CA/PH/461/2018) being a pre-election matter ought to have been disposed of within 60days from the date of filing of the appeal.
   6. The 60days stipulated time for hearing and disposal of the appeal had expired since on December 22nd 2018.
6. That appeal No.SC/1333/2018 (i.e this appeal) has become academic as the order of remittal to the Court of Appeal for determination sought cannot be enforced because the Court below is bereft of jurisdiction to hear and determine it since on 22nd December 2018.
7. Finally that this appeal (i.e No.SC/1333/2018 is incompetent and therefore liable to be struck out.

DECISION/HELD

In conclusion, the Supreme Court in a unanimous decision found the preliminary objection to be meritorious hence, the appeal was struck out.

RATIOS:

• ELECTORAL MATTERS- PRE-ELECTION MATTERS: Time limit within which the Court can hear and dispose of an appeal in a pre-election matter; effect of failure thereof
• ELECTORAL MATTERS- PRE-ELECTION MATTERS: Whether an exercise to elect the leaders of a political party can be regarded as a pre-election matter
• PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE- PRELIMINARY OBJECTION: Duty of Court where a preliminary objection is raised against the competence of an action
• PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE- PRELIMINARY OBJECTION: Effect of the success or dismissal of a preliminary objection to the hearing of an appeal