CASE TITLE: APC v. ZAGO & ORS (2023) LPELR-60038(CA)
JUDGMENT DATE: 9TH FEBRUARY, 2023
PRACTICE AREA: ELECTORAL MATTER
LEAD JUDGMENT: BOLOUKUROMO MOSES UGO, J.C.A.
SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT:
INTRODUCTION:
This appeal borders on the jurisdiction of the Court over the internal affairs of a political party.
FACTS:
The 1st respondent commenced an action before the Federal High Court, Kano Judicial Division wherein he sought the following reliefs amongst others:
“1. A Declaration that vide Article 2 of the Constitution of the 3rd Defendant herein, nothing can be done or purported to be done on behalf/for the 3rd Defendant contrary to/in contravention of its Constitution Exhibit Zago A herein.
2. A Declaration that vide Article 2 and 31 (iii) and Article 9, Paragraph 9.2 of Exhibit Zago A, the spirit and guiding principles enshrined in Sections 66 (1) (f), 137 (1) (g) etc of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) (hereinafter referred to as the 1999 Constitution), a person such as the 1st Defendant cannot contest or purport to contest election into the office of Kano State Chairman of the 3rd Defendant while still acting/sitting on the same seat as the substantive or Caretaker Chairman without resignation 30 days to the said Election as enjoined by the said Article 31 (iii) of Exhibit Zago A of the 1999 Constitution.
3. A Declaration that vide Article 2 and 31 (iii) of Exhibit Zago A the act or claim of the 1st Defendant to have contested election into the office of the Kano State Chairman of the 3rd Defendant while still sitting/holding the same office as Acting Kano State Chairman/Caretaker of the 3rd Defendant in Kano State is a violation/Contravention of Exhibit Zago A and the Spirit of 1999 constitution inured in Section 66 (1) (F), 137 (1) (g) etc of the 1999 Constitution.
4. A Declaration that the issuance of a Certificate of Return by the 3rd Defendant to the 1st Defendant as the Chairman of the Kano State Chapter of the 3rd Defendant is a violation and contravention of Article 2 and 31 (iii) of Exhibit Zago A and the 1999 Constitution by reason of which it is null and void.”
In its judgment, the trial Court struck out the originating summons of the 1st Respondent against the Appellant and 2nd – 4th respondents as defendants.
Not satisfied with the decision of the trial Court, the Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal.
However, the 1st Respondent raised a preliminary objection on the ground that the Appellant being the very person in whose favour the decision of the trial Court was given cannot appeal against the same judgment.
ISSUES:
The Court considered the preliminary objection raised and also the merit of the case.
DECISION/HELD:
On the whole, the preliminary objection of the 1st respondent was upheld. Consequent to this, the appeal was struck out.
RATIOS:
- APPEAL – APPEAL AGAINST DECISION/FINDING OF COURT: Whether a successful party can appeal against the decision/judgment made in its favour
- ELECTORAL MATTERS – POLITICAL PARTY: Whether Courts have jurisdiction to intervene in the internal affair of a political party
Login or subscribe via primsol.lawpavilion.com to read the full judgment
