Disable Preloader

CaseLaw

APC V. Nduul & Ors (2017) CLR 5(g) (SC)

Judgement delivered on May 19th 2017

Brief

  • Court processes
  • Ground of appeal raising issue of jurisdiction
  • Service of process
  • Inherent jurisdiction of court
  • Section 167 (d) of the Evidence Act
  • Section 233 (1) of the 1999 Constitution
  • Section 233 (2)(a) of the 1999 Constitution
  • Section 233 (3) of the 1999 Constitution
  • Section 36 of the 1999 Constitution
  • Order 7 Rule 8 of the Court of Appeal Rules 2011
  • Section 5(a) (b) and (c) of the Court of Appeal Practice Direction 2013

Facts

This is an interlocutory appeal against the Ruling of the Court of Appeal, Makurdi Division delivered on the 13th day of April, 2016 granting the 1st respondent prayer to hear the substantive appeal on the 1st respondents (appellant at the Lower Court) on the appellant's brief alone.

FACTS BREIFLY STATED

The 1st respondent as plaintiff instituted the action at the Federal High Court, Makurdi by an originating summons against the appellant and the 2nd and 3rd respondents herein as defendants challenging the nomination or selection of the 2nd respondent by the appellant to contest the primary election of 10/12/2014 of the appellant for the Kwande/Ushongo Federal Constituency, Benue State for the Federal House of Representatives. The challenge was based on the qualification of the 2nd respondent to contest the said election for failure to comply with the Guidelines and Constitution of the appellant and for allegedly presenting false information to the 3rd respondents. This was considered by the 1st respondent as plaintiff as non-compliance with the provisions of the appellant's Constitution and consequently the provisions of the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended).

The trial Court after hearing arguments and considering all the processes filed by all the parties delivered its judgment on 10/12/2015 and dismissed 1st respondent's case as lacking in merit.

Dissatisfied with the said decision the 1st respondent appealed to the Court of Appeal or Lower Court and during the pendency of the said appeal, 1st respondent filed a motion for the Court to order hearing of the substantive appeal on his brief alone as appellant for failure of all the respondents filing their briefs of argument after service on them of the appellant's brief and expiration of 30 days. The Lower Court granted the prayer and aggrieved with the Ruling the now appellant has come before this Court challenging that unfavourable decision.

Issues

Whether the Lower Court had jurisdiction to hear and determine the application filed on the 11/4/2016...

Read More