CaseLaw
Ikechukwu Vs. Nwoye (2014) CLR 12(d) (SC)
Judgement delivered on December 19th 12014
Brief
Facts
Sometime in early January, 2011, soon after the conduct of the PDP primaries for nomination of the party's flag-bearers in 2011 general elections in Anambra State, a dispute arose as to which list of candidates INEC should use as the PDP list of candidates for the election.
The 1st respondent and other aspirants in that primaries in a representative action submitted the dispute for resolution in Suit No.FHC/AWK/05/2011; between: Prince Nicholas Ukachukwu v. INEC. The 1st respondent and some others sought for and were granted an interim order to stop INEC from accepting any competing list of PDP candidates for the election, pending the determination of the substantive Suit. It is noteworthy however that the said Suit No.FHC/AWK/CS/05/2011 was still pending and had not resolved the dispute as to who was the lawful candidate of PDP for the election and no pronouncements on the merits of the case, when the Judicial Review proceedings, this time, by way of mandamus to compel INEC to accord him the rights, privileges and entitlements due to lawful candidate of PDP for the same election. May it be noted that the first action which was pending was also an application for Judicial Review which, like the present Judicial Review application for mandamus, is triable upon affidavit evidence. Furthermore, the 1st respondent, in formulating the present Suit entangled or "weaved" same around the first application for Judicial Review which had not been determined and which had not resolved the question of who was the lawful candidate of PDP for the said election.
The 1st respondent relied heavily on the interim order made in Suit No.FHC/AWK/CS/05/2011, when it was obvious that the said order were just to maintain the status quo, and (it would appear) did not create any rights to enable the 1st respondent sustain a claim for mandamus.
Meanwhile, the name of the appellant herein, had been published by INEC (2nd respondent herein) as the PDP candidate, prior to the institution of the suit from which this appeal arose; and the appellant contested, won and was declared the winner of the election, held on 26th April, 2011. Again, shortly after the declaration of the said election result, it dawned on the 1st respondent that, for him to challenge the victory of the appellant at the polls and invalidate the return thereto, the 1st respondent, sought to initiate an Election Petition against the appellant. On account of this he filed an Election Petition No. EPT/AN/NAE/HR/17/2011 at the Election Tribunal then sitting at Awka with the clear intention of having himself declared as the lawful candidate of PDP for the April 2011 Anambra East/West Federal Constituency election. It is to be noted that the 1st respondent for the first time brought into his litigation the appellant, wherein he PDP for the subject election. The reliefs sought are found on page 365 of the record, particularly reliefs 3 and 5. Essentially, in this petition, like in his application for mandamus he was praying for an order of court to accord him all rights, privileges and entitlements due to the candidate of PDP having been nominated and sponsored as such.
However, in the course of proceedings at the Election Tribunal the petition was dismissed as abandoned. This dismissal was affirmed by the Court of Appeal in its judgment delivered on 19/9/2011 in Appeal No. CA/E/EPT/36/2011.
The intriguing aspect of this case is that the 1st respondent was prosecuting the petition and in one fell swoop pursuing the proceedings in the application for mandamus, and when he finally lost at the Election Tribunal, he fell back on the application for mandamus. Here he got through the back door what the court of appeal had refused him in his agitation to be declared the lawful candidate of PDP for the election, and his bid to be issued with a certificate of return. But on 13/7/2012 (which is about 10 months) after the judgment of the court of Appeal, the Federal High Court sitting on mandamus application, declared the 1st respondent as the lawful candidate of the election and ordered INEC to accord him the rights, privileges and entitlements of a candidate.
The appellant who was dissatisfied with the decision of the Federal High Court, appealed to the Court of Appeal on the 27th March, 2013. The Court of Appeal affirmed the decision of the Federal High Court in favour of the 1st respondent.
It is against the said decisions of the court below, that this appeal has been filed by the appellant