Compulaw - 1st Indigenous Digital Law Library

Brief

High Court of the FCT, Abuja
Territorial Jurisdiction
Court – Where deemed competent
Stare decisis
Forum Shopping
Section 87 of the Electoral Act 2010
Section 87(a) of the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended)
Section 87(9) of the Electoral Act 2010
Section 2(2) of the 1999 Constitutiont
Section 270(1) of the 1999 Constitution
Section 299 of the 1999 Constitution
Section 299 (a) of the 1999 Constitution
Section 257(1) of the 1999 Constitution
Section 9 of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory Act
Section 299 of the 1999 Constitution
Section 255(1) of the 1999 Constitution
Order 9 Rule 4(1) of the High Court of Federal Capital Territory (Civil Procedure) Rules 2004
Order 22 Rule 5 of the High Court of Federal Capital Territory (Civil Procedure) Rules 2004

Facts

The Appellant contested with the 1st Respondent in the primary election for the nomination of the candidate to be sponsored by the 2nd Respondent herein, the All Progressives Congress (APC), to contest for the House of Representatives seat. The APC primary election for the election of the APC candidate for the Gombe/Kwami/Funakaye South Federal Constituency of Gombe State was held on 8th December, 2014 at Malam Sidi, the constituency headquarters. The primary election was observed by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), herein the 3rd Respondent, as required by Section 87 of the Electoral Act, 2010, as amended.

The Appellant lost the primary election to the 1st Respondent. The name of the 1st Respondent was submitted to the APC for sponsorship as its candidate in the coming general election. The APC in turn forwarded the name of the 1st Respondent as the person duly elected at the party's primary election, to INEC as its candidate for Gombe/Kwami/Funakaye Federal Constituency. He was accordingly placed on the ballot by INEC as the APC candidate for the constituency.

The Parties are ad idem that the National Assembly primary election for the election of APC candidate for the Gombe/Kwami/Funakaye seat in the House of Representatives was held on 8th December 2014, in Malam Sidi, the constituency headquarters. Dissatisfied with the result of the primary election, the Appellant filed a petition to the National Assembly Election Appeal Committee (hereinafter called the "Appeal Committee") of the APC. The Appeal Committee was set up by the National Working Committee (NWC) of the APC to, among other things, "hear appeals arising from the conduct of All Progressives Congress National Assembly Primaries in Gombe State (on) 7th and 8th December, 2014", and "to submit report and recommendation of the appeals to the National Headquarters of the party by Monday 15th December, 2014".

The main ground of the Appellants petition to the Appeals Committee was that the 1st Respondent, as at the date of the Primary election, was still a card carrying member of the PDP and that he had not rescinded his membership of PDP. Appellant maintained that the 1st Respondent was not a genuine member of the APC and that he still retained his seat in the Gombe State House of Assembly on the platform of PDP. There is no doubt that the Appellant, the 1st Respondent, and one other contested in the APC primary election to be nominated as the APC candidate.

The Appeal Committee found that the 1st Respondent was still a PDP member and it doubted his "eligibility to contest the election under APC". It consequently recommended "that the party should withdraw the ticket from" the 1st Respondent. The Appeal Committee further recommended that "for a genuine reconciliation" the Appellant "should be allowed to re-contest his seat for the aforementioned reasons". These recommendations were made to the NWC of APC, which from Paragraph 16(d) of the APC 2014 Guidelines for the Nomination of Candidates for Public Office" acts for the National Executive Committee (NEC) of the APC, and its decision is final as "the arbiter for all further appeals arising" from all primary elections, including the instant. The NWC seems to be the final domestic Court or Tribunal in the APC organization. This 2014 Guidelines for the Nomination of Candidates is Exhibit E in the Originating Summons.

The 1st Respondent, as the 2nd Defendant, entered Conditional Appearance to the suit of the Appellant. He filed Notice of Preliminary Objection, as well as his counter-affidavit, wherein he joined issues on the merits with the Appellant. He averred in the counter-affidavit that he was a bonafide member of the APC, that he had relinquished his membership of the PDP and that he contested and won the APC primary election in Gombe/Kwami/Funakaye Federal Constituency after satisfying all prerequisites qualifying him to contest, particularly under Exhibit E. He further averred in the counter-affidavit that APC "conducted all its elections freely and democratically after a thorough screening exercise of its contestants leading to participation in the election in this case". The 1st Respondent in the counter-affidavit, queries the competence of the Appeal Committee that purportedly made recommendations in favour of the Appellant. He avers that while by Exhibit E, particularly page 15 thereof, the Appeal Committee is a Five Man Panel, the Panel that purportedly made recommendations in favour of the Appellant was a three man Panel.

The APC, notwithstanding the findings and recommendations of the Appeal Committee disputed by the 1st Respondent, forwarded the name of the 1st Respondent to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), the 3rd Respondent herein, its candidate for Gombe/Kwami/Funakaye Federal Constituency. INEC, in consequence, placed the 1st Respondent on the ballot for the general election. The 1st Respondent won the election in the end. The Appellant took out this suit after the APC had submitted the name of the 1st Respondent to INEC as its candidate.

On 11th March, 2015, the 1st Respondent, as the 2nd Defendant on the Originating Summons filed his Notice of Preliminary Objection to the suit. He prayed the trial Court-

1
To set aside the issuance and service of the Originating Summons on him for being invalid and grossly incompetent; and
2
An Order striking out of the Appellant (as the Plaintiff) for want of jurisdiction.

The grounds for the objection are as follows -

A
The condition precedent for issuance and service of the originating summons on 2nd Defendant (1st Respondent herein) was not satisfied as mandatorily required by the enabling statute;
B
The Reliefs sought by the Plaintiff (the Appellant herein) as encapsulated in the originating process relate to internal party affairs and/of also party grounds for election outside the jurisdiction of this Court.
C
The Federal Capital Territory High Court lacks the jurisdiction to entertain claims for declaratory and injunctive reliefs in this case where the Federal Government or any of its agencies (3rd Defendant) is a party.

FURTHER (that) the 2nd Defendant (1st Respondent herein) shall, among others, place reliance on the processes listed hereunder in the hearing of this application.

1
The Originating Summons and other accompanying processes served on the 2nd Defendant.
2
The enrolled ex parte order of this honourable Court dated 25th February 2015.
3
Plaintiffs letters Exhibit H.

The preliminary objection was heard on 26th March 2015 together with arguments on the originating summons. The Ruling thereafter reserved was on 1st April 2015, delivered as the Judgment of the trial Court. The trial Court dismissed the preliminary objections. On the substance of the originating summons, the trial Court (Coram: Valentine B. Ashi, J) entered judgment and granted the reliefs claimed in favour of the plaintiff, Appellant herein.

The 1st Respondent, aggrieved thereby, lodged his appeal against the decision of the FCT High Court to the Court of Appeal (the lower Court). The appeal was heard. On the issue, whether a Court in one State has jurisdiction to hear and determine a matter that is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court in another State, the Court of Appeal on the authority of DALHATU v. TURAKI (2003) 15 NWLR (pt. 843) 310; RIVERS STATE GOVERNMENT OF NIGERIA v. SPECIAL KONSULT (SWEDISH GROUP) (2005) 7 NWLR (pt. 923) 145; (2005) 2 SC. (pt.1) 121 found that the FCT High Court had no jurisdiction to hear and determine the suit of the Appellant, the cause of action of which accrued to him in Gombe State outside the Federal Capital Territory. The suit was accordingly struck out. The rationale for this decision is rooted in our peculiar federalism. Section 299 of the 1999 Constitution, be it noted, regards the FCT, Abuja "as if it were one of the States of the Federation". Accordingly, for all intents and purposes, FCT High Court, under the Constitution, is no more than a State High Court. The Constitution has never intended it to be a High Court at large with Jurisdiction over matters outside its territory.

The lower Court, even on the substance of the originating summons, on the authority of ONUOHA v. OKAFOR (1983) 2 SCNLR 244, DALHATU v. TURAKI (supra); APGA v. ANYANWU (2014) 7 NWLR (pt.1047) 541;ANYANWU v. OGUNEWE (2014) 8 NWLR (pt.1410) 437 at 470, expressed the opinion that the law is established that the Courts have no jurisdiction to adjudicate over the internal affair of a political party, including the sponsorship of a candidate for election. This further appeal is against this decision of the lower Court

Maillantarki V. Tongo (2017) CLR 6(b) (SC)

Judgement delivered on June 2nd 2017

Brief

Facts

Issues