CaseLaw
Ogu Inakoju V. Adeleke (2007) CLR 1(f) (SC)
Judgement delivered on January 12th 2007
Brief
Facts
On 7th December, 2006, I dismissed this appeal and I indicated that I will give my reasons on 12th January, 2007 I will do so here.
Senator Rasheed Adewolu Ladoja, the party interested and 3rd Respondent became the Governor of Oyo State in May, 2003. I think he was sworn in as Governor of the State on 29th May, 2003. Alao-Akala became the Deputy Governor. The relationship was cordial until some members of the Oyo State House of Assembly purportedly removed Senator Ladoja as Governor of Oyo State and swore in Alao-Akala, the Deputy Governor, as Governor. As from that moment, things started falling apart not only between Senator Ladoja and the members who removed him from office but also between Senator Ladoja and Alao-Akala.
Let me briefly tell the story leading to the removal of Senator Ladoja as Governor of Oyo State as told by the Respondents in their affidavit in support of the originating summons. On 13th December, 2005, the Oyo State House of Assembly sat at the usual, Assembly Complex Secretariat, Ibadan. The Appellants sat at D'Rovans Hotel Ring Road, Ibadan, where they purportedly suspended the Draft Rules of the Oyo State House of Assembly
The Appellants purportedly issued a notice of allegation of misconduct against Senator Ladoja, the Governor, with the purpose of commencing impeachment proceedings against him. On 22nd December, 2005, without following the laid down rules, regulations and the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, the Appellants purportedly passed a motion calling for the investigation of the allegations of misconduct against Senator Ladoja without the concurrent consent and approval of the two-thirds majority of the 32 members of the House of Assembly. The purported notice of allegations of misconduct against the Governor was not served on each member of the House of Assembly.
Aggrieved by the procedure or removing Senator Ladoja, the Respondents as Plaintiffs, filed an action at the High Court of Justice, Oyo State by way of Originating Summons. They asked for six declaratory reliefs and three orders setting aside the steps taken by the Appellants/Defendants in relation to the insuance of Notice ,of allegation of misconduct, passage of motion to investigate same and injunction restraining the Appellants/Defendants, their agents, servants, privies or through any person or persons from taking any further steps, sitting, starting, or continuing to inquire or deliberate on the investigation, and impeachment proceedings of His Excellency, Senator Rasheed Adewolu Ladoja. The action was supplied by a 17- paragraph affidavit.
In a preliminary objection, the Appellant as Applicants contended that the Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the suit and that the Plaintiffs lacked locus" stcmdi to institute the suit. They also contended that the claims did not disclose a reasonable cause of action.
In his Ruling of 28th December, 2005, the learned trial Judge, Ige, J., upheld the preliminary objection that he had no jurisdiction to deal with the matter. He said at page 57 of the Record:
In his Ruling of 28th December, 2005, the learned trial Judge, Ige, J., upheld the preliminary objection that he had no jurisdiction to deal with the matter. He said at page 57 of the Record:
"When the House of Assembly is exercising its constitutional powers in relation to impeachment proceedings or any matter relating thereto, it is performing a quasi judicial function; Thus it is provided in sub-section 11 of Section 188 of the 1999 Constitution that the power to determine what constitutes gross misconduct or a conduct that will lead to impeachment proceedings lies with the House of Assembly and not in the Court. By the combined effect of the above provisions therefore, and having regard to the nature of the reliefs claimed by the Plaintiffs, it is clear beyond argument that the jurisdiction of this Court is clearly ousted. Impeachment and related proceedings arc purely "political matters over which this Court cannot intervene. The action is not justiciable, See Chief Enyi Abaribe v. The Speaker Abia State House of Assembly and ors. (2002) 14 NWLR (Pt. 788) p.466 at p.492. It is not part of the duty of the Court to forage into areas that ought to vest either directly or .impliedly in the Legislature such as the issue of impeachment which is a matterthat comes within the purely internal affairs of the House of Assembly. The Court will therefore decline jurisdiction in this matter. The objection of learned counsel for the Defendants/Respondents is upheld. The Originating Summons is accordingly dismissed."
On appeal to the Court of Appeal, Ogebe, JCA, held that the High Court had jurisdiction to hear the matter, He said at page 486 of the Record:
"For all I have said in this judgment I have no hesitation in holding that the learned trial Judge was wrong in declining jurisdiction. Indeed he had jurisdiction to examine the claim in the light of Section 188 subsections 1-9 of the 1999 Constitution and if he was not satisfied that the impeachment proceedings were instituted in compliance thereof, he has jurisdiction to intervene to ensure compliance, If on the other hand there was compliance with the pre impeachment process that what happened thereafter was the internal affair of the House of Assembly and the would have no jurisdiction to intervene."
"It is my view that no factional meeting of any members of a State House of Assembly can amount to a constitutional meeting of the whole House of Assembly as envisaged and provided for in the Constitution. There was no counter-affidavit before the lower Court to prove that any member of the House of Assembly of Oyo State was suspended or that the Plaintiff/Appellants were removed as Speaker and Deputy Speaker in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution. It follows therefore that all the steps taken by the faction of the Defendants/Respondents purporting to initiate impeachment of Senator Ladoja as Governor of Oyo State were not actions of the Oyo State House of Assembly under Section 188 of the 1999 Constitution. Consequently I allow the appeals of the Plaintiff Appellants and the Interested Party/Appellant and set aside the ruling of the trial Court declining jurisdiction. I hereby enter judgment for the Appellants and grant the following reliefs..."
Ogebe, JCA, granted eight of the nine reliefs sought by the Respondents. He did not grant the relief of injunction. It should be pointed out that Senator Ladoja was joined as an interested party in the Court of Appeal.
Dissatisfied with the judgment of the Court of Appeal, the Appellants have come to us.