CaseLaw
Onuoha V. Okafor (1983) CLR 10(a) (SC)
Judgement delivered on October 14th, 1983
Brief
Facts
The plaintiff/respondent, Honourable P.C. Onuoha and the 3rd defendant/ap-pellant, Chief the Honourable Isidore Obasi are members of the same political party - the Nigerian Peoples' Party. Both of them applied to their party (N.P.P.) to be nominated for Owerri senatorial district seat. They both paid N5,000.00 non-refundable deposit for the said Owerri senatorial district. There was a body set up to select a candidate who will represent the party. The plaintiff was chosen. There was a petition by the 3rd defendant against the selec¬tion of the plaintiff and consequently, the State Working Committee of the party (N.P.P.) appointed a panel to look into this complaint. The plaintiff and the 3rd defendant were each given an opportunity to state his case.
This panel nullified the selection of the plaintiff and went on to choose the 3rd defendant to represent the party at the forthcoming senatorial election. The plaintiff then went to court on the grounds disclosed in his writ and statement of claim. It is the case of the plaintiff however, that he never took part in the election after the nullification and that the Nomination Election petition panel did not meet to select a candidate. The third defendant was according to the plaintiffs counsel merely joined because he was a candidate whose interest was likely to be affected. This third defendant participated in the election which the plaintiff won.
This panel nullified the selection of the plaintiff and went on to choose the 3rd defendant to represent the party at the forthcoming senatorial election. The plaintiff then went to court on the grounds disclosed in his writ and statement of claim. It is the case of the plaintiff however, that he never took part in the election after the nullification and that the Nomination Election petition panel did not meet to select a candidate. The third defendant was according to the plaintiffs counsel merely joined because he was a candidate whose interest was likely to be affected. This third defendant participated in the election which the plaintiff won.
The High Court held in favour of the plaintiff. Respondents appealed and it was allowed, and the action was dismissed. Whereupon, the plaintiff appealed to the Supreme Court.
Issues
Whether a court of law ought to make an order directing a political party...