CaseLaw
Opia V. INEC (2014) CLR 2(h)(SC)
Judgement delivered on February 7th 2014
Brief
Facts
This is an appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal Owerri Division, which had struck out the Appellant/Originating Summons on the grounds that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain same.
Dissatisfied with the aforesaid Judgment, Appellant has further appealed to this court on 4 grounds of appeal which without their particulars read thus:
"GROUND 1: ERROR IN LAW
The Court of Appeal erred in law when it held as follows:
The Learned trial judge was thus right to have upheld the 2nd Respondent's Notice of Preliminary Objection dated 13th June, 2011 and struck out the Appellants Amended Originating Summons filed on 6th June, 2011.
Accordingly, this appeal lacks merit and it is accordingly dismissed.
GROUND 2: ERROR IN LAW
The Court of Appeal erred in law when it held thus:
The Appellant in this case was a party in an election and his political party (PDP) participated in the State House of Assembly election aforesaid under the provision of Section 132(1) of the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended). The Appellant would also from the facts of the case be entitled to question the election of the 2nd Respondent more particularly under the provision of Section 138(1) (b) and (c) that is:
GROUND 3: ERROR IN LAW
The Court of Appeal erred in law when it held thus:
In these circumstances, the learned Judge was right to have said that the Plaintiff/Appellants case goes beyond merely interpreting Section 68(I)(c) of the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended) in the light of the Plaintiffs Exhibit A' Form EC8E(1) (pages 259 of the record). Also, that it goes beyond merely making declaratory and injunctive orders pursuant to the provisions of Section 75(2) of the Electoral Act (supra) as argued by the learned Senior Advocate (page 2259) of the record).
GROUND 4: ERROR IN LAW
The Court of Appeal erred in law when it held as follows:
To the above extent, the case of Dr. Okey Enemuo vs. Chief Chidi Duru & 3 Ors (2004) 39 WRN 66 referred to by the learned Counsel for the 2nd Respondent is relevant, applicable and appropriate to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
Brief facts that gave rise to this appeal are that the Appellant contested election into the Imo State House of Assembly under the platform of the people's Democratic Party (PDP) to represent Ohaji/Egbema State Constituency during the 2011 General Election held on the 26th April, 2011.
The 2nd Respondent also contested the aforesaid Election for the same Constituency under the platform of Advanced People's grand Alliance (APGA), with the 1st Respondent herein acting as an umpire.
When the election was inconclusive and therefore nullified by the 1st Respondent and the supplementary election held on 6th May, 2011, the 2nd Respondent won the election and declared winner and issued a certificate of Return by the 1st Respondent; accordingly, he was sworn as a member of the Imo State House of Assembly.
After the Supplementary Election and swearing in of the 2nd Respondent into the Imo State House of Assembly, the Appellant filed an originating Summons before the Federal High Court challenging the conduct of the election and return of the 2nd Respondent.
The 2nd Respondent filed a preliminary objection challenging the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court to entertain the Appellants' claim and the court declined jurisdiction on the ground that the Appellant's complaint was within the jurisdiction of the Election Petition Tribunal to handle and not the Federal High Court.
Dissatisfied by the aforesaid Ruling of the Court of Appeal, Appellant has further appealed to this court.
Issues
Whether the Court of Appeal was right when it affirmed the decision of the trial...