CaseLaw
Udeh V. Okoli (2009) CLR 3(c) (SC)
Judgement delivered on March 6th 2009
Brief
Facts
The Appellant as Plaintiff instituted an action at the Federal High Court Abuja claiming certain reliefs against the Defendants. The 2nd Defendant/Respondent filed a Counter-Claim against the Plaintiff/Appellant, alleging that the Plaintiff/Appellant was not qualified to contest the Election. The Appellant challenged the substitution of his name with that of the 1st Respondent on ground that there were no cogent and variable reasons for his substitution.
It is not disputed that the Appellant emerged the winner in the primaries conducted by the People’s Democratic Party to select the candidate to be nominated and sponsored to contest the election into the Orumba North/South Federal Constituency of Anambra State. The 1st Respondent in this appeal came second in the primary election. The name of the Appellant was consequently forwarded to INEC the 2nd Respondent in this appeal and published at the local government level. The publication resulted in many petitions challenging the eligibility of the Appellant to contest the election. The People’s Democratic Party, 3rd Respondent, investigated the substance of the petitions against the Appellant which petitions were based on his activities during his tenure as Deputy Governor of Anambra State, the issues raised being his impeachment, purported pardon by the Governor of Anambra State and the subsequent annulment of the impeachment by the Anambra State House of Assembly. In view of the law suits, the 3rd Respondent decided to substitute the name of the Appellant with that of the 2nd Respondent who, as stated earlier in this judgment, was second in the primary election, resulting in the institution of the main suit, the reliefs of which I had earlier reproduced.
In sum, while the issue in contention in the main suit is the substitution of the 2nd Respondent for the Appellant as candidate for the election in question, that of the counter claim remains the disqualification of the Appellant to contest the said election.
In a considered judgment, the learned trial Judge set aside the substitution of the Appellant but held in addition that the Appellant was not qualified to contest the election. Both parties were not satisfied with the judgment resulting in an appeal by the 2nd Respondent and a cross appeal by the Appellant. In its judgment, B the lower Court set aside the decision of the trial Court which set aside the substitution of the Appellant by the 2nd Respondent in the main appeal and also set aside the order of the said Court disqualifying the Appellant from contesting in the election. In c other words, both appeals succeeded and were allowed by the lower Court.
The instant appeal however is against the decision of the lower Court in the main appeal - relating to substitution of the Appellant. There is however, no cross appeal by the Respondents or any of them against the decision of the lower Court on the cross appeal, following the withdrawal of the cross appeal at the hearing of this appeal. In other words, the Appellant remained qualified to contest the election if the substitution is found not to have been validly made.