This appeal is against the judgment of the Yola Division of the Court of Appeal delivered on the 29th day of November, 2012 in appeal No. CA/YL/44/2011 in which the Court allowed the appeal of the 1st respondent against the ruling of the trial Court in suit No. FHC/YL/CS/29/2011 delivered on the 27th day of August 2011 in which the Court held that it has no jurisdiction to hear and determine the suit as constituted.
The 1st respondent instituted the action in the Federal High Court, Holden at Yola claiming the following reliefs:
-
1
"The plaintiff was the duly nominated candidate and flag-bearer of the Congress for Progressive Change (CPC) for the election into the Federal House of Representatives held on the 9th April, 2011 for Mubi North/Mubi South/Maiha Federal Constituency of Adamawa State.
-
2
After the election, the 1st Defendant instead of returning the plaintiff as the winner of the election purportedly returned the 2nd Respondent, on the purported ground that the plaintiff had been substituted as candidate of the CPC on the 3rd day of April, 2011.
-
3
WHEREOF the plaintiff claims as follows:
-
a
A declaration of this Honourable Court that the purported substitution of the plaintiff with the 2nd Defendant for the April 9th, 2011, National Assembly elections in Mubi North/Mubi South/Maiha Federal Constituency was illegal, null and void and of no effect whatsoever.
-
b
A declaration of this Honourable Court that the purported return of the 2nd Defendant as the winner of the April 9th, 2011 elections into the seat of Mubi North/Mubi South/Maiha Federal Constituency of the Federal House of Representatives, by the 1st Defendant, was illegal, null and void and of no effect whatsoever.
-
c
An order of this Honourable Court declaring that the plaintiff having fully participated in the April 9th, 2011 elections into the Mubi North/Mubi South/Maiha Federal Constituency of the Federal House of Representatives, under the platform of the Congress for Progressive Change, (CPC) was the winner of the said election, and the bonafide representative of Mubi North/Mubi South/Maiha Federal Constituency in the House of Representatives.
-
d
An order of this Honourable Court directing the 1st Defendant to issue a Certificate of Return to the plaintiff.
-
e
An order of this Honourable Court restraining the 2nd Defendant from parading himself as the Honourable member of the House of Representatives, representing Mubi North/Mubi South/Maiha Federal Constituency.
-
f
Costs."
The appellant reacted to the above suit by raising an objection to the jurisdiction of the Court to hear and determine the matter as constituted on the grounds that the reliefs claimed therein can only be granted by an election petition tribunal and secondly that a Federal High Court or any High Court for that matter could only have jurisdiction to continue to hear and determine a pre-election matter after the conduct of an election if the matter was instituted before the conduct of the election; that since the instant case was instituted after the conduct of the election in issue, the Federal High Court lacks jurisdiction to hear and determine same.
The trial Court ruled on the objection at page 171 of the record inter alia, as follows:
-
"In my view, the decision of the Supreme Court in ODEDO V. INEC (supra) referred to by the Court of Appeal (Yola Division), in the case of DANLADI BAIDO v. INEC (Supra) adequately answers and resolves the issue pose by the present proceedings. In the present proceedings, the complaint of wrongful substitution or replacement of the plaintiff by the 2nd Defendant is undeniably a pre-election matter. However, the jurisdiction of the Court was not invoked till after the conduct of the election and statutory return and the winner sworn in or inaugurated. The jurisdiction of this Court to hear and determine the complaint therefore is overtaken by events. The learned counsel to the plaintiff had argued that matters of wrongful substitution or withdrawal of a candidate are pre-election matters.
-
That is correct. However, but for such a complaint to qualify as a pre-election case over which the regular Courts can exercise jurisdiction, the matter must be filed before the conduct of the election."
As stated earlier in this judgment, the above decision was set aside by the Court of Appeal.
This appeal, therefore, is in essence to determine the correct view/position of the law as between the views expressed by the trial Court and the Court below, supra.
