Bashir Mohammed Dalhatu V. Ibrahim Saminu Turaki & Ors (2003)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

I. KATSINA-ALU, J.S.C. 

On the 10th day of April, 2003, I dismissed this appeal and indicated that I would give my reasons today. I now give my reasons. The plaintiff by a writ of summons dated 8th day of January, 2003, commenced an action against the defendants before the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja. The plaintiff in the action claimed against the defendants the following reliefs:

1. A declaration that purported return of the 1st defendant Ibrahim Saminu Turaki as the 2003 ANPP gubernatorial candidate for Jigawa State is unconstitutional, void and that the return was and still is a violation of the plaintiff’ right of fair hearing, right to be elected for any elective office.
2. An injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with the aforesaid rights of the plaintiff.
3. And any other relief and/or reliefs as this Honorable Court may deem fit to make in the circumstances.

The issues involved in this appeal are simple and straightforward. I shall therefore concern myself with the facts material to the consideration of the questions presented for determination.

From the facts before the trial court, two things happened. The All Nigeria People’s Party (ANPP) scheduled all its primary elections to hold on the 3rd day of January, 2003. This is not in dispute. In the case of Jigawa State, the primary elections were to hold in Dutse, Jigawa State Capital. A committee with Chief Nnoruka as Chairman, Hajiya Nahibi as member and Arc. Joseph as Secretary conducted the screening and the primary election in Kano in which the 1st defendant did not take part. Only the appellant Bashir Mohammed Dalhatu did. He was naturally declared the winner by the committee.

Meanwhile another primary election was conducted in Dutse, Jigawa State Capital in which the 1st defendant participated. The appellant did not. The 1st defendant was the winner. The result of the election was released to the ANPP by the chairman of the election committee. The ANPP recognized the same and duly announced the 1st defendant as the winner and issued him a certificate of such recognition on the 7th day of January, 2003. It was as a result of this state of affairs that the appellant took out a writ of summons on the 8th January, 2003, challenging the recognition of the 1st defendant as the gubernatorial candidate for Jigawa State.

The appellant filed two motions along with the writ: a motion ex parte for interim injunction and a motion on notice for interlocutory injunction. The learned trial Judge granted the ex parte injunction on 8th January, 2003.

The 1st, 2nd and 3rd defendants on 14th day of January, 2003 filed a notice of preliminary objection as to jurisdiction which was dismissed on 22nd January, 2003.

The 1st, 2nd and 3rd defendants appealed against the dismissal of their preliminary objection. They also applied by motion for a stay of execution pending appeal.

Stay was refused.

On 30th January, 2003 the 1st, 2nd and 3rd defendants applied to the Court of Appeal for a stay of proceedings pending appeal. The motion was fixed for hearing on 5th of February, 2003. The trial court’s attention was drawn to this motion but inspite of that it proceeded with the hearing of the case and on 5th of February, 2003, it gave judgment for the appellant.

The defendants’ appeal to the Court of Appeal was allowed.

This appeal by the plaintiff is against that judgment.

The parties filed their respective briefs of argument. Based on his grounds of appeal, the appellant has submitted at p. 4 of his brief of argument three issues for determination, to wit:

“1. Whether the principles of the Supreme Court decision in Onuoha v. Okafor & Oths (1983) 14 NSCC 494, a case based purely on selection rather than election of candidate and which was decided under a different constitution, with different provisions governing the two different cases, can oust the jurisdiction of a court of law from entertaining this action