Rashidi Adewolu Ladoja V. Independent National Electoral Commission (2007)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

MOHAMMED, J.S.C

On 14th June, 2007, this appeal was heard by this court which in a unanimous decision allowed the appeal, and refused to give further attention to the appellant’s claim. I stated on that day that I shall give my reasons for the judgment today which I now proceed to do.

The appellant herein was the Governor of Oyo State who was elected in the general election conducted on 19th April, 2003. He was sworn in as the Governor by taking his oath of allegiance and oath of office on 29th May, 2003. He was to serve in that office for a term of four years. However following a dispute between him and the House of Assembly of Oyo State, a faction of the members of the House purported to have impeached him in 2005, removing him from office and replacing him with his Deputy. The appellant then challenged this impeachment in the High Court, the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court where he was successful when the purported impeachment was declared unconstitutional, null and void, resulting in his reinstatement in the office which he was forced to vacate for 11 months. It was as the result of this judgment in his favour that the appellant went before Federal High Court, Abuja and by his amended originating summons dated 29th March, 2007, urging the court to determine

“Whether having regard to the provision of section 180 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (which relates to the tenure of office of a Governor of a State) and the judgment of the Supreme Court in suit No. SC/272/2006 nullifying the purported removal of the plaintiff from office as Governor of Oyo State of Nigeria, the period of eleven months for which the Governor was illegally removed from office, forms part of the plaintiff’s four years terms of office as Governor of Oyo State.”

On the determination of this question, the appellant as plaintiff asked for the following reliefs:

“1. A declaration that the plaintiff is entitled to a term of four uninterrupted years in officer as Governor of Oyo State of Nigeria commencing from 29th May, 2003 by virtue of section 180(2)(a) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999.

2. A declaration that the plaintiff as the person duly elected and sworn in as Governor of Oyo State can only be Nigerian required to vacate office in the manner prescribed under sections 188 and 189 of the Constitution, that is until the expiration of four years from date on which he swore to the oath of allegiance and oath of office.
3. A declaration that the purported removal of the plaintiff, a sitting Governor in breach of this provision of the Constitution shall not affect or interfere with the certainty of tenure of office of the plaintiff as Governor as provided for in section 180(2) of the Constitution.
4. A declaration that by virtue of section 180 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 and the decision of the Supreme Court of Nigeria nullifying the purported removal of the plaintiff from office as Governor of Oyo State, the period of eleven months during which the Governor was removed from office does not form part of the plaintiff’s term of four years as Governor of Oyo State.

5.A declaration that by virtue of the provisions of section 180(2)(a) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 the plaintiff is entitled to remain in office until 29th April, 2008 when his four years certain term of office as Governor of Oyo State shall have expired.

6. A declaration that the plaintiff is not required to vacate office as Governor until 29th April, 2008, which said date conforms with the constitutional period of tenure of four years certain as provided in the Constitution.
7. An order of perpetual injunction restraining the 1st defendant, its agents or privies from conducting an election to the office of Governor of Oyo State on the 14th April, 2007 as scheduled by the 1st defendant, or at any other time without first taking into consideration the period of eleven months, when the plaintiff’s tenure of four years certain would have been accommodated.

The grounds upon which these reliefs were sought are:-

(i) By virtue of S. 180(2)(a) of the Constitution, the Governor of a State of the Federal Republic of Nigeria shall hold office for four years certain commencing from the date when he took the oath of office allegiance and oath of office and can only be removed pursuant to the provisions of the Constitution of the Federal Republic Nigeria, 1999.

(ii) The said period of eleven months when the plaintiff was removed from office does not form part of the plaintiff’s four year certain term of office.”

The appellants/plaintiff’s originating summons was supported by an affidavit to which all the four respondents in this appeal who were the defendants at the trial court filed counter-affidavits before the hearing and determination of the matter. In the judgment delivered on 4th April, 2007, the learned trial Chief Judge dismissed the action holding that the appellant/plaintiff was not entitled to any of the reliefs claimed by him in the originating summons because as the learned Chief Judge put it at pages 151 – 154 of the record –

“The plaintiff’s term of office is four years, calculated from the date the plaintiff took his oath of allegiance and oath of office which is 29th May, 2003 to 29th May, 2007. The 11th months during which the plaintiff was out of office, albeit forcibly, having been declared null and void, cannot now confer any right or impose any obligation on the plaintiff. To take cognizance of the period in calculating the period of 4 years of the plaintiff’s tenure so as to award to the plaintiff an additional period of 11 months in office would have the effect of elongating or extending the plaintiff’s tenure of office beyond 29th May, 2007, and push same to 29th April, 2008. That is a thing that will clearly offend the provisions, particularly section 180(2)(a) and (b) of the Constitution, 1999. It will also offend the provisions of section 178(1) and (2) of the Constitution.”

The appellant/plaintiff’s appeal to the Court of Appeal, Abuja urging that court to set aside the decision of the trial court and substitute it with a judgment granting him all his reliefs in the amended originating summons was partially successful. The Court of Appeal in its judgment delivered on 16th April, 2007, allowing the appeal, held that the trial court has no jurisdiction to entertain the appellant/plaintiff’s claim which that court regarded as a matter within the exclusive jurisdiction of the National Assembly Election Tribunal, Oyo State, to which the action was transferred for hearing and determination under section 285(1)(b) of the 1999 Constitution.

Aggrieved by this decision of the Court of Appeal, the appellant/ plaintiff has now appealed to this court and the sole issue distilled from his two grounds of appeal reads –