Charles Odedo V Peoples Democratic Party & Ors (2015)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

CLARA BATA OGUNBIYI, J.S.C.

The Appellant herein, as an applicant in the Court of Appeal Abuja Division, sought leave to be joined as a party interested in Appeal No.CA/ABJ/737/2014 between the 5th respondent herein as Appellant against 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th Respondents. The applicant was not a party to the suit No.FHC/ABJ/CS/854/2014 at the trial Federal High Court and he therefore claimed to have known of the position of the case for the 1st time at the appeal stage after the court below resumed sitting subsequent to the nationwide industrial action of Judicial staff. He immediately filed his application for joinder as an interested person in the appeal on the 2/2/2015, the day it was scheduled for hearing, and served all the parties in the main appeal.

It is pertinent to say that the said plaintiffs at the Federal High Court are the 1st and 2nd Respondents herein while the appellants in Appeals Nos.CA/A/737/2014 and CA/A/737A/2014 are the Peoples Democratic Party (5th Respondent) and Chukwudi Okasia (the 4th Respondent) herein respectively. When the motion for joinder was called up for hearing, the Court of Appeal, pursuant to Section 5(a) of the Court of Appeal Practice Direction 2013 struck out same suo motu without giving the appellant/applicant a hearing. The appellant was dissatisfied with the striking out of his application and has now filed this appeal before us.

The brief and comprehensive facts leading to the background history of this appeal relate to the appellant as a registered member of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and one of the candidates nominated at the PDP congress conducted on the 17/12/2014 in Anambra State.

The 1st and 2nd Respondents (as plaintiffs at the trial Federal High court) had filed a suit against the 3rd, 4th and 5th Respondents claiming amongst other reliefs an order restraining the 5th Respondent from conducting primary elections in Anambra State through a caretaker committee whom they alleged was illegally constituted in contravention of a subsisting order of court, and from using a delegates list produced by the said Caretaker Committee. They also sought orders to restrain the 3rd defendant from dealing with the same caretaker committee in matters relating to the primary elections of the PDP and from accepting any list of candidates emerging from any primary elections conducted by the said illegal Caretaker Committee.

On the 5th of December, 2014, the trial court entered judgment for the 1st and 2nd Respondents in the said suit. Based on the judgment, PDP Primaries were conducted on the 7th of December, 2014 anchored by the 1st and 2nd Respondents’ executives.

The Independent National Electoral Commission monitored the election and accepted the name of the Appellant as the rightful PDP candidate for the House of Representatives election for Idemili North and South Federal Constituency seat in Anambra State. Consequently, the Appellant fulfilled all the necessary formalities and was duly screened and cleared by INEC for the elections. His name was on 13/1/2015 published by INEC as the PDP candidate for the House of Representatives 2015 final list which was pasted on its website.

The appeal in respect of which the Appellant applied to be joined as a party was slated for hearing on the 2/2/2015. On the said date, the appellant was represented by a counsel in court who identified the application. The court thereupon, proceeded suo motu to invoke Section 5(a) of the Court of Appeal Practice Direction 2013 and struck out the said application without a hearing. The Lower Court heard the substantive appeal and reserved same for judgment. The appeal at hand is against the said ruling delivered 2/2/2015.

In compliance with the rules of court, the appellant’s brief of argument was settled by Chief (Mrs) A. J. Offiah, SAN and filed on the 23/2/2015, while those of the 4th and 5th Respondents were settled by Arthur Obi Okafor, SAN on the 16/3/2015 and by Chief Olusora Oke also on the 17/3/2015 respectively. The 1st, 2nd and 3rd Respondents did not file any brief of argument in response to the Appellant.

On the 17th March, 2015, at the hearing of the appeal, all learned counsel adopted and relied on their respective briefs of arguments. While the Appellant’s counsel urged in favour of allowing the appeal, the Respondents each found the appeal lacking in merit and called for its dismissal.

From the five grounds of appeal, four issues were raised on behalf of the Appellant as follows:-

Issue One:

Whether the Court of Appeal was right when it struck out the Appellant’s Application before the same was argued and whether in the circumstances the appellant was given a fair hearing or any hearing at all (Distilled from grounds 1, 2 and 4 of the Notice of Appeal).

Issue Two: