Senator Umaru Dahiru & Anor V. All Progessives Congress & Ors (2016)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

MUSA DATTIJO MUHAMMAD, J.S.C.

The appellants, as plaintiffs at the Federal High Court sitting at Abuja, hereinafter referred to as the trial Court, took out an originating Summons against the defendants, the respondents herein, challenging the primary election that led to the nomination and sponsorship of the 3rd respondent by the 1st respondent to contest the Sokoto State Gubernatorial election held on the 11th April 2015.

The respondents challenged the jurisdiction of the trial Court to proceed primarily because the 2nd respondents conduct of the Sokoto State Gubernatorial election and return of the 3rd respondent as the winner thereof had rendered appellants’ action academic and worthless.

In a well considered decision dated 26th May 2015, the trial Court overruled the preliminary objections severally raised by the respondents and concluded that it has jurisdiction to hear and determine appellants cause of action.

Dissatisfied with the ruling, the respondents appealed to the Court of Appeal, Abuja Division, hereinafter referred to as the lower Court. In its

1

judgment delivered on the 21st December 2015, the Court found merit in the appeal and allowed same.

Aggrieved, the plaintiffs at the trial Court have appealed against the lower Court’s judgment to this Court.

At the hearing of the appeal, learned counsel having identified their parties’ respective briefs adopted same as their arguments for or against the appeal.

In the appellant’s brief, the following two issues have been distilled from their four grounds of appeal as having arisen for the determination of the appeal:-

“(a) Whether the Court below was right to hold that based on the reliefs sought at the trial Court, the instant suit had become academic (Distilled from grounds (d) and (b)).

(b) Whether the appeal at the Court below was not premature having regards to the nature and circumstances of the proceedings which led to the appeal. (Distilled from Grounds c and d).

1st respondent’s lone issue for the determination of the appeal at page 2 of its brief reads:

“Was the Court of Appeal right to hold as it did that the suit of the appellants had become academic having regards to the reliefs sought before the