Moses & Anor V. Giadom & Ors (2021)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

AMINA ADAMU AUGIE, J.S.C.

In 2018, the first respondent resigned from his position as the Deputy National Secretary of the second respondent, to contest in the General Elections of 2019, as Deputy Governor of Rivers State. Thereafter, he went back to his position as the Deputy National Secretary of the party. He later became “National Chairman or Acting National Chairman” of the second respondent and a member of its National Working Committee.

Incensed, appellants, as “fully registered and financial members”, of the second respondent (APC) took out an originating summons at the High Court of Rivers State, Port Harcourt, wherein they claimed –

1. A declaration that sequel to the resignation of the 3rd defendant (Hon. Victor Giadom) as Deputy National Secretary – in 2018, for the purposes of contesting in the 2019 General Elections as the Deputy Governor of Rivers State, the 3rd defendant is no longer the Deputy National Secretary.
2. A declaration that (Hon. Victor Giadom) is not a member of the National Working Committee (NWC) of the 1st defendant having resigned his membership of the NWC of the 1st defendant for the purposes of contesting in the 2019 General Elections as the Deputy Governor of River State.
3. A declaration that the resignation of (Hon. Victor Giadom) as the Deputy National Secretary – in 2018 is valid and effective from 2018 till date.
4. A declaration that 3rd defendant (Hon. Victor Giadom) is not the National Chairman or Acting National Chairman, or Deputy National Secretary or otherwise howsoever a member of the NWC of the 1st defendant.
5. An order restraining the 3rd defendant (Hon. Victor Giadom) from issuing, signing or endorsing any document or correspondence to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) or any other body or institution in the capacity of the National Chairman or Acting National Chairman of the 1st defendant or howsoever as an officer of the 1st defendant.
6. An order of perpetual (sic) restraining the 1st, 2nd, 4th and 5th defendants from recognizing or regarding the 3rd defendant as either, a member of the National Working Committee (NWC), the Deputy National Secretary, National Chairman or Acting National Chairman of the 1st defendant.

They posed the following questions for determination by the trial Court:

1. Whether by the careful reading of Article 31(1)(iii) of APC Constitution, an officer or member of NWC can contest an election without first resigning ..in the absence of a waiver properly applied for and validly granted.
2. Whether having resigned as the Deputy National Secretary and member of NWC of the 1st defendant, in accordance with Article 31 (1)(iii), which make such resignation compulsory, the 3rd defendant is still entitled to parade himself or act as either the National Chairman, Acting National Chairman, Deputy national Secretary, or member of the NWC of the 1st defendant.
3. Considering the provisions of Article 31(1)(iii) of the APC Constitution 2014 (as amended), whether the said resignation of the 3rd defendant (Hon. Victor Giadom) as the Deputy National Secretary and member of the NWC of the 1st defendant is valid and effective.

​

The originating summons was filed on 19/6/2020 and on that same day, the appellants, as claimants, filed processes seeking injunctive reliefs, including a motion ex-parte, and in its ruling, the trial Court stated thus: I have carefully considered the submissions of counsel and the processes filed in this application and I found that there is urgent need to consider the reliefs sought by the applicants. Accordingly:

(1) An order of interim injunction is hereby made granted (sic) the reliefs contained in the ex-parte motion

(2) Applicants are to enter an undertaking in damages to the respondents should this application turn out to be frivolous or if this order ought not to have been made.

(3) The enrolled order and the motion on notice are to be served on the defendants/respondents.

Upon being served with the enrolled order, the first respondent entered conditional appearance, then appealed to the Court of Appeal against the trial Court’s ruling on the said ex-parte order of interim injunction.

The appellants, who were the first and second respondents at the Court of Appeal, raised a notice of preliminary objection in their brief, challenging the competency of the appeal on the following grounds:

(a) The subject matter of this appeal are orders of the High Court of Rivers State made ex-parte over which the appellant does not have any right of appeal by virtue of Section 14 of the Court of Appeal Act.

(b) The extant appeal being an interlocutory appeal, whose grounds of appeal are at best those of mixed law and fact, the leave of the High Court or this Court ought to be sought before filing of the appeal.

(c) The failure to seek either the leave of the High Court or this Court before filing this notice of appeal renders the extant appeal incompetent and incurably bad in law.