Barr. (Mrs.) Amanda Peters Pam V. All Nigeria Peoples Party & Ors (2007)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

MARY U. PETER-ODILI, J.C.A.

By an Originating Summons, the 2nd Respondent, Nasiru Muhammad instituted an action against the Appellant, Austen Peters Pam Amanda I. as 3rd defendant with the following determination.

1. Whether the letter by the 2nd Defendant/All Nigeria Peoples Party (ANPP) dated 19th February to the 1st Defendant (Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) applying for the substitution of the Plaintiff with Austen Peters Pam Amanda I. gave any reason for the application for substitution.
2. Whether the withdrawal/substitution form CF004A dated 12th February 2007 purporting to substitute the Plaintiff with the 3rd Defendant is valid having not been signed by the plaintiff.
3. Whether the application for substitution of the Plaintiff with the 3rd Defendant (Austen Peter Pam- Amanda I.) as contained in the letter by the 2nd Defendant dated 19th February 2007 to the 1st Defendant ought to give reasons for the application.
4. Whether the letter dated 19th February 2007 purportedly signed only by the Secretary of the 2nd Defendant and addressed to the 1st Defendant seeking to substitute the Plaintiffs name earlier is valid and lawful.

WHEREAS the Plaintiff seeks the following reliefs:-

1. A declaration that the 2nd Defendant’s letter of 19th February 2007 to the 1st Defendant applying to substitute the plaintiff Nasiru Muhammad as the 2nd Defendant’s candidate for the April 2007 Abuja Municipal Area Council (AMAC) BWARI Federal House of Representative Election is Illegal, Null, void and of no effect whatsoever.
2. A Declaration that the 1st Defendant cannot in law act upon the 2nd Defendant’s application as contained in the letter of 19th February, 2007 to effect a substitution of the plaintiff with 3rd Defendant as the 2nd Defendant’s candidate for the April 2007 AMAC/BWARI Federal House of Representations Election.
3. A Declaration that by virtue of the provision of Section 34(2) of the Electoral Act 2006, the letter dated 19th February, 2007 written by the 2nd Defendant to the 1st Defendant seeking to substitute the plaintiff’s name does not provide any cogent and verifiable reason sufficient in law to warrant a substitution of the Plaintiffs name by the 1st Defendant.
4. An Order of injunction restraining the 1st Defendant from acting, carrying into effect or doing anything whatsoever based on the 2nd Defendant’s/application for substitution as contained in the letter of 19 February, 2007 to the 1st Defendant as same is illegal, null, void and of no effect whatsoever.
5. AN ORDER setting aside anything and everything done by the 1st Defendant pursuant to the letter of 19/2/07 for the 2nd Defendant to the 1st Defendant.
6. AN ORDER setting aside the substitution form purported to have been filed by the plaintiff as illegal, null, void and of no effect whatsoever.
7. AN ORDER against the 1st Defendant by itself, its agents, privies, servants or however described directing a retention of the plaintiff’s name as the duly nominated candidate of the 2nd Defendant for the AMAC/BWARI Federal Capital Territory April, 2007 Election into the Federal House of Representatives.
8. An ORDER quashing and nullifying the purported substitution of the plaintiff by the letter dated 19th February 2007 purporting to have been issued by the 2nd Defendant.
9. AN ORDER quashing, nullifying and setting aside the FORGED FORM CF004A purportedly signed by the plaintiff in favour of the said AUSTEN PETER PAM AMANDA 1.
10. AN ORDER affirming the plaintiff as the legitimate and bona fide candidate of the 2nd Defendant for the April, 2007 Election into the Federal House of representations in respect of the Abuja Municipal Area Council BWARI Federal Constituency.

The Grounds of Appeal without the particulars are as follows:-

1. The Honourable Court lacked the jurisdiction to entertain and or hear the suit because the appellant’s fundamental rights of fair hearing was violated.
2. The Honourable Court erred in law and fact when it held that the 3rd Defendant (now appellant) was served with Court processes but refused to appear before the court or be represented by counsel.
3. The judgment was obtained upon fraud and or misrepresented facts as the 1st respondent lacked the locus standi to institute the action. The suit was therefore an abuse of court process.
4. The Honourable Court erred in law and misdirected itself when it admitted in evidence and or acted on secondary evidence of public documents without complying with the provisions of the law in that regard.

The Court having earlier ordered that oral arguments would take the place of Briefs being filed and argued, in order to save time in view of the need for the expeditious handling of a matter such as this.

In arguing the Appeal, Chief Ngige SAN for the Appellant referred to Appellant’s Notice of Appeal at pp. 222 – 224 of the Record which is against the judgment of the Federal High Court Abuja delivered by Abubakar J. He stated that in the said judgment the substitution of the 1st Respondent with the 3rd Defendant/Appellant which substitution was nullified by the trial Judge for which the Appellant is now appealing.

Learned counsel for the Appellant gave a brief of the facts in the court below to be as follows:-

“The first judgment which nullified the substitution was made on 5/4/07 and was later set aside by the trial Judge. See page 184 of the Record. It is against the judgment of the 18/4/07 that this appeal is lodged because of the irregularity in the proceedings that brought it about”.

Chief Ngige went on to state that there are two issues for determination from the grounds of Appeal and they are:-

1. Whether the proceedings initiated by the plaintiff/1st Respondent is one that can be commenced by Originating Summons having regard to the Rules of the Federal High Court.
2. Whether the Appellant was given fair hearing in the judgment appealed against.

Learned counsel stated that from the Record the Court will find that the plaintiff/1st Respondent built his case on forgery and many forgeries. Learned counsel for the Appellant asked if a case based on forgeries can be determined without trial since it was commenced by originating summons. That Appellant had raised that issues at the trial and was overruled. He referred to Order 2 Rule 2(a) & (b) Federal High Court Civil Procedure Rules. He said these Rules clearly provide that where the facts are likely to be disputed the matter ought not to be commenced by originating summons but by a writ of summons. He cited Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) & 2 others v. Alhaji Atiku Abubakar (2007) 3 NWLR (pt. 1022) p. 515 per Uwa JCA.

Mr. Dodo SAN for the 1st Respondent stated that at page 104 of the Record is seen the letter of Expulsion served on 1st Respondent. He said the first fallacy in the case of the Appellant is the statement by counsel that the Appellant was a candidate of the ANPP for the Federal House of Representatives.

Learned counsel for the 1st Respondent said the Appellant was never a candidate at the primaries. He cited page 12 of the record which shows the result of the aspirants at the primaries and there were two aspirants or candidates. That it is an error to say the Plaintiff/1st Respondent’s case was built on forgery. He referred to page 215 of the Record. That the proceedings took place on the 18/4/07, three days to the Election and so the matter of giving the Appellant eight days to file her process cannot arise in view of the time factor. He cited page 92 of the Record wherein it was shown that Appellant became aware of the proceeding of 5/4/07 on the 9/4/07 but she took no steps to set aside the judgment of 5/4/07 until the 17/4/07 which was a strategy to score a point, therefore her distress was self induced.

Mr. Adesina learned counsel for the 2nd Defendant/cross-Appellant adopted the submission of counsel for the Appellant.

Mrs Nma Ngbor learned counsel for the 2nd Respondent adopted the submissions of Mr. Dodo for 1st Respondent.