Mr. Valentine Ozigbo & Ors. V. Peoples Democratic Party & Ors. (2009)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

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

The Appellants/Applicants had on 20/11/09 filed a Motion on Notice praying for the following:-

1. An order restraining the 1st and 3rd Respondents from selecting, recognizing, endorsing, accepting or ratifying the selection of the 2nd Respondent and in any manner whatsoever and howsoever as the candidate of the 1st Respondent in the election into the Governorship of Anambra State of Nigeria to be conducted by the 1st Respondent on the day of February 2010, or on any other date pending the hearing and determination of the Appellants’/Applicants’ appeal to the Court of Appeal.
2. An order restraining the 2nd Respondent from parading himself as the candidate of the Respondent or holding himself out in any manner in the election into the office of Governor of Anambra State scheduled to be held on the 6th day of February, 2010 or any other date pending the determination of the appeal herein filed by the appellants/applicants against the Ruling delivered by the Lower court (Hon. Justice Danlami Senchi of the FCT High Court) in the matter on the 16th day of November, 2009.

Contending against this application for injunction pending appeal the Respondents 2nd and 1st respectively filed two Preliminary Objections.

These two preliminary objections, the first of which was from the 2nd Respondent, Prof. Charles Chukwuma Soludo wherein he stated as follows:-

(a) The Motion on Notice dated 20th November 2009 is grossly incompetent and an abuse of process.

(b) The Honourable Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the Motion on Notice nor to grant the prayer contained therein.

The grounds of this Preliminary Objection are as follows:-

1. The application is contrary to Order 3 Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules.
2. There is no evidence whatsoever that the Appellants/Applicants complied with the mandatory requirements of Order 3 Rules 4 and 13 of the Court of Appeal Rules.
3. There is no jurisdiction in the Court (whether the Court of first instance and or this Honourable Court of Appeal) to grant an order of injunction over a completed act.
4. The Application is an abuse of process and grossly incompetent.

The Second Preliminary Objection is from the 1st Respondent, Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and the Objection seeks:-

1. AN ORDER of this Honourable Court striking out the Applicant’s application for being incompetent as this Honourable court (Sic) lacks jurisdiction to entertain it.
2. AND for such further order or other orders as this Honourable Court may deem fit to make in the circumstance.

GROUNDS FOR THE OBJECTION in the Preliminary Objection of 1st Respondent;

(i) The motion for interlocutory injunction is incompetent, the condition precedent to its filing having not been fulfilled.

(ii) This Honourable Court is not seized with the jurisdiction to entertain the application.

(iii) The application constitutes an abuse of Court’s process having been filed and being prosecuted while a similar application is pending before the Lower Court.

(iv) The application is not maintainable.

(v) No valid written address has been filed and served by the Applicants’ as directed by this Honourable Court.