Christian v. Innocent & Ors (2023)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report – SUPREME COURT

UWANI MUSA ABBA AJI, J.S.C. (Delivering the Lead Judgment)

The facts given by the Appellant is that the 2nd Respondent (PDP) fixed 28/5/2022 for the Ebonyi State House of Assembly primary election, which was conducted and monitored by the 3rd Respondent (INEC) and the Appellant emerged, having polled the highest lawful votes cast and was duly returned as the flagbearer of the 2nd Respondent for Ezza North West State Constituency of Ebonyi State House of Assembly in the 2023 general elections.

That the 1st Respondent and his factional members did not participate in the said primary election of 28/5/202. However, that the National Chairman and National Secretary on 31/5/2023 in a press release cancelled the said primary election of 28/5/2023, which decision was promptly challenged by the Appellant before the Federal High Court, Abakaliki, in Suit FHC/AI/CS/88/2022. During the pendency of the suit, the 2nd Respondent proceeded to conduct another primary election on 4/6/2022, which the Appellant did not participate.

​The 1st Respondent contrarily narrated that 4 of them were cleared to contest the primary election by the 2nd Respondent for Ezza North West State Constituency, Ebonyi State House of Assembly. That the 2nd Respondent rescheduled its primary elections severally after adequate notices were given to the 3rd Respondent due to one reason or the other as reflected in Exhibit B.

Ultimately, it was rescheduled for 4/6/2023 and conducted, after necessary notice was given to the 3rd Respondent, wherein the 1st Respondent won with highest votes of 18 and was duly declared winner as shown at page 12 of the record, and was given Exhibit G1 by the 2nd Respondent for completion and return, as a prelude to forwarding his name to INEC.

Contrary to the Party’s Guidelines, the Constitution and the Electoral Act, the name of the Appellant was rather submitted to the 3rd Respondent by the 2nd Respondent as its candidate for Ezza North West State Constituency, Ebonyi State. Aggrieved, the 1st Respondent filed his originating summons before the Federal High Court, Abakaliki.

The trial Court dismissed the case of the 1st Respondent and on appeal by the 1st Respondent to the lower Court, his appeal was allowed; hence this appeal by the Appellant; seeking for determination:

1. Whether the Peoples’s Democratic

Party can validly nominate or sponsor the Appellant as the authentic candidate of the party for Ezza North West State Constituency in the forthcoming 2023 general election (sic).

2. Whether the lower Court was right when it held that the trial Court wrongly placed reliance in its earlier decisions that the 2nd Respondent’s primary elections conducted on 28th/29th May, 2023 was the authentic primary election of the party.

The 1st Respondent nominated these 4 issues for determination:

1. Whether the failure of the Appellant to challenge the crucial findings of fact made by the Court below in the judgment appealed against is not fatal to the appeal as constituted and/or render the Appellant’s appeal a mere academic exercise?
2. Whether the Appellant’s brief of argument is not incompetent and liable to be struck out?
3. Whether the People’s Democratic Party can validly nominate or sponsor the Appellant as the authentic candidate of the party for Ezza North West State Constituency in the forthcoming 2023 General Election, and
4. Whether the lower Court was right when it held that the trial Court wrongly placed reliance in its

earlier decisions that the 2nd Respondent’s primary elections conducted on 28th/29th May, 2022, was the authentic primary election of the party?

The 3rd Respondent distilled a lone issue for determination thus:
“Who between the Appellant and the 1st Respondent proved that he participated and won the 2nd Respondent’s primary election in dispute and ought to have been nominated as the 2nd Respondent’s candidate for Ezza North West State Constituency of Ebonyi State House of Assembly in the 2023 General Election?”

PROLIFERATION OF ISSUES BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT:
The 1st Respondent proliferated 4 issues from the 2 grounds of appeal nominated by the Appellant. The law is trite that none of the parties is allowed to proliferate issues. Proliferation of issues occurs when two issues are raised from one ground of appeal. When this occurs as in the instant appeal, the issues so raised are incompetent and must be avoided. See Per JAURO, JSC, in NUP V. INEC (2021) LPELR-58407(SC) (PP. 8-9 PARAS. E).

Besides, as a Respondent, the 1st Respondent, who has not cross-appealed, cannot raise four issues from only two grounds of appeal that the Appellant has proposed. All issues must be anchored and bedrocked upon a ground of appeal and to do so will be contrary to the law and principles of pleadings. Where did the 1st Respondent, who did not cross-appeal get his first and second issues from?
Like pleadings to litigation between the parties, the issues formulated are intended to accentuate the real issues for determination before the Court.

The issues for determination accentuate the issues in the grounds of appeal relevant to the determination of the appeal in the light of the grounds of errors alleged. Hence, the issues for determination cannot and should not be at large but must fall within the purview of the grounds of appeal filed. See Per OGUNDARE, JSC, in EHOT V. STATE (1993) LPELR-1055(SC) (PP. 29-30 PARAS. E). Per GALUMJE, JSC, in ANYANWU V. EZE & ORS (2019) LPELR-48740(SC) (PP. 6-7 PARAS. E), added to this, when he held: