Labour Party v. INEC & Ors. (2023)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

BIOBELE ABRAHAM GEORGEWILL, JCA (Delivering the leading judgment)

This is an appeal against the judgment of the Federal High Court, Makurdi Division, Coram: Hassan Dikko, J, in suit No: FHC/MKD/CS/103/2022: Labour Party v. Independent National Electoral Commission & Ors, delivered on 5/12/2022, in which the appellants suit against the respondents was dismissed for being incompetent by reason of being statute barred and also for the appellants lack of locus standi.

The appellant was dissatisfied with the said judgment and had appealed against it vide its notice of appeal filed on 12/12/2022 on six grounds of appeal. See pages 327 – 331 of the record of appeal. The record of appeal was compiled and transmitted to this court on 21/12/2022.

The parties filed and exchanged their briefs, which were adopted as their arguments at the hearing of this appeal on 30/1/2023. The appellant was represented by B. I. Wayo, Esq, appearing with G. O. Detso, Esq.

The 1st respondent was represented by Baba Dala Fika, Esq, appearing with Mohammed Ilyaso, Esq, and Shettima Danazumi, Esq. The 2nd respondent was represented by F. B. Mnyim, Esq, appearing with P. K. Juluku, Esq.

The 3rd respondent was represented by Tavershima Pusa, Esq, holding the brief of Wilson Iorshe, Esq.By an originating summons filed on 30/9/2022 before the lower court, the appellant as claimant had commenced an action against the respondents as defendants seeking the resolution of the following questions, namely;

Considering the provision of sections 77(2) & (3) , 82(1) , and 84 (1) & (4) of the Electoral Act, 2022, in juxta position with sections 82(5) and 84 (11) of the same Electoral Act, was it right for the 1st defendant to have included the name of the 2nd defendants Senatorial candidate who is the 3rd defendant herein, on its list of Benue North Senatorial candidates, published by the 1st defendant on the 19/09//2022, for the 2023 General Election?

Upon the resolution of the above questions, the appellant sought the following reliefs against the respondent, namely:

1. A declaration that the 2nd defendant having breached the provisions of sections 77(2) & (3), 82(1) and 84(4) of the Electoral Act, 2022, (as amended), the 1st defendant was/is under a mandatory duty by virtue of sections 82 (5) and 84 (11) of the same Electoral Act, 2022 (as amended) to exclude the 2nd defendants Senatorial Candidate, Hon. Emmanuel Memga Udende, (3rd defendant herein) from the list of Benue North East, Senatorial candidates published on the 19th September, 2022 by the 1st defendant, for the 2022 General Election.
2. An order directing the 1st defendant to forthwith remove, delist, take away and/or discountenance the 3rd defendants name from the list of Benue North East Senatorial Candidates published on the 19th September, 2022 or any other date by the 1st defendant for the conduct of the 2023 General Election.
3. An order of perpetual injunction restraining the 1st defendant whether by itself, its staff or agents or by whomsoever in whatsoever way from putting or placing the name of the 3rd defendant, who is the 2nd defendants candidate, for Benue North East Senatorial District on the ballot in the 2023 general Elections in whatever form. See pages 1 – 33 of the record of appeal.

Brief statement of fact

The appellant challenged the conduct of the 2nd respondents Primary Election for the Benue North East Senatorial District held on 28/5/2022 to elect its Candidate for the 2023 General Election.

At the conclusion of the primary election, the 3rd respondent emerged winner and was declared the candidate of the 2nd respondent. Subsequently, the 2nd respondent submitted the 3rd respondents name to the 1st respondent as the candidate for the 2nd respondent for Benue North East Senatorial District at 2023 General Elections.

The appellant, Labour Party, a rival political party to the 2nd respondent, APC, had instituted an action against the respondents claiming the reliefs as earlier set out in this judgment.

The originating summons was supported by a 23 paragraphs affidavit and several exhibits attached thereto. See pages 1-33 of the record of appeal. In response, on 21/11/2022, the 1st respondent filed a notice of preliminary objections. It also filed its counter-affidavit. On 11/11/2022, the 2nd respondent also filed its counter-affidavit along with a notice of preliminary objection. On 21/11/2022, the 3rd respondent filed his notice of preliminary objection along with his counter-affidavit. See pages 145 – 157 and 158-175 of the record of appeal.

The matter proceeded to trial, and the conclusion of hearing, the lower court delivered its judgment on 5/12/2022, in which it upheld the preliminary objections of the respondents and dismissed the originating summons for being both incompetent and lacking in merit, hence this appeal. See pages 313-326 and 327 – 331 of the record of appeal.