Aguma V. Apc & Ors (2021)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

ADAMU JAURO, J.S.C. 

This appeal is against the decision of the Court of Appeal, Abuja Division delivered on 29th December, 2020 in Appeal No. CA/PH/215/2020 wherein the 1st respondent’s appeal was allowed and the judgment of the Rivers State High Court sitting in Port Harcourt delivered by G.O. Oremeji, J. on the 9th June, 2020 in Suit No. PHC/4355/2019 was set aside.

Brief Statement of Facts

The National Working Committee of the 1st respondent dissolved the entire executive structure of the party at all levels in Rivers State. It went ahead to set up a Caretaker Committee headed by the 2nd respondent to run the affairs of the party in the State.

Upon the constitution and inauguration of the said Caretaker Committee, the appellant instituted Suit No. PHC/4355/2019 in the High Court of Rivers State via an originating summons dated 12th December, 2019 and filed on 16th December, 2019. In the said originating summons which can be gleaned at pages 1 – 3 of the record of appeal, the appellant sought for the determination of the following questions:

  1. “Whether by the provisions of Article 12(1), 1(v), 8(xxx) and 9 of the All Progressives Congress Constitution (the Constitution), the claimant is a member of the 2nd defendant’s foremost organ, to wit: National Convention and as such, a statutory member of the State Executive Committee of the 2nd defendant in Rivers State?
  2. Whether by the provisions of Article 12(1) (v), (8), 8(xxx) and 13(4)(xvi) of the Constitution of the 2nd defendant; the National Working Committee of the 2nd defendant’s decision, appointment and inauguration of a Caretaker Committee in Rivers Stater is not ultra vires the Constitution of the Party.
  3. Whether by virtue of Article 13(4), 4 (xvii) of the Constitution of the 2nd defendant, the continuous stay in office of the Party’s Caretaker Committee in Rivers State is not unconstitutional, null and void.”
See also  Musaconi Limited V. Mr. H. Aspinall (2013) LLJR-SC

Upon the favourable determination of the questions, the appellant sought the following reliefs against the respondents:

  1. “A Declaration that by virtue of Article 12(1)(v), (8), 8(xxx) and 13(4) of the All Progressives Congress’s Constitution the claimant is a member of the National Convention of the 2nd defendant and as such a statutory member of the State Executive Committee of the 2nd defendant in Rivers State.
  2. A Declaration that the exclusion of the claimant and all other statutory members of the State Executive Committee of the 2nd defendant from the Caretaker Committee set up by the 2nd and 3rd defendants in Rivers State is ultra vires the Constitution of the 2nd defendant and is therefore null and void.
  3. A Declaration that the continuous stay in office of the Caretaker Committee is unconstitutional.
  4. An Order of this Honourable Court setting aside the said appointment and/or inauguration of the Caretaker Committee of the 2nd defendant in Rivers State made on or about the 6th day of September, 2019.
  5. An Order directing the 2nd and 3rd defendants within 48 hours of the making thereof to constitute a fresh Caretaker Committee incorporating the claimant as the Chairman and all statutory members of the State Executive Committee as members in furtherance of the Constitution of the 2nd defendant, failure of which statutory members shall comprise the Caretaker Committee chaired by the claimant in furtherance of the All Progressives Congress Constitution.
  6. AND of such order and further orders as this Honourable Court may deem fit to make in the circumstances of this application.”

The trial Court in its decision contained at pages 396 – 419 of the printed records, granted all the reliefs sought by the appellant as claimant.

Naturally aggrieved by the decision of the trial Court, the 1st respondent as appellant in the Court below, approached the Court below in Appeal No. CA/PH/215/2020 challenging the decision of the trial Court.

Upon hearing the appeal, the Court below in its considered judgment delivered on 29th December, 2020 allowed the appeal and set aside the decision of the trial Court.

See also  Okwudu Nwakonobi & Ors Vs Benedict Udeorah & Ors (2012) LLJR-SC

Miffed by the turn of events, the appellant herein in the instant appeal invoked the appellate jurisdiction of this Court via a notice of appeal containing eight grounds of appeal dated and filed on 11th January, 2021.

​In line with the Rules and Practice of this Court, parties filed and exchanged their respective briefs of argument. Emeka Etiaba SAN settled both the appellant’s brief of argument and reply brief to the 1st and 2nd respondents’ brief of argument. The appellant’s brief of argument is dated and filed on 13th January, 2021 while the reply brief dated and filed on 24th February, 2021. For the determination of the appeal, the appellant from the eight grounds of appeal contained in the notice of appeal formulated six issues to wit:

  1. “Having regard to the reliefs sought in the suit, facts supporting it and the stance of the law, whether the lower Court was wrong to hold that the suit subject matter of this appeal is not a pre-election matter. (Distilled from grounds 1 and 2).
  2. Whether the lower Court was not wrong in holding that the appellant had no vested right, nay, locus standi to sue the respondents (Distilled from ground 3).
  3. Whether Articles 12.1, 12.8, 8(xxx), 13.4(xvi) and (xvii) of the 1st respondent’s Constitution make a case of non-inclusion of the appellant and other statutory members of the State Executive into the State Caretaker Committee (Distilled from ground 4).
  4. Whether the non-joinder of the other 27 statutory members of the 1st respondent’s Executive in Rivers State is fatal to the suit (Distilled from ground 5).
  5. Whether the 1st respondent’s right to hearing was denied at the trial Court (Distilled from ground 6).
  6. Whether the appellant’s suit was not commenced by due process of law. (Distilled from grounds 7 and 8)”.
See also  Dan Akpan Vs The State (1972) LLJR-SC

Tuduru U. Ede, SAN settled the 1st respondent’s brief of argument dated 22nd February, 2021 and filed on the same date. For the determination of the appeal, the 1st respondent at paragraph 6.1 of the 1st respondent’s brief distilled four issues to wit:

  1. “Whether the Justices of the Court of Appeal were right when they dismissed the preliminary objection of the appellant on the ground that appeal No: CA/PH/215/2020 does not arise from a pre-election matter within the meaning of Section 285(14) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as altered)? (Grounds 1 and 2).
  2. Whether the Justices of the Court of Appeal were right when they unanimously set aside the decision of the trial Court and upheld the preliminary objection of the 1st respondent against the suit at the trial Court? (Grounds 3, 5, 7 and 8).
  3. Whether Articles 12.1, 12.8, 8(xxx), 13.4 and (xvii) of the 1st respondent’s constitution makes the inclusion of the appellant and other statutory members of the National Convention of the party compulsory as State Caretaker Committee? (Distilled from ground 4).
  4. Whether the 1st respondent’s right to fair hearing was denied at the trial Court in respect of the preliminary objection against the competence of the suit? (Ground 6”)

The 2nd respondent’s brief of argument is dated 22nd February 2021 and filed on the same date. The said brief was settled M.S. Ibrahim Esq. who at paragraph 3.1 distilled five issues to wit:

“1. Whether the lower Court was right in its decision that the suit leading to the appeal before it, is not a pre-election matter, within the meaning and definition of Section 285(14) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 as altered. (Distilled from grounds one and two of the notice of appeal).

Membership Required

You must be a member to access this content.

View Membership Levels

Already a member? Log in here

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *