All Progressives Congress (APC) v. Mohammed Umar Jega & Ors (2023)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report – SUPREME COURT

UWANI MUSA ABBA AJI, JSC (Delivering the leading judgment)

The case of the appellant is that it conducted its primary election on 27/5/2022 for the House of Representatives for Aliero/Gwandu/Jega Federal Constituency of Kebbi State scheduled to hold on 25/2/2023, wherein the 1st and 2nd respondents participated and the 2nd respondent polled the highest votes of 149 while the 1st respondent got 6 votes and the 2nd respondent was declared the winner and his name was submitted to the 3rd respondent.

The case of the 1st respondent however is that he won the primary election held on 27/5/2022 conducted by the National Working Committee of the appellant but to his discovery, it was the name of the 2nd respondent that was published by the 3rd respondent as the candidate of the appellant instead of his name.

That the primary election that produced the 2nd respondent was conducted similarly on 27/5/2022 by the State Electoral Committee of Kebbi State. Thus, vide an originating summons filed on 29/6/2022, the 1st respondent challenged the submission/forwarding and publication of the name of the 2nd respondent by the appellant as its candidate to the 3rd respondent.

The trial court dismissed the case of the 1st respondent. On appeal, the lower court however set aside the decision of the trial court, hence this appeal.

These issues have been formulated by the appellant for the determination of this appeal:

1. Whether the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal were right when they held that the 1st respondent could rely and raise issues on incompetent grounds and particulars of appeal.
2. Whether the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal erred in law when they held that the filing of a writ of summons and originating summons both dated and filed on 29th June 2022, in respect of the same subject matter, and against the same parties by the 1st respondent did not amount to an abuse of court process?
3. Whether the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal breached the appellant’s fundamental rights to fair hearing in raising, suo motu, issues which were not raised by the parties and resolving same against the appellant without according the appellant an opportunity to be heard thereon?
4. Whether the Court of Appeal breached the appellant’s fundamental right to fair hearing when it failed to consider the case put forward by the appellant in determining and resolving issue 3 as formulated in the judgment?
5. Was the lower court right when it granted the 1st respondent’s claims and set aside the decision of the trial court?
6. Whether in view of the decisions in Ibezim v. Elebeke & 3 Ors. (2021) 33 WRN 142; (2022) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1819) 1 and APC v. Elebeke & Ors. (2022) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1837) 45, and the evidence on record, the probative value ascribed to Exhibit 10 by the Court of Appeal was correct?
7. Was the Court of Appeal right when it discountenanced the evaluation and finding of the trial court on the signature of Hon. Chamberlain Dunkwu Nnamdi.

The 1st respondent on the other hand framed these issues for determination:

1. Whether the court below was right when it held that grounds 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 of the grounds of appeal filed by the 1st respondent at the lower court are competent.
2. Whether the lower court was correct when it held that the suit filed by the 1st respondent at the trial court does not constitute abuse of court process.
3. Whether the lower court violated the right of the appellant to fair hearing in the determination of the appeal filed by the 1st respondent at the lower court.
4. Whether having regard to the circumstances of this case, the lower court correctly evaluated and reviewed the case of the parties before allowing the appeal of the 1st respondent filed at the lower court.

The issues formulated by the 1st respondent are more apt and comprehensive enough to consider this appeal and I shall adopt them.

Issue one:

Whether the court below was right when it held that grounds 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 of the grounds of appeal filed by the 1st respondent at the lower court are competent.

It is submitted by the learned counsel to the appellant that grounds 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 of the grounds of appeal filed by the 1st respondent at the lower court are incompetent having being vague, argumentative, narrative and bore no nexus either to the ratio decidendi or were never part of the case of the 1st respondent. He prayed the resolution of this issue in his favour.

Learned counsel to the 1st respondent argued that the lower court did not hold that a party can raise issues from incompetent grounds of appeal but that the grounds complained of are not vague, argumentative and repetitive and satisfied the requirement of the law. He urged this issue to be resolved in his favour.

Contained at pages 952 – 968 of the record are the said grounds of appeal with their particulars complained by the appellant to be “vague, argumentative, narrative”. It is apparent and obvious that some of the grounds and particulars of appeal appear windy and narrative because of the excepts and quotations of some parts of the judgment of the trial court carried out by the 1st respondent as his grounds and particulars of the appeal. Nevertheless, do all these constitute incompetence of grounds and particulars of appeal?

Per Peter-Odili, JSC, in Waziri & Anor. v. Geidam & Ors. (2016) LPELR-40660(SC) (pages 17-19 paras. A) held: