All Progressives Congress & Ors v. Collins Ifeanyi & Ors (2023)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

JUMMAI HANNATU SANKEY, JCA (Delivering the leading judgment)

This appeal is against the judgment of the Federal High Court, Umuahia Judicial Division in suit No. FHC/UM/CS/139/2022. The suit was instituted via an originating summons filed by the 1st respondent, as plaintiff.

The lower court dismissed the two preliminary objections filed by the appellants and granted all the reliefs sought by the 1st respondent. Dissatisfied by the decision of the lower court, the appellants filed a notice of appeal dated 31st day of January, 2023 complaining on twelve (12) grounds.

The appeal was heard and argued on 24th March, 2023 with learned counsel for the respective parties adopting the submissions in their separate Briefs of argument and urging the court to grant the reliefs contained therein.

Learned counsel for the appellants, V. C. Nwankwo, Esq., in the appellants brief of argument filed on 14/02/23 and settled by him, couched the following issues for determination:

1. Whether the lower court was right to assume jurisdiction to hear and determine the suit of the 1st respondent. (Grounds 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5)
2. If the answer to issue no 1 above is in the positive, whether the lower court did not breach the right of the appellants to fair hearing in the conduct of the proceedings leading to the judgment in favour of the 1st respondent. (Ground 6)
3. Whether the lower court was right in entering judgment in favour of the 1st respondent. (Grounds 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 & 12)

In response, the 1st respondent, Perfect C. Okorie, Esq., in the 1st respondents brief of argument settled by him, adopted the issues formulated by the appellants with slight modifications. Thus, the appeal will be considered based on these issues.

Motion on notice filed on 22/02/023:

The 1st respondent filed a motion on notice on 22/02/23. Therein, he prayed the court for:

An order of the honourable court striking out grounds 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 9, 10, and 12 of the appellants notice of appeal for being incompetent.

He advances two grounds for the application as set out on the face of the motion paper, which contended that the said grounds of appeal were vague, argumentative and couched in general terms. The motion is supported by a six-paragraph affidavit and accompanied by a written address. Counsel adopted the arguments in the accompanying written address as his submissions in the application.

In arguing the application in his written address, counsel submits that grounds 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 9, 10, and 12 of the grounds of appeal do not arise from the decision appealed against, but from the objection raised and/or contemplated by the appellant. In addition, he argues that the appellants failed to address any specific issue of law and fact upon which the decision is based. Counsel therefore submits that the grounds are incompetent and should be struck out. He relies on Khali v. YarAdua (2003) 49 WRN 50; (2003) 16 NWLR (Pt. 847) 446, 459.

By the same token, counsel submits that where a ground of appeal is incompetent, any issue distilled therefrom is also incompetent and should be struck out. He relies on Jev v. Iyortyom (2014) 50 WRN 1; (2014) LPELR-23000 (SC) 36 – 37, F – B, per Okoro, JSC. He therefore urged the court to strike out issues 2 and 3 formulated from the incompetent grounds.

In response to the affidavit in support of the motion, counsel for the appellants filed a twelve-paragraph counter-affidavit in opposition on 02/03/23. It is accompanied by a written address. He adopted the submissions in the written address as his arguments in answer to the submissions of 1st respondents counsel. He crafted one issue for determination, thus:

Whether the 1st respondent/applicant has made out a case for the grant of the reliefs sought by him in this application?