Barr. Enyinna Onuegbu & Ors V. Governor Of IMO State & Ors (2015)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

ITA GEORGE MBABA, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

By originating summons filed on 3/8/12, in Suit No. HOW/499/2012, in High Court Imo State, Appellants sought the Lower Court’s determination of whether having regard to Section 7(1) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) and Section 23(1) of the Local Government Administration Law No. 15 of 2000, as well as the Notice of Local Government Elections dated 25/2/2010 and the Guidelines thereof, the Local Government Administration (Amendment Law) No. 15 of 2009, (a retroactive law) was applicable to the tenure of the Appellants as Chairmen of the Local Government Councils in Imo State.

They also sought another determination whether, having regard to Section 7(1) of the said Constitution, and the Judgment of this Court (Court of Appeal) delivered on 5/07/2012 in appeal No. CA/OW/215/2011, which declared the 1st Respondent’s dissolution of Local Government Councils on the 6/6/11 as unconstitutional, null and void, the period of 13 months for which the Appellants were illegally removed from office should form part of the Appellants statutory tenure as duly elected Chairmen of the

27 Local Government Councils.

Appellants had sought six reliefs from the Court below, based on the above questions for determination, which included a declaration that they were entitled to complete their tenure; in summary that the 1st Respondent should not be allowed to take advantage of his violation of Section 7 of the Constitution (as amended) through his contemptuous refusal to give effect to the Court of Appeal decision nullifying the dissolution of the Councils; that the 1st Respondent had deployed thugs and all manners of pranks to stop the Appellants from returning to their offices after the delivery of the Court of Appeal Judgment.

The Respondents had filed notices of Preliminary Objection to the suit, which were duly reacted to by the Appellants and arguments taken thereon. On the date the trial Court adjourned to give ruling on the Preliminary Objections, the trial Court rather delivered ‘Judgment’ in the cause of which it dismissed the Appellants’ case.

?That is the decision Appellants are appealing against in this appeal. They filed amended Notice and grounds of appeal on 13/3/2014, with the leave of this Court and disclosed five

(5) grounds of appeal. They filed their Brief of arguments on the same 13/3/14, donating three (3) Issues for determination, as follows:

(1) Whether the Court below was right to hold that the Appellants’ Suit constituted an abuse of process (Grounds 1, 2 and 3)

(2) Whether the Court below was right to hold that the case of Appellants bothered on elongation of tenure (Ground 4)

(3) Whether the Court below was right to disregard the incompetent status of the Abuja Suit number FHC/ABJ/CS/483/2012, that is, Exhibit A, being an uncertain public document upon which it predicated its decision that the Suit that gave rise to this appeal is an abuse of process. (Ground 5).

?The 1st Respondent filed a Notice of Preliminary Objection on 10/11/14 finding fault with issues 2 and 3 of the Appellant’s brief and urging us to strike out the same. In the alternative he urged us to strike out paragraphs 4.44 to 4.51 of Appellants’ brief of argument, saying the same were missing from the copy of the Appellants’ brief served on him. The 1st Respondent also filed his brief of argument on 10/11/14, and argued the preliminary objection on pages 4 to 8 thereof. He

thereafter responded to the brief of the Appellants by adopting the 3 issues distilled by Appellants for the determination of the appeal.

The 2nd Respondent filed his brief on 23/2/15 and also adopted the 3 issues for determination of the appeal by the Appellants.