Dr. Abdullahi Baba Abdul V. Congress For Progressive Change (CPC) & Ors (2012)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

REGINA OBIAGELI NWODO, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

The Appellant as plaintiff in the Federal High Court Abuja Division instituted an action by Originating Summons against the Respondents who were then Defendants seeking for the following questions:

“1. Whether by the combined provisions of section 87 (1) of the Electoral Act, 2010 as amended and Schedule 1 Paragraph 2(iii) of the Constitution of Congress for Progressive Change (CPC) the 4th Defendant is qualified to contest in the party’s primary election for House of Representatives and is entitled to have his name forwarded by the party to the Independent National Electoral Commission, for the purpose of contesting the 2011 National Assembly Election having joined the party on or about the 3rh of December, 2010.

2. Whether by the provisions of Section 87 (1) of the Electoral Act, 2010 as amended and Schedule 1 Paragraph 2(iii) of the Constitution of Congress for Progressive Charge (CPC) the 1st Defendant can validly allow the nomination of the 4th Defendant to contest the party’s House of Representatives primary election for Lokoja/Kogi Federal Constituency for the purpose of the 2011 National Assembly Election.
3. Whether by the provisions of Section 84(1) of the Electoral Act, 2010 as amended and Schedule 1 Paragraph 2(iii) of the Constitution of Congress of Progressive Change (CPC) the Plaintiff is the only eligible candidate of the party for the party House of Representatives primary election held on the 9th of January, 2011.
4. Whether by provisions of the Electoral Act, 2010 as amended and Schedule 1 Paragraph 2(iii) of the Constitution of Congress for Progressive Change (CPC) the 3rd Defendant can accept, recognize and maintain on its records, the name of the 4th Defendant as the 1st Defendant’s candidate for the purpose of contesting the 2011 general election other than the name of the plaintiff who participated as the only eligible candidate of the party at the party’s primary election for the Lokoja/Kogi Federal Constituency held on the 9th of January, 2011.”

Consequent on the determination of the above Questions he sought the following reliefs:

“1. A DECLARATION that the Plaintiff having participated in the 1st Defendant’s House of Representatives primary election as the only eligible contestant that participated in the said primary election is entitled to have his name forwarded by the 1st Defendant to the Independent National Electoral Commission, as her candidate for the purpose of contesting the 2011 National Assembly Election.

2. AN ORDER of the Honourable Court declaring null and void the 1st Defendant’s purported submission of the 4th Defendant’s name as her candidate for the purpose of contesting the House of Representative Seat for Lokoja/Kogi Federal Constituency in the 2011 National Assembly Election.
3. A DECLARATION that the 3rd Defendant’s express and/or implied conduct of accepting and recognizing any other name other than the Plaintiff as the 1st Defendant’s candidate for the purpose of contesting the House of Representatives Seat for Lokoja/Kogi Federal Constituency in the 2011 National Assembly Election is null, void and of no effect.
4. AN ORDER of injunction restraining the 1st and 2nd defendants from recognizing or further recognizing any other person beside the Plaintiff as the candidate of the 1st Defendant for House of Representatives Seat for Lokoja/Kogi Federal Constituency in the 2011 National Assembly Election.
5. AN ORDER of mandatory injunction mandating and/or compelling the 1st Defendant to immediately accept and maintain on its record the name of the Plaintiff as the candidate of 1st Defendant for the 2011 Lokoja/Kogi Federal Constituency, the Plaintiff, being the only eligible candidate that participated in the 1st Defendant’s House of Representatives primary Election.
6. AN ORDER of mandatory injunction compelling the 3rd Defendant, its officers, servants and agents to immediately publish the Plaintiff’s particulars within Lokoja/Kogi Federal Constituency, as the 1st Defendant’s candidate for the 2011 National Assembly Election Scheduled for April 2011.

The suit was later transferred to the Federal High Court Lokoja Division before his lordship Ekwo J.

The learned trial Judge in a considered decision on the 5th of December, 2011 held that the plaintiff did not prove his case with credible evidence and dismissed the claim.

Dissatisfied with the decision of the court below, the Appellant approached this Court vide a Notice of Appeal filed on 03/01/2012 containing 10 grounds of Appeal.

In line with the Rules of this Court the Appellant and the 4th Respondent filed and exchanged Briefs of arguments. The 1st, 2nd and 3rd Respondents did not file any brief. At the hearing of the appeal the Appellant who is not a legal practitioner appeared in person and adopted his Brief settled by him on 05/03/2012 and Reply Brief filed on 23/04/2012.

The 4th Respondents counsel M. T. Musa adopted the 4th Respondent’s brief filed on 29/03/2012 and settled by him. Before adopting the Brief he referred the court to the Notice of Preliminary objection incorporated in the Brief. The Notice of Preliminary objection is on page 3 of his brief. I will now look at the grounds of the preliminary objection.

PRELIMINARY OBJECTION:

The 4th Respondents Preliminary objection is predicated on four grounds. I will take them in seriatim.

Under Ground one, it is the submission of the learned counsel for the 4th Respondent that grounds one, two, three, four, five and six of the Notice of Appeal are in all material particulars incompetent because they are not couched from the Ratio Decidendi of the lower courts Judgment. It is the further contention of the learned counsel that Grounds One to Six are not related to the Judgment or ratio Decidendi and should be struck out. He referred to the case of Gwandu v. Gwandu (2004) 17 WRN 76 at 93.

It is his further submission that particulars of the Grounds of Appeal are not related to the grounds and should be struck out.