Ifeanyi v. Ogba & Ors (2022)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report – SUPREME COURT

MOHAMMED LAWAL GARBA, J.S.C. (Delivering the Lead Judgment)

The Appellant had emerged as the winner of the 2nd Respondent’s 2023 Ebonyi State Gubernatorial Primary Election scheduled by the National Executive Committee and National Working Committee conducted on the 29th of May, 2022 and monitored by the 3rd Respondent.

Subsequently, the Chairman and National Secretary of 2nd Respondent in a letter to the Chairman of the 3rd Respondent dated “Tuesday, 31 May, 2002”, purported to have “cancelled the gubernatorial (sic) congress held on May 29th, 2022”.

However, the Appellant approached the Federal High Court sitting at Abakaliki, (trial Court) vide originating summons dated and filed on the 30th of May, 2022 raising questions challenging the authority of the Chairman and Secretary of the 2nd Respondent to cancel the result of the congress/primary election conducted on the 29th of May, 2022 and sought for the following reliefs:-

“1. A DECLARATION that the cancellation or purported cancellation of the People’s Democratic Party Governorship primary election held in Ebonyi State on 29/05/2022 is unlawful, whimsical, capricious, null, void and of no effect in any manner whatsoever for offending the provisions of the said extent laws referred to above.

2. A DECLARATION that the National Chairman and the National Secretary of the People’s Democratic Party cannot upturn the valid decisions of the National Working Committee and the National Executive Committee without holding a valid and subsequent meetings of the said organs of the party for that purpose.
3. A DECLARATION that the National Working Committee and the National Executive Committee of the People’s Democratic Party could have held and did not hold any meeting of the said organs of the party while it was engrossed in the conduct of its special National Convention for purpose of electing its Presidential Candidate from 28/05/2022 and 29/05/2022 for the 2022 elections.
4. A DECLARATION that the People’s Democratic Party cannot lawfully cancel, upturn, annual etc the outcome of its Governorship primaries held on 29/05/2022 in Ebonyi State in the manner contained in its purported press release of 29/05/2022 for offending the provisions of the said extant laws referred to above.

5. A DECLARATION that the Independent National Electoral Commission cannot blindly comply with the cancellation or purported cancellation of the Governorship primary election of the People’s Democratic Party held on 29/05/2022 in Ebonyi State for offending the provisions of the said extant laws referred to above.
6. AN ORDER of perpetual injunction restraining the 1st Defendant for itself its agents, servants, workmen, privies etc from purporting to cancel, cancelling or otherwise tampering with or upturning the outcome of its Governorship Primary Election held in Ebonyi State on 29/05/2022.
7. AN ORDER of perpetual injunction restraining the 1st Defendant for itself, its agents, organs, servants, workmen etc from refusing to receive or transmit the name of the Plaintiff/Applicant to the 2nd Defendant (INEC) as its Governorship candidate for Ebonyi State.
8. AN ORDER of perpetual injunction restraining the 1st Defendant for itself, its agents, organs, servants, workmen, privies etc from rescheduling or purporting to reschedule or fixing any other date for its Governorship primary election in Ebonyi State other than that scheduled and already held by it in Ebonyi State on 29/05/2022.

9. An ORDER of perpetual injunction restraining the 2nd Defendant for itself, its agents, servants, workmen, privies etc from monitoring any other Governorship primary election of the People’s Democratic Party in Ebonyi State after that of 29/05/2022.”

The 2nd and 3rd Respondents were the only Respondents to the Originating summons which came up before the trial Court on the 31st of May, 2022 and adjourned to the 7th of June, 2022 for hearing after the grant of an ex parte application for the abridgment of time within which the respondents were to enter appearance, to seven (7) days.

On the 9th June, 2022, the 1st Respondent, through counsel, sought for an adjournment to the 8th of June, 2022 to enable him file a motion for joinder as a party to the suit which request was refused by the trial Court. That Court proceeded thereafter to hear the summons without the 1st Respondent and delivered its judgment an hour later, granting the reliefs sought by the Appellant.
​
Aggrieved by the turn of events, the 1st Respondent filed a Notice of Appeal against the judgment on the 17th of June, 2022 which appears at pages 169 – 176 of the Record of Appeal. Then, on the 21st of May, 2022, the Court of Appeal, Enugu Division (Court below) granted the 1st Respondent leave to appeal against the said judgment of the trial Court within 48 hours and another Notice of Appeal dated the 21st of June, 2022 was filed by the 1st Respondent (page 179 – 186) of the Record of Appeal.

The Appellant filed a preliminary objection to the competence of the appeal on the 13th July, 2022 on the grounds that:
“1. This Honourable Court lacks the jurisdiction to entertain this appeal as it was filed outside the prescribed period stipulated under Section 285 (11) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999. (As Amended).

2. The order granting the Appellant leave to appeal is a nullity.
3. The Appellant’s Brief of Argument is incompetent.
4. Ground 6 of the Notice of Appeal does not arise from the judgment appealed against.
5. Issue 1 as contained in the Appellant’s Brief of Argument is incompetent.”

The objection was over-ruled and the appeal decided by the Court below on the merit in the judgment delivered on the 19th July, 2022 by which the appeal was allowed, the judgment of the trial Court set aside and an order for re-trial made before the trial Court by another Judge thereof.

Being dissatisfied with the judgment, the Appellant brought this appeal by the Notice of Appeal filed on the 26th July, 2022 containing thirteen (13) grounds, from which two (2) issues were formulated for determination by this Court in (the Appellant’s brief tiled on the 10th August, 2022. The two issues are in the following terms:-
“1. Whether the lower Court was right to have assumed jurisdiction over the appeal filed by the 1st Respondent as an interested party without the requisite leave of Court. (Distilled from grounds 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7,8, and 9 of the Notice of Appeal).

2. Whether the lower Court was right when it held that the 1st Respondent was not afforded a fair hearing at the trial Court because the trial Court did not hear and determine an application which had not been filed as at the time it was entering judgment. (Distilled from Grounds 10, 11, 12

and 13 of the Notice of Appeal). ”

The 1st Respondent was also not satisfied with some portion of the judgment by the Court below and filed a Notice of Cross-Appeal on the 29th of July, 2022 predicated on two (2) grounds from which a sole issue was raised for determination in the Cross-Appellant’s Brief filed on the 9th of August, 2022. It is as follows:
“I) WHETHER THE COURT BELOW WAS RIGHT WHEN IT HELD THAT ISSUES ONE, TWO AND FOUR FOR DETERMINATION IN THE APPEAL BEFORE IT, DEALING WITH THE ISSUES OF JURISDICTION AND MERIT OF THE CROSS-RESPONDENT’S SUIT, HAD BECOME ACADEMIC IN VIEW OF ITS DECISION ON ISSUE THREE, AND DECLINED TO DETERMINE THE SAID ISSUE ONE, TWO AND FOUR AND ORDERED THAT THE SUIT I.E. SUIT NO. FHC/AI/CS/88/2022: CHIEF CHUKWUM ODH IFEANYI V. PEOPLES DEMOCRATIC PARTY & ANOR BE REMITTED TO THE CHIEF JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL HIGH COURT FOR SAME TO BE REASSIGNED TO ANY OTHER JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL HIGH COURT OTHER THAN F. O. RIMAN J. FOR HEARING AND DETERMINATION? (Distilled From Grounds 1 and 2 of the Grounds of Cross-Appeal).”
​
I would deal with the main appeal first.

Appellants submissions:
The arguments on the issue 1 are that the Court below was wrong in law to hold that a person having an interest in a pre-election matter does not need prior leave of Court to appeal against a judgment in the matter, relying on the provisions of Section 243 (1) (a) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, (as altered). According to learned counsel for the Appellant, the Court below erred when it relied on its decision in Ogah v. Emenike (2019) LPELR – 46644 (CA) and jettisoned the decision in the ease of APC v. Brodrick (2019) LPELR-48678 (CA) on the ground that the provisions of Section 285 (11) of the Constitution does not confer a right of appeal on a non-party or person having interest in a matter.

It is contended, relying on Section 243 (1) (a) of the Constitution, that the Notice of Appeal to the Court below filed on 17th June, 2022 by the 1st Respondent, who was not a party in the originating summons and the judgment by the trial Court without the prior leave of Court, was incompetent thereby depriving the Court below of the jurisdiction to entertain the purported appeal. The cases of Assam v. Ararume (2016) 1 NWLR (pt. 1493) 368 at 387 – 388, Odedo v. PDP (2015) LPELR – 24738 (SC) at 59 – 60 and Contract Resource Nig. Ltd. v. UBA, PIc (2011) LPELR – 8137 (SC) 13 – 14 are also relied on for the position and it is further argued that since the provisions of Section 243(1) (a) of the Constitution do not confer the right of appeal on a person having interest in a matter, as of right, the provisions must be complied with, on the authority of Anyakorah v. POP (2022) LPELR 56876 (SC) 30, Ekunola v. CBN (2013) LPELR – 20391 (SC) 59 and Onigbeden v. Balogun (1975) LPELR – 2682 (SC).