Independent National Electoral Commission V Ogbadibo Local Government & Ors (2015)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

SULEIMAN GALADIMA, J.S.C.

This appeal is against the judgment of the Court of Appeal, Makurdi Division (hereinafter referred to as “the court below”) delivered on 13/2/2014, which affirmed the judgment of the Federal High Court, and Makurdi (hereinafter referred to as “the trial court delivered on 26/6/2012. The court below upheld the decision of the trial court and dismissed the appellant’s appeal. It held, inter alia, that the trial court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit and that the respondents herein are vested with the necessary locus standi to institute the action at the trial court and that there is “continuance in the oppression” of Otukpa State Constituency.

Aggrieved by the decision of the court below, the Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal on 1/4/2014 containing 6 grounds of appeal. I sha1l come to this anon, but for better understanding of this matter, I shall expose, in summary, the facts that gave rise to this appeal.

The Respondents commenced their action at the Federal High Court, Abuja on 25/10/2011 against the Appellant. The suit was subsequently transferred to the Federal High Court Makurdi and registered as suit No.FHC/MKD/CS/17/2012. In the suit, the respondents herein raised 6 questions and prayed for the following 4 reliefs:

“1. A declaration that the Benue State House of Assembly is not properly constituted or composed as required by Sections 91 and 112 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

2. A declaration that having regard to the provision of Section 91 and 112 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria the defendant acted improperly and unfairly in refusing or failing to include the suppressed OTUKPA State Constituency in Ogbadibo Local Government Area among the names of the suppressed state constituencies it forwarded to the National Assembly for approval for restoration.
3. An order directing the respondent to comply with the provisions of Section 91 and 112 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 by Restoring the suppressed OTUKPA state constituency in Ogbadibo Local Government Area, Benue State to bring the composition of the Benue State House of Assembly in line with the provisions of the Constitution.
4. An order of the Court directing or compelling the dependant to restore the suppressed OTUKPA state constituency in Ogbadibo Local Government Area.”

The Originating Summons was supported by a 7-paragraphs affidavit and a number of documents annexed as exhibits A – E. The Appellant, in reaction to the Respondents’ originating processes, filed a Notice of Preliminary objection wherein it contended that the jurisdiction of the trial court to entertain the suit was statute barred, having not been instituted within three months after the accrual of the cause of action. It is contended therefore that the suit was incompetent.

In his considered judgment of 26/6/2012, the learned trial judge dismissed the Appellant’s Preliminary Objection and held that the complaints of the Respondents is a continuous act which removes the protection granted by Section 2(a) of the Public Officers Protection Act. The court further granted all the reliefs sought by the Respondents.

Aggrieved by the judgment of the learned trial judge, the Appellant filed its Notice of appeal on 19/7/2012, which was amended and filed on 14/11/2012. It contained 6 grounds of appeal.

After hearing argument from both parties, the Court of Appeal delivered its judgment on 13/2/2014, wherein it affirmed the decision of the trial court and dismissed the Appellants’ appeal.

Dissatisfied, the appellant has further appealed to this court vide its 6 grounds of appeal out of which the following 6 issues have been raised for determination:

“Issue No. 1

Whether the Court of Appeal was right in holding that the respondents satisfied the requrements of the law on locus standi and therefore clothed with the necessary locus standi to institute the action (Ground 1).

Issue No. 2

Whether the Appellant is not protected by Section 2(a) of the Public Officers Protection Act having regard to the circumstances of this case. (Ground 2)