Mr. Emmanuel Andy Nnamdi Uba v. Chief (Dr) George Moghalu & Ors (2022)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report – SUPREME COURT

UWANI MUSA ABBA AJI, JSC (Delivering the leading judgment)

The 1st respondent and other 12 persons were aspirants in the primary elections of the 3rd respondent (APC) that held on 26/6/2021.

After the 1st respondent was duly screened and cleared, he campaigned in all the 326 wards of Anambra State, preparatory to voting by members of the party in the said primary elections. Both the appellant and the 1st respondent sent out their field officers/agents to monitor the primary elections on the stated date in the 326 wards in Anambra State.

On the day of the primary elections, the Election Committee was nowhere seen in any of the wards in Anambra State, causing the 1st respondent and other aspirants to wait from 8:00am to 5:30pm for the Election Committee to surface but to no avail.

The 2nd respondent (INEC) also waited in vain and eventually left. Nevertheless, the Election Committee showed up the next day, 27/6/2021, at Agulu Hotel, Anambra State, and announced a bogus election results written for and in favour of the appellant, claiming that it arrived late in the evening of the previous day and because of hotel challenges in Awka, they lodged in Owerri and were hosted there.

This brought about a public condemnation by the 1st respondent in conjunction with the APC leader in Anambra State, Dr. Chris Ngige, the APC publicity Secretary, Mr. Okelo Madukaife, Chairmen of the 21 Local Government Chapters of APC in Anambra State and co-aspirants.

The 1st respondent as plaintiff in the trial court consequently vide an originating summons filed a pre-election matter challenging the said primary election on 8/7/2021, complaining among other things non-compliance and breach of the provision of the party’s regulations and guidelines and of the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended), especially articles 17 and 18 of the APC guidelines and section 85 of the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended).

The officers of the 2nd respondent (INEC), some security agencies that were to monitor the primary elections, the aggrieved members of the 3rd respondent and agents of the appellant filed their reports which were for and against the conduct of the said primary elections. The trial court in its considered judgment on 20/12/2021 held that:

“… the plaintiff has demonstrated upon preponderance of evidence that the Gubernatorial primary election of the 1st Defendant was not conducted in accordance with the provisions of sections 85(2) and 87(1) of the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended) and articles 1 7(vi) and 18(e) and (i) of the 1st defendant’s Guidelines for the Nomination of candidates for Anambra 2021 Gubernatorial Election-Direct Primaries (Option A4). Therefore, the case of the plaintiff succeeds on the merit…”

Miffed with the decision of the trial court, the appellant approached the lower court, which dismissed the appeal and affirmed the decision of the trial court, holding that

“this appeal lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. The judgment of the Federal High Court in suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/648/2021…by 1. E. Ekwo, J, is hereby affirmed.”

This precipitated the appeal to this apex court. The appellant has therefore distilled these issues for determination thus:

1. Whether upon the slight adjustment of the time in the 3rd respondent’s gubernatorial primary election in Anambra State on 26th June, 2021, the lower court was right when it held that the said primary election was not conducted in line with the 3rd respondent’s guidelines and the Electoral Act?
2. Whether the lower court was correct when it held that by the affidavit evidence before the trial court, there was no accreditation, voting and collation of votes with respect to the gubernatorial primaries of the 3rd respondent held on 26th June, 2021 in Anambra State?
3. Whether the lower court was correct when it held that the 1st respondent was an aspirant in the 3rd respondent’s primary election and that the 1st respondent had the locus standi to institute the suit before the trial court?
4. Whether the lower court was not wrong to have approved the use of originating summons in this case when there are serious issues of dispute of facts in the affidavit and documents relied on by the 1st respondent.
5. Whether the lower court was right to assume jurisdiction over the matter, considering the fact that the case at the trial court borders on the gubernatorial primary election of the 3rd respondent (APC) which was held in Awka, Anambra State which is inconsistent with the 1st respondent’s reliefs 4 and 7 that showed that his case is about a simple contract.
6. Whether the lower court was right when it held that the trial court properly evaluated the evidence of the appellant when it failed to place reliance on the content of exhibits MAM 20-MAM327 and other documentary evidence placed before the court?

The 1st respondent contrariwise formulated these issues for determination:

1. Whether the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal were right in affirming the decision of the trial court that the 1st respondent had the requisite locus standi to institute and maintain his action.
2. Whether the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal were right in holding that the trial court had jurisdiction to try the 1st respondent’s suit.
3. Whether the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal were right in upholding the decision of the trial court that the primary election of the 3rd respondent was conducted in breach of the provisions of the Electoral Act and the Primary Election Guidelines of the 3rd respondent.
4. Whether the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal were right in their holding that the trial court properly evaluated the evidence before it.
5. Whether the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal were right in upholding the trial court’s decision that the 1st respondent’s suit was triable under the originating summons procedure as there were no serious disputes in the case which could not be resolved by the available documentary evidence before it.

I shall regroup the issues to be considered in this appeal. Since the issue of jurisdiction has reared up its head, I shall consider the appellant’s issue 5 alongside the 1st respondent’s issue 2. The appellant’s issues 1, 2 and 6 shall be considered alongside the 1st respondent’s issues 3 and 4, while appellant’s issues 3 and 4 will go with the 1st respondent’s issues 1 and 5.