Mr Peres Peretu & Ors. V. Chief Koko Gariga & Ors (2012)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

NWALI SYLVESTER NGWUTA, J.S.C.

This is an appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal, Port Harcourt Division delivered on the 10th day of February, 2012.

The Respondents who were the plaintiffs in the trial court asked the Court to determine, in the originating summons, the following questions:

“1. Whether the 1st Defendant is not under a legal obligation by the combined provisions of Articles 13.1(c) and 13.22 of the Constitution of the People Democratic Party 2009 (as amended) and all other provisions of the said Constitution, to screen the claimants as the lawfully nominated candidates of the Peoples Democratic Party for Sagbana, Kolokuma/Opokuma, Ogbai, Ekeremor and Yenagoa Local Government Areas, respectively, of Bayelsa State in respect of the forthcoming Local Government Election in Bayelsa State for 3rd of April 2010 having been presented to it by the 9th Defendant.

2. Whether by the provisions of Article 13.22 and Article 13.1 and all other provisions of the Constitution of the Peoples Democratic Party 2009 (as amended) the 9th Defendant, as against the 8th Defendant, is not the one legally empowered to issue Certificate of Return and present the names of the validly nominated candidates of the Peoples Democratic Party for Sagbama, Kolokum/Opokuma, Ogbai, Ekeremor and Yenagoa Local Government Areas respectively of Bayelsa State to the 1st Defendant for screening in respect of the forthcoming Local Government elections in Bayelsa State slated for 3rd of April 2010.
3. Whether by the provisions of Article 13.22 and Article 13.1 and all other provisions of the constitution of the Peoples Democratic Party (2009) as amended) the 8th Defendant is legally empowered to overturn Certificates of Return already issued by the 9th Defendant to the plaintiffs by issuing subsequent certificates of Return to the 2nd – 6th Defendants.”

Predicated on the anticipated resolution of the above questions in their favour, the Respondents (as plaintiffs) sought the following declarations:

“1. A declaration that the 1st Defendant is under a legal obligation by the combined provisions of Articles 13.1.(c) and 13.22 of the Constitution of the Peoples Democratic Party 2009 (as amended) to screen the claimants as the lawfully nominated candidates of the Peoples Democratic Party for Sagbama, Kolokima/Opokuma, Ogbai, Ekeremor and Yenagoa Local Government Areas respectively of Bayelsa State in respect of the forthcoming Local Government elections in Bayelsa State slated for 3rd of April 2010.

2. A declaration that the purported screening of the 2nd to 6th Defendants as Chairmanship candidates of the Peoples Democratic Party by the 1st Defendant is illegal, null and void.
3. A declaration that by the provisions of Article 13.22 and Article 13.1 and all other provisions of the Constitution of the Peoples Democratic Party 2009 (as amended) the 9th defendant, as against the 8th defendant, is the one legally empowered to issue Certificate of Return and present the names of the validly nominated candidates of the Peoples Democratic Party for Sagbama, Kolokuma/Opokuma, Ogbai, Ekeremor and Yenagoa Local Government Areas respectively of Bayelsa State to the 1st defendant for screening in respect of the forthcoming Local Government elections in Bayelsa State slated for 3rd of April 2010.
4. A declaration that by the provision of Article 13.22 and Article 13.1 and all other provisions of the constitution of the Peoples Democratic Party 2009 (as amended) the 8th defendant is not legally empowered to overturn Certificates of Return already issued by the 9th Defendant to the plaintiff by issuing subsequent Certificates of Return to the 2nd – 6th defendants.
5. An order setting aside the certificates signed and issued to the 2nd – 6th defendants by the 8th defendant herein in his capacity as Secretary of the State Executive Committee of the Peoples Democratic Party in Bayelsa State for same was a nullity and ultra vires.
6. An order setting aside the screening exercise carried out by the 1st defendant between the 16th and 18th of December, 2009 on the 2nd to the 6th defendants among others, as Peoples Democratic Party flagbearers or nominees for Sagbama, Kolekuma/Opokuma, Ogbai, Ekeremor and Yenagoa Local Government Areas in the forthcoming elections as same was an exercise futility.
7. An order of perpetual injunction restraining the 2nd to 6th defendants either by themselves and/or through their agents, privies and/or servants jointly and/or severally from parading themselves as PDP Chairmanship candidates for the forthcoming Local Election in Bayelsa State in Sagbama, Kolokuma/Opokuma, Ogbai, Ekeremor and Yenagoa Local Government Areas respectively of Bayelsa State.
8. An order of perpetual injunction restraining the 1st defendant from according recognition to the 2nd to 6th defendants as Chairmanship candidates duly returned by the Ad-hoc Electoral Panel of the Peoples Democratic Party for Sagbama, Kolokuma/Opokuma, Ogbai, Ekeremor and Yenagoa Local Government Areas respectively in Bayelsa State to contest the forthcoming Local Government election on the platform of PDP.
9. An order of perpetual injunction restraining the 1st defendant from organizing, supervising and/or conducting any local Government election(s) in Bayelsa State in respect of the forthcoming Local Government Elections slated for 3rd April 2010 without the inclusion of the plaintiffs as the validly nominated candidates of the Peoples Democratic Party.
10. An order compelling the 1st defendant herein to accept and screen the plaintiffs as the validly nominated Chairmanship candidates duly returned by the Ad-hoc Electoral Panel of the Peoples Democratic Party for Sagbama, Kolokuma/Opokuma, Ogbai, Ekeremor and Yenagoa Local Government Areas respectively of Bayelsa State..”

In its judgment, the trial Court presided over by Ugo J., reviewed the case of the parties. In its conclusion, laced with comic relief, the trial Court held:

“The net result of all I have said if expressed in our local parlance would come to this: that claimants have come to Sokoto to look for what is exclusively in their Sokoto trouser; that is that party’s National Executive Committee. Their case is non justiciable here and is accordingly struck out. There shall be no order as to costs.” (See page 489 of the record).

Aggrieved by the said judgment, Respondents appealed to the Court of Appeal, Port Harcourt Division, on two grounds.

In its judgment, based on the subsequently amended notice of appeal the court below concluded thus:

“The 3-4-2010 Local Government Elections which the instant appeal relates to have been conducted and the PDP has won same. It has been demonstrated in this judgment that it is the appellants who being the lawful candidates for the election that won the election for their party. The justice the appellants deserve and indeed the determination of the real issue in controversy between the parties in the appeal require that the appellants be and are hereby declared the lawfully elected chairpersons of their respective Local Government Councils. Parties are to bear their respective costs.” (See page 635 of the record).

Against the said judgment, appellants appealed to this Court on 10 grounds.

Upon service of the notice and grounds of appeal on the respondents, the parties, in compliance with the rules, filed and exchanged briefs of argument. From his 10 grounds of appeal learned Senior Counsel leading for the appellants distilled the following issues for determination:

“Issue One: Whether the Court below was right in applying/relying on the provisions of the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended) in this case to give judgment against the appellants.