Peoples Democratic Party V. Hon. Babangida S. M. Nguroje & Ors (2012)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

IGNATIUS IGWE AGUBE J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

This Appeal is a sister to Appeal No. CA/YL/30/2011 earlier decided both of which arose from the same facts and judgment of S. M. Shuaibu, J, delivered on the 1st day of April, 2011 at the Federal High Court, Yola Division. The facts of the case are clear and have been elaborately stated in the Judgment in Suit Number CA/YL/30/2011. Suffice is to say that by way of Originating Summons commenced in the Federal High Court, Yola; the 2nd Respondent herein and Plaintiff in the Court below challenged the cancellation of his victory at the primary Election held by the present Appellant (then 1st Defendant) for the nomination of the PDP candidate to contest the General Elections into the House of Representatives for the Gashaka/Kurmi/Sardauna Federal Constituency of Taraba State.

At the said primary conducted on the 6th day of January, 2011, the 2nd Respondent herein was recorded in Exhibit E to the Affidavit in Support of the Originating Summons to have scored 315 votes as against the 1st Respondent’s 266 votes.

Avalanche of documents showing that he underwent all the necessary processes as stipulated in the Appellant’s Guidelines for the Party’s Primary Election and the Electoral Act, 2010 before being declared the winner of the Primary Election of 6th January 2011, have also been annexed to the Affidavit in support of the Originating Summons and his Further And Better Affidavits. Having won the Election, the Appellant herein was expected to mandatorily, submit the 2nd Respondent’s name to 3rd Respondent as the winner of the Primary and therefore the candidate of the Appellant for the General Elections, 2011 under Section 87(4)(c)(ii) of the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended).

Rather than submit the 2nd Respondent’s name as stipulated by the Electoral Act and Party Guidelines, the Appellant purporting to act on a Petition sent by the 1st Respondent to the Appellant’s Election Appeal Panel, proceeded to cancel the nomination of the 2nd Respondent and purported to conduct a rerun election without giving the 2nd Respondent the opportunity to be heard on the allegations trumped up by the 1st Respondent which the Appeal Panel purportedly investigated and found substantiated.

The grouse of the 2nd Respondent amongst others was the cancellation of his nomination and his being substituted with the 1st Respondent as the candidate of the 2nd Respondent without being heard. Accordingly, the 2nd Respondent sought for the interpretation of the Party Guidelines, the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended) and the Constitution of the Federal Republic as they affected his divested right to contest the Election as the nominated candidate of the Appellant/PDP for the Federal Constituency in question.

The Appellant and 1st Respondent filed their respective Counter-Affidavits and annexed documentary Exhibits which according to them justified the cancellation of the victory of the 2nd Respondent and the substitution of his name with that of the 1st Respondent claiming Party Supremacy in such Primary Election. After hearing the parties and considering the totality of the Affidavit evidence and the bundle of documents placed before the lower Court, the learned trial Judge found merit in the case of the Plaintiff/2nd Respondent and granted all the Reliefs sought.

Dissatisfied with the judgment of the lower Court, the Appellant filed her Notice of Appeal with two Grounds couched thus:-

GROUND 7

“The learned trial judge erred in law and came to a perverse decision in granting the reliefs based on an issue not formulated for determination in the originating summons.

PARTICULARS OF ERRORS:

i. None of the issues formulated for determination raised allegation of fair hearing,

ii. Evidence adduced which is at variance with the claim ought to be discountenanced,

iii. The Trial court is not entitled to make a case for any of the patties’