Peoples Democratic Party Vs. Hon. (Dr.) Harry N. Oranezi (2017)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

MUSA DATTIJO MUHAMMAD, JSC

On the 12th day of July 2017, this very court did determine Appeal No. SC. 279/2016 brought by the 5th respondent herein, Hon. Julius Offormah, against the decision of the Court of Appeal, Enugu Division, hereinafter referred to as the lower court, in appeal No.CA/E/207/2015. The issue raised and the facts on which the issue rested in the earlier appeal are on all fours as in the instant appeal. I shall briefly elaborate the facts that brought about the two appeals.

The 1st respondent in both appeals, Hon. Dr. Harry Oranezi, as plaintiff at the Federal High Court sitting at Awka, hereinafter referred to as the trial court, initiated suit No. FHC/AWK/CS/24/2015 against the appellant herein and the appellant in appeal No. SC. 279/2016, now the 4th respondent and the remaining respondent. He contends by his writ that having scored the highest votes in appellant’s primary election of 7th December 2014 for the party’s candidate in the 14th February 2015 general election in respect of the Nnewi North/South/Ekwusigu Federal House of Representatives Constituency, it is unlawful for the party to substitute him with and submit the 4th respondent’s name as that of its candidate in the general election. The Substitution being in breach of the Constitution and the Electoral Guidelines of the Appellant, the plaintiff pursuant to Section 87(4)(c) and (9) of the Electoral Act (as amended) sought that much declaratory and injunctive reliefs from the trial court to restore him to being the appellant’s rightful candidate in the 14th February 2015 general election for the Nnewi North/Sought/Ekwusigo Federal Constituency.

The defendants to the action challenged the competence of 1st respondent’s suit and urged the trial court to dismiss it in limine. In its ruling of 19th March 2015, the court sustained the objection of the defendants, declined jurisdiction and struck out 1st respondent’s suit.

Dissatisfied, the 1st respondent appealed to the lower court which, in upholding the appeal and setting aside the trial court’s ruling, remitted the suit to the trial court for same to be heard and determined by a judge other than M.L Abubakar J.

Similarly aggrieved, the appellant herein, like Hon. Julius Offirmah in the earlier appeal, has appealed to this Court. The notice of appeal filed on 3rd May 2016 contains two grounds of appeal.

In its brief which the appellant exchanged with the respondents and, at the hearing of the appeal, adopted and relied upon as its argument for the appeal, a lone issue has been distilled as arising for the determination of the appeal. The issue, see paragraph 4 at pages 3 and 4 of the brief reads:-

“Having regard to the following facts:

(i) The 1st Respondent claims there were three Primaries in his Statement of Claim.

(ii) He won the Primary conducted by Ken – Emeakayi

(iii) The trial Court’s un-appealed decision to the effect that the Ken – Emeakayi led Executive had ceased to exist by the 7th day of December, 2014 (the date of the primary election).

Whether the lower court was not wrong in allowing the appeal and granting consequential orders (Grounds 1 and 2)”.
(Underlining mine for emphasis).

The respondents who also adopted and relied on their respective briefs have formulated similar issues therein for the determination of the appeal. The 1st respondent’s issue reads:-

“Whether the court below was right in allowing the appear.