Rivers State Independent Electoral Commission v. All Progressives Congress & Ors (2024)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

ONYEKACHI AJA OTISI, JCA (Delivering the leading judgment)

Upon the expiration of the tenure of the terms of offices of chairmen and councillors of the twenty-three Local Government Councils in Rivers State, the appellant announced its intention to conduct elections into the Local Government Councils.

The 1st respondent, as plaintiff, filed an originating summons before the Federal High Court, sitting in Abuja, Coram P. O. Lifu, J. (the lower court), seeking to stop the holding of the said elections by the appellant on the grounds that sections 13 and 20 of Rivers State Electoral Commission Law, 2018 (RSIEC) are inconsistent with the provisions of sections 28, 29 and 9(6) of the Electoral Act, 2022, which according to the 1st respondent are applicable to elections to Local Government Councils in the Federation.

The 1st respondent also sought reliefs against the 2nd, 4th and 5th respondents.

At the conclusion of hearing of the originating summons, and all the applications pending before the lower court in the matter, the lower court delivered judgment on 30/9/2024, granting the reliefs claimed by the 1st respondent.

Aggrieved by the decision of the lower court, the appellant lodged the instant appeal by notice of appeal filed on 4/10/2024. Two other notices of appeal were filed on 7/10/2024, and on 8/10/2024, all within time.

At the hearing of the appeal on 14/11/2024, the appellant withdrew the notices of appeal filed on 4/10/2024 and 7/10/2024, and argued the appeal on the notice of appeal filed on 8/10/2024, pages 1044 -1062 of the record of appeal, Vol. 2. The 1st respondent also filed a notice of cross-appeal on 10/10/2024, to which the appellant filed a preliminary objection on 4/11/2024.

The parties filed briefs of argument, pursuant to the rules of this court. For the appellant, the processes filed were: the appellant’s brief, filed on 17/10/2024, reply brief filed on 1/11/2024, 2nd cross respondent’s motion on notice to dismiss the cross-appeal filed on 29/10/2024, and notice of preliminary objection to the cross appeal, filed on 4/11/2024.

For the 1st respondent, the processes filed were: the 1st respondent’s brief filed on 25/10/2024, the cross appellant’s brief filed on 25/10/204, the written address filed on 13/11/2024 in response to the appellant’s motion on notice to dismiss the appeal, and a reply on points of law also filed on 13/11/2024.

For the 3rd respondent, the processes filed were: a motion on notice filed on 29/10/2024, seeking an order to strike out the cross appeal, and a written address. The 1st respondent/cross appellant filed a written address in opposition to the 3rd respondent/cross respondent’s motion of 29/10/2024.

At the hearing of the appeal on 14/11/2024, the respective processes were adopted for the appellant/2nd cross respondent by Prof. Yusuf Ali, SAN, and lfedayo Adedeji, SAN, K.K. Eleja, SAN, Tuduru Ede, SAN, Ayodeji Adedipe, SAN, L. O. Fagbemi, SAN, Yemi Adeshina SAN, T.J. Aondo, SAN, who appeared with Femi Adedeji, Esq., Alex Akoja, Esq., Safinat Lamidi, Esq., A.A. Usman, and K. O. Salimon, Esq. The appellant also referred the court to the decision in A.G. Lagos State v. A.G. Federation (2005) 2 WRN 1 at 23.

For the 1st respondent/cross appellant, the processes were adopted by J.B. Daudu, SAN, and Chief S.T. Hon, SAN, Abdullahi Yahaya, SAN, Adedayo Adedeji, SAN, Paul Daudu, SAN, together with Osagie Isiramen, Esq., Daniel A. Ane, Esq., Itopa Ojiah, Esq., and Christian Hon, Esq.

For the 3rd respondent/3rd cross respondent, the processes were adopted by Chief Chris Uche, SAN, with Adebayo Adelodun, SAN, Chief Tawo E. Tawo, SAN. O.M. Atoyebi, SAN and Samuel Atung, SAN, together with Kanayo Okafor, Esq., Chiamaka Anagu, Esq., lfekwaba Aleke, Esq., Olakunle Lawal, Esq. and Abduljalil Musa, Esq.

The 2nd, 4th and 5th respondents, who were served with the processes and with hearing notices filed no briefs of argument, were absent at the hearing of the appeal, and were not represented.