Senator Ahmed Mohammed Makarfi & Anor V. Prince Biyi Poroye & Ors (2016)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

ITA GEORGE MBABA, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

Appellants filed this Appeal against the Judgment of the Federal High Court, Abuja Division, in Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/395/2016, delivered on 29/06/2016. The said judgment of the trial Court was a final judgment, made in favour of the 1st to 9th Respondents, herein (who were the plaintiffs in that suit).

Appellants were not joined as parties by the 1st to 9th Respondents, though the decision affected them. Appellants were therefore, granted leave to appeal against the said decision, as interested parties, on 10/11/2016.

Appellants’ Notice of Appeal, filed on 02/11/2016, was deemed duty filed and served, pursuant to the order granting them leave to appeal. They filed their brief of arguments on the 11/11/2016 and served same on the Respondents. Because, the application for departure from the Rules and for accelerated hearing by Appellants, were granted, the Respondents were allowed three days, from the service of the Brief of Appellants, to file their Respondents’ briefs.

When the appeal came up for hearing on 16/11/2016, the 1st – 9th Respondents filed no brief but asked

1

for extension of time, orally, to file their brief and they thereafter filed the brief on 17/11/2016, when the appeal was heard. Appellants adopted their brief, filed on 11 /11 /2016 and urged us to allow the appeal.

Appellant distilled four issues for the determination of the appeal, as follows:

1) Whether the judgment of the lower Court delivered on 29th June, 2016 did not breach the Appellants? right to fair hearing warranting the setting aside of same (Ground 1 and 4).

2) Whether the lower Court was not wrong in granting the reliefs in favour of parties who sued on behalf of State Executive Committees of the PDP and also divested of jurisdiction to adjudicate over the suit before it, (Ground 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7).

3) Whether the entire proceedings before the lower Court is not a nullity. (Ground 8).

4) Whether the lower Court was not without jurisdiction when it adjudicated over the originating summons before it (Ground 9)

The 1st to 9th Respondents, Counsel adopted the issues donated by the Appellants for the determination of the Appeal. He also argued that this Court had lost jurisdiction to hear the appeal,

2