Sullivan Iheanacho Chime & Anor V. Engineer Anayo B. Onwuegbu & Ors (2013)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

KUMAI BAYANG AKA’AHS, J.S.C.

Following the conduct of the primaries by the 3rd Respondent to elect its candidates for the elective offices/positions for the 2011 General election which was held in Enugu, the Applicants emerged as the Governorship and Deputy Governorship candidates respectively of the 3rd Respondent. The 1st and 2nd Respondents together with 37 others who were also members of the Peoples Democratic Party felt aggrieved and took out a Writ of Summons against the 3rd and 4th respondents in the Federal High Court Abuja in Suit No.FHC/ABJ/CS/97/2011: ENGR ANAYO ONWUEGBU & 38 ORS vs PDP & ANOR. They claimed that they (namely 1st-35th Plaintiffs; were the persons entitled to have their names submitted by the 3rd Respondent to the 4th Respondent as the duly elected candidates to be sponsored by the 3rd Respondent for the various elective positions in the April, 2011 General Elections because they were the people who stood for the primary elections. On becoming aware of the suit,the applicants applied to be joined as Defendants since they were going to be affected by the outcome of the case.On the 23rd February 2011, learned senior counsel for the Plaintiffs applied for the names of the Plaintiffs except 1st and 2nd respondents herein to be struck out and their names were accordingly struck out. On the same date the trial court also granted the application of the applicants herein to be joined as parties in the suit and they were accordingly joined as 3rd and 4th Defendants. Subsequently the 1st and 2nd Respondents herein filed a new statement of claim on 25th February, 2011. On 4th March, 2011 the Applicants filed two applications before the trial court. In the first motion, the applicants prayed the court to strike out the Statement of Claim filed on 25th February, 2011 as being incompetent while the second motion prayed the trial court to set down for hearing and determination the points of law which the applicants had raised earlier in the Statement of Defence. Also on 4th March 2011, the 4th respondent on its part filed a motion praying the court to strike out the suit for want of jurisdiction by the Federal High Court. On 9th March, 2011 the 1st and 2nd Respondents filed a motion praying that judgment be entered in their favour on the ground that the applicants had no defence to the suit and were yet to file their Statement of Defence which the applicants opposed by filing a counter affidavit. The 1st and 2nd Respondents joined issues with the applicants on the two applications. All the motions were consolidated and arguments taken on 21st March, 2011. The Court delivered a composite ruling on the four applications on 30th March, 2011. It held as follows:-

(i) That the court lacked jurisdiction to try the suit

(ii) That the new Statement of Claim held by 1st and 2nd Respondents as well as the Applicants’ Statement of Defence were irregular and could be regularized.

(iii) That the suit was an abuse of court process in view of the pendency inter alia of Suit No. FHC/ABJ/C5/8/2010: CAESER OKECHUKWU OGBONNA & 4 ORS vs. PDP & 33 ORS

Dissatisfied with the ruling/judgment that the Court lacked the jurisdiction to entertain the suit and that it was an abuse of the Court process, the 1st and 2nd Respondents appealed to the Court of Appeal, Abuja on 2/4/2012. By the time the Applicants became aware of the pendency of the appeal, the 14 days period allowed a party to appeal against the interlocutory decision of the High Court to the Court of Appeal had lapsed. On 23/5/2011 the Applicants filed a Respondents’ Notice at the Court of Appeal and sought that the ultimate decision of the trial court dismissing the suit should be affirmed on a ground additional to the grounds relied upon by the trial court in its ruling/judgment. The applicants by a motion filed on 23/5/2011 applied for extension of time to cross-appeal against the ruling which found both the Statement of Claim filed by 1st and 2nd Respondents and the Statement of Defence by applicants as irregular but could be regularised. The Court of Appeal in its ruling delivered on 16/12/2011 dismissed the Applicants’ application for extension of time to cross-appeal on the ground that a cross appeal could not co-exist with a respondent’s notice. It is this ruling that the applicants want to appeal against and have formulated three issues for determination namely:

(a) Whether this is a proper case in which the Supreme Court may exercise its discretion to extend the time within which the applicants may seek leave to appeal against the interlocutory ruling/decision of the Court of Appeal

(b) Whether this is a proper case in which the Supreme Court may exercise its discretion to grant leave to the Applicants to appeal against the said interlocutory ruling decision of the Court of Appeal

(c) Whether this is a proper case in which the Supreme Court may extend the time within which the Applicants are to appeal against the said interlocutory ruling/decision of the Court of Appeal

Learned Senior Counsel for the 1st and 2nd Respondents opposed the application by deposing to a 38 paragraph counter affidavit. He also filed a brief of argument in opposition to the motion for extension of time to seek leave to appeal and extension of time to appeal on 20/2/2013 and identified a sole issue for determination namely:

Whether having regards to the facts and circumstances of this case the Applicants have satisfied the requirements for the grant of an application of this nature.

In the brief filed in support of the application, Chief (Mrs.)Offiah SAN referred to Section 233(1)-(3) of the 1999 Constitution and Section 27(2) of the Supreme Court Act Cap S15 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria,2004 which provide that a notice of appeal or notice of application for leave to appeal from an interlocutory decision of the Court of Appeal to the Supreme Court in any civil proceedings shall be filed within (14) days from the date of such decision. She argued citing Owoniboys Technical Services Ltd vs John Holt Ltd. (1991) NWLR (Part 199) 550 that where an application for leave to appeal was not considered within the fourteen (14) days limited for same, the lower court would lose the jurisdiction to entertain such application. Learned Senior Counsel further argued that “Exhibit D” attached to the affidavit in support of the application i.e the proposed Notice of Appeal discloses that the grounds of Appeal therein contained are not grounds of law alone but include grounds of mixed law and fact for which leave of either the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court is required before the Applicants can validly appeal to this Honourable Court and relied on Bozson vs Altrincham Urban District Council (1903) 1 K.B. 547 which was applied in Gomez vs Cherubim and Seraphim Society (2009) 10 NWLR (Parr 1149) 223. She submitted that fourteen (14) days has expired since the decision of the Court of Appeal sought to be appealed against herein (which said decision was delivered on 16/12/2011) and only the Supreme Court has the competence to entertain an application relating to the enlargement of time to bring an application for leave to appeal as well as the grant of leave to appeal.

Responding to the application in opposition of the grant of the prayers for extension of time to seek leave to appeal, Dr. Alex Iziyon SAN also referred to section 27 (2), (3) & (4) of the Supreme Court Act and agreed with Chief (Mrs.) Offiah SAN that where an application for leave to appeal was not considered by a lower court within the 14 days limited for same the lower court would lose the jurisdiction to entertain same. Learned Senior Counsel contended that a community reading of Section 27(2), (3) and (4) of the Supreme Court Act shows that if the application is not taken by the lower court within 14 days, there is a further extension of 14 days within which the application can be made to the Supreme Court but learned Senior counsel waited for 10 months before filing the application to this Court and that this was deliberately done to gain an undue advantage as another general election scheduled for 2015 is around the corner. It is learned counsel’s contention that in considering an application of this nature, two factors come to the fore namely:

(i) The applicant must explain with good and substantial reasons the failure to appeal within the prescribed period; and