Timinimi & Ors V. I.N.E.C. (2022)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report – SUPREME COURT

UWANI MUSA ABBA AJI, J.S.C. (Delivering the Lead Judgment)

The Appellants’ case is that the Respondent, who is statutorily empowered to delineate local governments in Nigeria into wards and units for the purposes of conducting elections into elective offices has not properly delineated the Warri South West, Warri South and Warri North Local Government Areas of Delta State in accordance with statutory requirements.

That consequent upon the failure, there exists fictitious wards and units used as instruments of electoral manipulation and subversion of the popular wish of the people during election. That they have made several representations to the Respondent but it failed to give attention to their complaints.

Thus, vide an originating process, it sought to stop or set aside the 2011 General Elections in Warri Federal Constituency of Delta State. Although the Respondent was unrepresented at the trial Court, the trial Court dismissed the Appellants’ suit. The lower Court on appeal by the Appellants also dismissed the appeal; hence this appeal before this Apex Court. The Appellant before this Court seek for determination:

1. Whether or not the lower

Court was right to hold that the Appellants’ appeal is academic considering the reliefs sought in the Appellants’ amended statement of claim dated and filed on 13/4/2012?

2. Whether or not the failure of the lower Court to hear and determine the appeal on the merit amounted to a breach of the Appellants’ right to fair hearing and occasioned a miscarriage of justice?

The Respondent on the other hand distilled a lone issue for determination thus:
Whether the lower Court was right to hold that the Appellants’ appeal has become academic?

I shall adopt the Respondent’s issue for the consideration of this appeal.

ISSUE FOR DETERMINATION:
Whether the lower Court was right to hold that the Appellants’ appeal has become academic?

It is the Appellants’ learned Counsel’s submission that by the reliefs sought by the Appellants in their amended Statement of Claim, it was wrong for the lower Court to hold that the appeal is academic since none of the reliefs was directed at the 2011 elections or any particular election but primarily aimed at compelling the Respondent to carry out proper delineation of wards and units for the purpose of conducting future elections in the stated areas.

Thus, delineation of constituency is a live issue and of great utilitarian value to the Appellants. Furthermore, it was submitted that the lower Court breached the right to fair hearing of the Appellants to dismiss their appeal without hearing it on the merit especially considering that it is an intermediate Court. He cited in support BRAWAL SHIPPING (NIG) LTD V. ONWADIKE CO. LTD & ANOR (2000) FWLR (PT. 23) 1254. He prayed this Court to resolve this issue in favour of the Appellants and to allow the appeal.

​The Respondent’s learned Counsel submitted on the other hand that by the statement of claim and the witness statement on oath of 4 witnesses thereof, the 2nd Appellant, who was a candidate of PDP in the 2011 General Elections for the Delta State House of Assembly State Constituency from Warri South West Local Government Area, had an interest to use the suit to stop the said elections. Thus, what was in issue was the 2011 registration of the voters’ exercise conducted by the Respondent and the 2011 General Elections.

Besides, that the Respondent since 2011 has conducted constituency delineation and demarcations before every General Election and even in 2021. Accordingly, the matter has become academic and this Court does not delve into academic matters. He cited in support A.D.H LTD V. AMALGAMATED TRUSTEES LTD (2007) ALL FWLR (PT.392) AT 1808, GLOBAL TRANSPORT OCEANICA S.A. & ANOR V. FREE ENTERPRISES NIG. LTD (2001) LPELR-1324(SC).

On issue two, he submitted that the lower Court considered all the issues raised by the Appellants but came to the conclusion that the reliefs sought had become academic and gave reasons for that decision. He urged this Court to dismiss the appeal.

RESOLUTION OF ISSUE:
Undoubtedly, the Appellants did not mince their reliefs or claims before the Court when in their Amended Statement of Claim at page 137, they prayed for: