From the Court

LANDMARK JUDGEMENT

 

MR. ANTHONY IGWEMMA & ANOR v. CHINEDU BENJAMIN OBIDIGWE & ORS
(2019) LPELR-48112(SC)

In The Supreme Court of Nigeria
On Friday, the 21st day of June, 2019

SC.478/2019
Before Their Lordships
OLUKAYODE ARIWOOLA       –   Justice of The Supreme Court of Nigeria
JOHN INYANG OKORO          –   Justice of The Supreme Court of Nigeria
AMIRU SANUSI                     –  Justice of The Supreme Court of Nigeria
AMINA ADAMU AUGIE           –   Justice of The Supreme Court of Nigeria
PAUL ADAMU GALUMJE      – Justice of The Supreme Court of Nigeria
Between
1. MR. ANTHONY IGWEMMA
2. HON. VICTOR JIDEOFOR OKOYE – Appellant(s)
And
1. CHINEDU BENJAMIN OBIDIGWE
2. ALL PROGRESSIVES GRAND ALLIANCE
3. INDEPENDENT NATIONAL
ELECTORAL COMMISSION (INEC) – Respondent(s)
Other Citations
Summary
INTRODUCTION:
This appeal borders on Electoral Matters.
FACTS:
This is an appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal, Enugu
Division delivered on 12th April, 2019. The facts of the case are that
the Appellants filed an Originating Summons as Plaintiffs against 1st
-3rd Respondents as Defendants in suit No. FHC/AWK/CS/148/ 2018. In
the said Originating Summons, the following questions were
formulated:-
1. Whether having regards to the provisions of Section 31 (5) and
31(6) of the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended), the 1st defendant was
qualified to be nominated as the All Progressive Grand Alliance (APGA)
candidate for the Anambra East and West Federal Constituency in the
2019 General Election.
2. Whether having regard to the provisions of Section 87(1), 87(2)
87(4) (c)(ii) of the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended), Rule 10(1) and
(2) of the APGA Electoral Guidelines for Primary Election 2018, the
2nd Plaintiff is the validly nominated candidate of the 2nd defendant
to represent Anambra East and West Federal Constituency in 2019
General Election.
3. Whether having regard to the provisions of Section 87(1), 87(2)
87(4)(c)(ii) of the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended) Rule 10(1) and (2)
of the APGA Electoral Guidelines for Primary Election 2018, the 2nd
defendant ought not to have submitted the name of the 2nd Plaintiff to
the 3rd defendant as its validly nominated candidate of the 2nd
defendant to represent Anambra East and West Federal Constituency in
2019 General Election.
The Appellants also sought some declaratory reliefs. Upon being served
the Originating Summons, all the respondents filed memoranda of
conditional appearances as they felt the appellants who did not take
part in the primaries had no locus standi to institute the action.
They however followed it up with the filing of their respective
counter affidavits. The 1st and 2nd Respondents also filed preliminary
objection. In the counter affidavits relied upon by the 1st and 2nd
Respondents, the judgment in suit No. OT/194/2018 delivered by
Amaechina, J. of the Otuocha Judicial Division, Anambra State High
Court of Justice was referenced and exhibited. It was contended for
the 1st and 2nd Respondents that the aforesaid judgment of the Otuocha
High Court had found that the alleged false information on age
declaration was not proved and that the 1st Respondent was qualified
to contest the subject election.
The 1st Respondent contended in his defence that the judgment in suit
No. OT/194/2018 was a judgment in rem which binds the Appellants even
though they were not parties to the action leading to the judgment.
The 2nd Respondent on its part raised the point in its Notice of
Preliminary Objection that suit No. FHC/AWK/CS/148/2018 was an abuse
of Court process. The 2nd Respondent further contended that the
originating summons filed by the Appellants was not endorsed as
mandatorily required by the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act and that
the said originating summons was therefore incompetent.
The Federal High Court heard all the objections together with the main
matter and on 6th February, 2019, delivered a Ruling dismissing the
suit of the Appellants, relying only on one ground out of the various
grounds raised by the 1st and 2nd Respondents in their various Notices
of Preliminary Objection. Dissatisfied with the above decision by the
learned trial Judge, the Appellants appealed to the Court of Appeal
which affirmed the decision of the Federal High Court.  Again,
the appellants, not being satisfied with the said judgment appealed to
the Supreme Court.
ISSUES:
The Court determined the appeal on these issues couched as follows:
1. Whether the Court below was not in error when it affirmed the
decision of the trial Court that suit No. FHC/AWK/CS/148/2018
constituted an abuse of Court process in view of the judgment in suit
No. OT/194/2018.
2. Whether the non-service of the 2nd Respondent’s Notice of
Contention on the Appellants did not constitute a breach of their
fundamental right of fair hearing.
DECISION/HELD:
On the whole, the Court found no merit in the appeal and accordingly
dismissed same.

Show More

Related Articles

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Back to top button