PDP v. ORANEZI & ORS

CITATION: (2017) LPELR-43471(SC)

In the Supreme Court of Nigeria

ON FRIDAY, 15TH DECEMBER, 2017Suit No: SC.581/2016

Before Their Lordships:

MUSA DATTIJO MUHAMMAD Justice of the Supreme CourtKUDIRAT MOTONMORI OLATOKUNBOKEKERE-EKUN Justice of the Supreme Court

JOHN INYANG OKORO Justice of the Supreme CourtCHIMA CENTUS NWEZE Justice of the Supreme CourtEJEMBI EKO Justice of the Supreme Court

BetweenPEOPLES DEMOCRATIC PARTY - Appellant(s)

And1. HON. (DR) HARRY N. ORANEZI2. ALHAJI ADAMU MUA'ZU(NATIONAL CHAIRMAN OF PEOPLES DEMOCRATICPARTY AND CHAIRMAN OF NATIONAL EXECUTIVECOMMITTEEAND NATIONAL WORKING COMMITTEE OFPEOPLES DEMOCRATIC PARTY)3. PROF. WALE OLADIPO(NATIONAL SECRETARY OF PEOPLES DEMOCRATICPARTY)4. HON. CHRIS AZUBUOGU5. HON. JULIUS OFFORMAH6. INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORALCOMMISSION (INEC)

- Respondent(s)

RATIO DECIDENDI

(201

7) LP

ELR-43

471(

SC)

1. APPEAL - DUTY/ROLE OF A RESPONDENT: Role of a respondent to an appeal"This Court remains emphatic that the role of the respondent in an appeal is todefend the judgment appealed against. In the instant appeal where these particularbriefs are not filed in support of any cross appeal, the procedure does not allowthem to do what they set out to. See Cameroon Airline v. Otutuizu (2011) 4 NWLR(Pt. 1233) 512 and F. Organ and Ors V Nigeria Liquefied Natural Gas Ltd & Anor(2013) LPELR - 20942 (SC)." Per MUHAMMAD, J.S.C. (Pp. 4-5, Paras. E-A) - read incontext

2. CASE LAW - STARE DECISIS: Doctrine of stare decisis"In NEPA V. Onah (1997) LPELR-1959 (SC) this Court has stated as follows:"It is a cardinal principle of law under the doctrine of stare decisis that an inferiorCourt is bound by a decision of a superior Court, however sure it may be that it hasbeen wrongly decided."See also Usman V. Umaru (1992) 7 SCNJ 388, Ngwo & Ors V. Monye & Ors (1970)LPELR-1991 (SC) and CBN & Ors V. Okojie (2015) LPELR-24740 (SC)." PerMUHAMMAD, J.S.C. (Pp. 9-10, Paras. E-A) - read in context

3. COURT - JURISDICTION: What determines jurisdiction of Court to entertain acause/matter"It is trite principle of law that the plaintiff's claim alone provides the basis ofdetermining whether a Court has jurisdiction to proceed where, as in the instantcase, the competence of the claim is challenged. The facts on the basis of whichthe suit is filed and the reliefs sought of the Court as pleaded are scrutinizedagainst the background of the statute that confers on the Court the jurisdiction it isapproached to exercise. See Dr. Taiwo Oloruntoba-Oju & Ors V. Prof. P.A. Dopamu &Ors (2008) NWLR (Pt 1085) 1 at 22-23, and P.D.P V. Timpre Sylva & Ors (2012) 12NWLR (part 1316) 85." Per MUHAMMAD, J.S.C. (Pp. 11-12, Paras. D-A) - read incontext

4. ELECTORAL MATTERS - NOMINATION AND SPONSORSHIP OF CANDIDATE:Whether matters relating to nomination and sponsorship of candidates arejusticiable"... As a whole, and this is the finding of the lower Court, 1st respondent's case isthat having participated in the appellant's primary election conducted by theNational Executive Committee of the appellant, the submission of various namesother than his to the 6th respondent, INEC, as the appellant's candidate in the 2015general election stands in breach of Section 87 (4) (c) and (9) of the Electoral Act(2010) as amended. And the breach, this Court has held in so many of its decisions,which decisions the lower Court applied to arrive at its decision being challenged inthis appeal, entitles the 1st respondent to the reliefs the trial Court declinedjurisdiction to enquire into let alone grant. See Akpamgbo-Okadigbo Vs. Chidi (No.1) (2015) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1456) Page 171, Ugwu Vs. P.D.P (2015) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1459)Pate 478, Jev. Vs. lyortyom (2014) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1428) Page 575, Ukachukwu Vs.P.D.P. (2014) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1435) Page 134 and C.P.C. Vs. Ombugadu (2013) 18NWLR (Pt. 1385) Page 66." Per MUHAMMAD, J.S.C. (Pp. 16-17, Paras. D-C) - read incontext

(201

7) LP

ELR-43

471(

SC)

5. ELECTORAL MATTERS - NOMINATION AND SPONSORSHIP OF CANDIDATE:Whether matters relating to nomination and sponsorship of candidates arejusticiable"It is noteworthy that this appeal is on all fours with Appeal No. SC.27912016: Hon.Chris Azubuogu Vs Hon. (Dr.) Harry Oranezi & Ors (2017) LPELR-42669 (SC) whicharose from same judgment of the Court of Appeal in CA/E/207/2015 delivered on4/2/2016 wherein the present appellant was the 1st respondent. That appeal wasinstituted by the present 4th respondent. Judgment in SC.279/2016 was deliveredby this Court on 12th July, 2017. Therein, this Court cited with approval the dictumof Akaahs, JSC in Ugwu Vs P.D.P. (2015) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1559) @ 478 thus:"I am of the considered view that the trial Court will be abdicating its responsibilityif it declares that the suit is not justiciable. It has a duty to say which of the twoprimaries is the authentic one. This is the reason while(sic) Section 87(4)(i) 4(c), (i),(ii) and (9) has been put in place and to avoid arbitrariness by some official of thepolitical party who may want to impose their preferred candidates who probably didnot take part in primaries because of the conflicting claims by the parties. It is onlythe Court that could resolve the issue. This is the dimension which the decision inC.P.C. Vs Ombugadu (supra) introduced."His Lordship, M.D. Muhammad, JSC in Azubuogu Vs Oranezi and Ors. (supra) @22-24 D-A concluded as follows:"The 1st respondent having participated in the 2nd respondent's primary election isthe aspirant the Electoral Act in Section 87(4)(b) and (9) provides a platform for toseek the reliefs he circumscribes in his claim. The section has already beeninterpreted and applied by this Court in a seemingly endless number of its decisionsa great deal of which have been cited by both sides to the appeal. In Garba v.Mohammed (2016) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1537) 114 this Court per Mohammed CJN (as hethen was) at pages 164 - 165 paragraphs H-C of the law report held as follows:'As for the additional jurisdiction conferred on the Federal High Court under Section87(9) of the Electoral Act, 2010 as (as amended) quoted above, it gives anyaspirant member of a registered political party who participated in a primaryelection conducted by a political party to choose a candidate to contest an electionunder its platform, who is not satisfied with the outcome of the primary electioncontested with other member of the same political party, to approach the FederalHigh Court or High Court of a State or FCT High Court for redress....In other words, any dispute arising from the conduct of primary election by politicalparties to nominate candidates to contest elections, may be bought (sic) to theFederal High Court under Section 87(9) of the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended) byan aggrieved aspirant of any political party who participated in the primary electionconducted by a political party for resolution by that Court. (Underlining supplied foremphasis)See also Lokpobiri V. Ogola (2016) 3 NWLR (Pt 1499) 328. The lone issue, for theforegoing, is determined against the appellant. The appeal is hereby dismissed andthe judgment of the Court of Appeal in appeal No. CA/E/207/2015 delivered on 4thFebruary 2016 affirmed."?Having already made a pronouncement on the justiciability of the claim before thetrial Court, this Court is bound by that decision by virtue of the doctrine of staredecisis." Per KEKERE-EKUN, J.S.C. (Pp. 18-21, Paras. G-E) - read in context

(201

7) LP

ELR-43

471(

SC)

6. ELECTORAL MATTERS - NOMINATION AND SPONSORSHIP OF CANDIDATE:Whether matters relating to nomination and sponsorship of candidates arejusticiable"This Court has tolerably settled the question of the imperious and overbearingattitude of political parties in matters concerning the nomination of theircandidates. What crystallizes from several decisions of this Court is that, where apolitical party breaches the constitutional and party guidelines in the nomination ofits candidates, an aggrieved candidate has the right to interrogate the said process;and seek for redress in either of these Courts - the Federal High Court, High Courtof a State or the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, CPC v Ombugadu[2013] 18 NWLR (pt. 1385) 66; Ukachukwu v PDP (2014) 17 NWLR (pt. 1435) 134;Jev v lyortyom (2014) 14 NWLR (pt. 1428) 575; Akpamgbo-Okadigbo v Chidi (No. 1)[2015] 10 NWLR (pt. 1466) 171.This development, which derives from its potency from Section 87 (9) of theElectoral Act, 2010, has been consecrated in several decisions of this Court. Onlyone or two of such decisions may be cited here to illustrate this point, Uzodinma vIzunaso (No. 2) (2011) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1275) 30. The above Courts in such a situationwould be duly seised of jurisdiction to scrutinise all the pertinent processes andconstrue the extant legislation with a view to determining due compliancetherewith on the issue of nomination.The stark position today therefore is that Courts would brook no arbitrary orcapricious conduct of political parties in such questions like the selection ornomination of candidates in clear indifference to the constitutive Act, namely, theElectoral Act, and their prevailing Guidelines. I need not repeat what is obvious: theobservance of, and diligent adherence to the prescriptions in the Electoral Act andConstitutions of political parties, is the only sure way to the attainment of politicalmaturity in our democratic experiment in Nigeria, Ukachukwu v PDP and Ors(supra)." Per NWEZE, J.S.C. (Pp. 22-24, Paras. E-B) - read in context

7. I N T E R P R E T A T I O N O F D O C U M E N T - C O N S T R U C T I O N O FDOCUMENT(S)/INSTRUMENT(S): Cardinal rule of interpretation of instrument,document or agreement"Now, a cardinal principle of interpretation we must not forget, which learnedappellant's counsel however seems to ignore, is that provisions of a statute, aninstrument or indeed pleadings should not be read in isolation of the other parts ofthe statute, instrument or pleadings. In order to determine the intendment of themakers of the statute, instrument or pleadings, same should be read as a whole.Thus a clause in any of these must be construed together and with reference to thecontext and other clauses in the statue, instrument or pleadings in ensuring thediscovery of a consistent meaning of the whole, here, the pleading beingconsidered. See Oyeyemi V. Commissioner for Local Government (Kwara State)(1992) 2 SCNJ 266 at 280 and Artra Industry Limited V. NBCI (1998) 3 SCNJ 97 at115." Per MUHAMMAD, J.S.C. (P. 15, Paras. A-E) - read in context

(201

7) LP

ELR-43

471(

SC)

MUSA DATTIJO MUHAMMAD, J.S.C. (Delivering the

Leading Judgment): On the 12th day of July, 2017, this

very Court did determine Appeal No. SC. 279/2016 brought

by the 5th respondent herein, Hon. Julius Offormah, against

the decision of the Court of Appeal, Enugu Division,

hereinafter referred to as the lower Court, in appeal No.

CA/E/207/2015. The issue raised and the facts on which the

issue rested in the earlier appeal are on all fours as in the

instant appeal. I shall briefly elaborate the facts that

brought about the two appeals.

The 1st respondent in both appeals, Hon. Dr. Harry

Oranezi, as plaintiff at the Federal High Court sitting at

Awka, hereinafter referred to as the trial Court, initiated

suit No. FHC/AWK/CS/24/2015 against the appellant herein

and the appellant in appeal No. SC. 279/2016, now the 4th

respondent and the remaining respondent. He contends by

his writ that having scored the highest votes in appellant's

primary election of 7th December, 2014 for the party's

candidate in the 14th February, 2015 general election in

respect of the Nnewi North/South/Ekwusigu Federal House

of Representatives Constituency, it is unlawful

1

(201

7) LP

ELR-43

471(

SC)

for the party to substitute him with and submit the 4th

respondent's name as that of its candidate in the general

election. The Substitution being in breach of the

Constitution and the Electoral Guidelines of the Appellant,

the plaintiff pursuant to Section 87(a) (c) and (9) of the

Electoral Act (as amended) sought that much declaratory

and injunctive reliefs from the trial Court to restore him to

being the appellant's rightful candidate in the 14th

February, 2015 general election for the Nnewi

North/South/Ekwusigo Federal Constituency.

The defendants to the action challenged the competence of

1st respondent's suit and urged the trial Court to dismiss it

in limine. In its ruling of 19th March, 2015, the Court

sustained the objection of the defendants, declined

jurisdiction and struck out 1st respondent's suit.

Dissatisfied, the 1st respondent appealed to the lower

Court which, in upholding the appeal and setting aside the

trial Court’s ruling, remitted the suit to the trial Court for

same to be heard and determined by a judge other than

M.L. Abubakar J.

Similarly aggrieved, the appellant herein' like Hon. Julius

Offirmah in the earlier

2

(201

7) LP

ELR-43

471(

SC)

appeal, has appealed to this Court. The notice of appeal

filed on 3rd May, 2016 contains two grounds of appeal.

In its brief which the appellant exchanged with the

respondents and at the hearing of the appeal, adopted and

relied upon as its argument for the appeal, a lone issue has

been distilled as arising for the determination of the

appeal.

The issue, see paragraph 4 at pages 3 and 4 of the brief

reads:

"Having regard to the following facts:

(i) The 1st Respondent claims there were three

Primaries in his Statement of Claim.

(ii) He won the Primary conducted by Ken Emeakayi.

(iii) The trial Court's un-appealed decision to the

effect that the Ken - Emeakayi led Executive had

ceased to exist by the 7th day of December, 2014 (the

date of the Primary election).

Whether the lower Court was not wrong in allowing

the appeal and granting consequential orders

(Ground 1 and 2)." (Underlining mine for emphasis).

The respondents who also adopted and relied on their

respective briefs have formulated similar issues therein for

the determination of the appeal. The 1st respondent's issue

reads:

"Whether the Court below was right in allowing the

appeal."

It is significant to observe that whereas the 2nd and 3rd

respondents are

(201

7) LP

ELR-43

471(

SC)

3

(201

7) LP

ELR-43

471(

SC)

executive officers of the appellant, the 4th and 5th

respondents are persons whose names, the 1st respondent

in his suit at the trial Court asserts variously unlawfully

substituted his. Both had polled less votes in the appellant’s

primary election than his. The 6th respondent, INEC, had

witnessed the appellant's primary election the outcome of

which is what is in contention in the instant suit. Not

surprisingly only the 1st respondent, the plaintiff at the

trial Court, and INEC, the 6th respondent, in keeping with

its neutral role, maintain their traditional roles as

respondents in the appeal, by their support and defence of

the judgment being appealed against.

The 2nd to 5th respondents' brief which seek that the

appeal be allowed must be discountenanced. This Court

remains emphatic that the role of the respondent in an

appeal is to defend the judgment appealed against. In the

instant appeal where these particular briefs are not filed in

support of any cross appeal, the procedure does not allow

them to do what they set out to. See Cameroon Airline v.

Otutuizu (2011) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1233) 512 and F. Organ

and Ors V Nigeria 4

(201

7) LP

ELR-43

471(

SC)

Liquefied Natural Gas Ltd & Anor (2013) LPELR -

20942 (SC).

6th respondent's better framed issue that subsumes the

appellant's and 1st respondent's issues and on the basis of

which this appeal shall be determined reads:

"Whether the Court of Appeal was right to have held

that the Federal High Court was seized jurisdiction to

entertain the suit filed by the 1st respondent as

plaintiff'.

On the lone issue, learned appellant counsel refers to

paragraph 31 of the statement of claim and submits that

Section 87(4) and (9) of the Electoral Act 2010 (as

amended) does not confer the platform to sue on the 1st

respondent whose emergence as a successful candidate for

the party is in relation to a state conducted primary

election. The primary election he bases his claim on, not

having been conducted by the National Organs of the

appellant as pleaded in paragraphs 26-33 of the statement

of claim, on the authority of Yar’adua V. Yandoma (2015)

4 NWLR (Pt 1448) 123 at 198 and Lado & Ors. V.

C.P.C. & Ors. (2012) ALL FWLR (Pt 607) 623, it is

submitted, renders 1st respondent's suit incompetent. The

lower Court's decision that the suit is justiceable

notwithstanding the

5

(201

7) LP

ELR-43

471(

SC)

parallel primaries to which the suit relates, it is further

argued, is perverse. The decision of the Supreme Court in

C.P.C & 1 Or V. Hon. Emmanuel David Ombugadu & 1

Or (2013) 18 NWLR (Pt 1385) 145 it is submitted, does

not justify the lower Court's wrong decision. The Ken

Emeakayi - led State Executive of the appellant the 1st

respondent claims conducted the primary election of the

former, it is submitted, has been held by the trial Court to

be illegal. The trial Court's finding that has not been

appealed against by the 1st respondent, it is further

argued, persists. Relying on Alhaji Musa Sani V. State

(2015) 15 NWLR (Pt 483) and Odedo V. INEC & 3 Ors

(2008) 17 NWLR (Pt 1117) 554, to support this

contention, learned appellant's counsel insists that the

lower Court is wrong in its conclusion that 1st respondent's

suit is founded on a primary election that serves as the

platform for the enforcement of his claims. The appellant

urges that the appeal be allowed and the lower Court's

wrong decision set-aside.

On the lone issue, learned 1st respondent's counsel submits

that it is necessary to recall that the trial Court had

declined

6

(201

7) LP

ELR-43

471(

SC)

jurisdiction over plaintiff's action because same was

founded on the appellant's multiple primary elections and

all the more so because the one the 1st respondent claimed

to have emerged from was conducted by the State organs

of the party. These findings of the trial Court, submits

learned counsel, are to be found at pages 109 - 111 of the

record of appeal. The lower Court's contrary findings on

the very issue, submits learned counsel, are at pages

295,297 - 299 and 300 - 301 of the record of appeal.

1st respondent's case instead of paragraph 31 of the

statement of claim the appellant asserts is based upon, it is

argued, draws particularly from paragraph 25 of the

pleading. Paragraph 31 of the statement of claim, it is

contended, not being ambiguous, means exactly what it

states as properly understood by the lower Court. The

paragraph deals with the drama caused by the submissions

and publication of list of candidates rather than the drama

on the conduct of the primary election.

It remains 1st respondent's case, further argues learned

counsel, that the primary election he contested was the one

conducted by the National Executive Committee of the

7

(201

7) LP

ELR-43

471(

SC)

appellant. Having polled the highest votes in the particular

primary, it is further argued, his case comes clearly within

the purview of Section 87(4) and (9) of the Electoral Act as

amended and the numerous decisions of the Supreme Court

on who is entitled to be the appellant's candidate at the

general election. On the whole, it is submitted, the

appellant has misconceived the lower Court's judgment

when it attributes to it what it does not decide. It is for that

reason, learned counsel submits that the appeal should fail.

In the 6th respondent's brief settled by Lotanna Chuka

Okoli Esq., it is similarly argued that the appeal be

dismissed. Relying onGarba V. Mohammed (2016) 16

NWLR (Pt 1537) 114 and Lokpobiri V. Ogola (supra),

learned counsel submits that by virtue of Section 31(5) and

87(9) of the Electoral Act 2010 ( as amended), 1st

respondent is clearly entitled to the reliefs thereunder

which reliefs the trial Court though empowered to grant

declined. 1st respondent's has the locus under the law to

question the intra party election of the appellant. The lower

Court's decision that so holds, it is submitted, should be

upheld.

My lords, in

8

(201

7) LP

ELR-43

471(

SC)

resolving the lone issue, the appeal raises and determining

whether or not the lower Court's judgment being appealed

against should persist, there is the need for the Court to be

guided by an overriding and trite principle. In this

regard, the fact that we have not been urged by any of the

parties in the appeal to depart from our decision in appeal

No. SC. 279/2016 is significant. Abiding by the precedent,

this Court outlined in its decision in the earlier appeal in

this subsequent matter that dwells on the same facts and

seeks the application of the same law to the facts becomes

an imperative. In the same vein, the lower Court's decision

herein, the very decision considered by this Court in the

determination of the earlier appeal abides if, like in the

earlier appeal, is that Court's application of the doctrine of

stare - decisis or precedent.

In NEPA V. Onah (1997) LPELR-1959 (SC) this Court

has stated as follows:

"It is a cardinal principle of law under the doctrine of

stare decisis that an inferior Court is bound by a

decision of a superior Court, however sure it may be

that it has been wrongly decided."

See also Usman V. Umaru (1992) 7 SCNJ

9

(201

7) LP

ELR-43

471(

SC)

388, Ngwo & Ors V. Monye & Ors (1970) LPELR-1991

(SC) and CBN & Ors V. Okojie (2015) LPELR-24740

(SC).

The lower Court's decision, which effects and essence the

appellant begrudges, see page 300 of the record of appeal,

reads:

"Since the appellant herein averred that he

participated in the primary conducted by the 1st – 3rd

respondents and the Ken Emeakayi - led State

Executive Committee, he has a right to approach the

Court to seek redress for his complaints of

manipulation of the result of the primary and the

Court has the jurisdiction to entertain same. The

Court also has the jurisdiction and the duty to decide

which of the primaries is the valid and authentic one

and who actually won the primary. See C.P.C. VS.

OMBUGADU (SUPRA), UGWU VS. P.D.P. (SUPRA).

The case of LADO VS C. P. C. (SUPRA) where the

Supreme Court held that once there arises a dispute

as to which of the two primaries conferred a right of

candidature on the parties to represent a political

party in an election, the matter is taken outside the

preview of Section 87 (4) (b (ii). (c) (ii) and (9) of the

Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended) is no longer the

law."

10

(201

7) LP

ELR-43

471(

SC)

(Underlining mine for emphasis).

In rightly succumbing to the earlier decisions of this Court

on the same facts and law the lower Court in the foregoing,

admirably, complies with the age-long principle of

precedent or stare decisis. The curious might ask: how?

The trial Court in sustaining the appellant's challenge to

the competence of the 1st respondent's action had declined

jurisdiction thereon. The lower Court imbibed the decisions

of this Court and ruled differently.

The appellant herein, as in appeal No. SC. 279/2015

determined earlier by this Court, disputes the correctness

of the lower Court's decision. It is trite principle of law that

the plaintiff's claim alone provides the basis of determining

whether a Court has jurisdiction to proceed where, as in

the instant case, the competence of the claim is challenged.

The facts on the basis of which the suit is filed and the

reliefs sought of the Court as pleaded are scrutinized

against the background of the statute that confers on the

Court the jurisdiction it is approached to exercise. See Dr.

Taiwo Oloruntoba-Oju & Ors V. Prof. P.A. Dopamu &

Ors (2008) NWLR (Pt 1085) 1 at 22-23, and

11

(201

7) LP

ELR-43

471(

SC)

P.D.P V. Timpre Sylva & Ors (2012) 12 NWLR (part

1316) 85.

In suit No. FHC/AWK/CS/24/2015 that brought about the

instant appeal, the plaintiff, the 1st respondent herein,

Hon. (Dr) Harry Oranezi, had sought the following reliefs:

“1. DECLARATION that the Plaintiff having polled the

majority of votes at the 1st defendant's primary

election conducted on 7th December, 2014, for

e m e r g e n c e o f i t s c a n d i d a t e f o r N n e w i

North/South/Ekwusigo Federal House of

Representatives Constituency in the Federal House of

Representatives election scheduled for 14th February,

2015 is the candidate of 1st Defendant at the

February, 2015 general elections.

2. DECLARATION that Plaintiff having polled majority

of votes at the said 1st Defendant's primary election

was entitled to have his names as 1st Defendant's

candidate for Nnewi North/South/Ekwusigo Federal

House of Representatives Constituency in the Federal

House of Representatives election, 2015 submitted by

2nd & 3rd Defendants to the 8th Defendant.

3. DECLARATION that Plaintiff having been declared

the winner of the said primary election under Section

87 (4) (c) of Electoral Act, 2010 (as

12

(201

7) LP

ELR-43

471(

SC)

amended), he cannot be substituted with the 4th

Defendant albeit 5th Defendant, both of who lost the

primary election under the Electoral Guidelines for

Primary Elections 2014 of Peoples Democratic Party

and Electoral Act (supra).

4. PERPETUAL MANDATORY INJUNCTION

compelling the 1st – 3rd & 6th Defendants to

recognize the Plaintiff as the Candidate of the 1st

Defendant, and in that behalf accord him all

perquisites as the 1st Defendant's Candidate for the

Federal House of Representatives election, 2015 in

respect of Nnewi North/South/Ekwusigo Federal

House of Representatives Constituency."

Paragraph 26 of the plaintiff/1st respondent's statement of

claim which his counsel submits subsumes and explains the

other facts upon which the reliefs the claimant seeks reads:

"On 7/2/2014, 1st Defendant acting through the

National Assembly Electoral Committee, did conduct

the primary election for Nnewi North/South/Ekwusigo

Federal House of Representatives Constituency

wherein Plaintiff, along with 4th & 5th Defendants

stood for the primary election. At the end of polls,

Plaintiff emerged victorious and was declared the

winner by the

13

(201

7) LP

ELR-43

471(

SC)

returning officer having polled 93 votes out of 123

accredited delegates as against 4th Defendant's 1

votes and 5th Defendant's 9 votes. The result of the

said primary election shall be found upon at the

trial."

Paragraph 31 which learned appellant's counsel

vehemently submits contains the overriding facts within

which 1st respondent's claim is located reads:

"The drama playing out in the submission and

publication of 1st of candidates has thrown up three

characterizations of aspirants seeking to fly the 1st

Defendant's flag at the February, 2015 polls:

(a) The first group, where the Plaintiff belongs, were

those who contested and won primary election

conducted by 1st – 3rd Defendants in tandem with

Ken Emeakayi - led State Executive Committee.

(b) The second group, where the 4th Defendant

belongs, were those who emerged from a supposed

Primary conducted by 1st 3rd Defendants in tandem

with Rtd General Aliyu Kama - led care-taker or

South-East Zonal Committee Care-Taker.

(c) The third group, where the 6th Defendant belongs,

were those who emerged from a supposed primary

conducted by a group known as Oguebego - led State

14

(201

7) LP

ELR-43

471(

SC)

Executive Committee in exclusion of 1st – 3rd

Defendants."

Now, a cardinal principle of interpretation we must not

forget, which learned appellant's counsel however seems to

ignore, is that provisions of a statute, an instrument or

indeed pleadings should not be read in isolation of the

other parts of the statute, instrument or pleadings. In order

to determine the intendment of the makers of the statute,

instrument or pleadings, same should be read as a whole.

Thus a clause in any of these must be construed together

and with reference to the context and other clauses in the

statue, instrument or pleadings in ensuring the discovery of

a consistent meaning of the whole, here, the pleading being

considered. See Oyeyemi V. Commissioner for Local

Government (Kwara State) (1992) 2 SCNJ 266 at 280

and Artra Industry Limited V. NBCI (1998) 3 SCNJ 97

at 115.

In applying the foregoing principle by reading the entirety

of the plaintiff/1st respondent's statement of claim,

inclusive of the reliefs he seeks, the inescapable conclusion

one draws, learned 1st respondent's counsel is right, is that

the appellant has grossly misconceived the facts on the

basis

15

(201

7) LP

ELR-43

471(

SC)

of which it was sued at the trial Court.

It cannot be taken away from the 1st respondent, a fact

which the lower Court rightly conceded to him, that

paragraph 31 read along with the entire statement of claim

deals with the publication and submission of the many lists

containing various names of the candidates of and by the

appellant to INEC purportedly consequent upon appellant's

primary election. I agree that the paragraph does not dwell

on "multiple primaries" of the appellant but the various lists

of who is to be the appellant's candidate in the general

election each of which names purport to have emerged

from the same party's valid and relevant primary

election. As a whole, and this is the finding of the lower

Court, 1st respondent's case is that having participated in

the appellant's primary election conducted by the National

Executive Committee of the appellant, the submission of

various names other than his to the 6th respondent, INEC,

as the appellant's candidate in the 2015 general election

stands in breach of Section 87 (4) (c) and (9) of the

Electoral Act (2010) as amended. And the breach, this

Court has held in so many of its decisions, which

16

(201

7) LP

ELR-43

471(

SC)

decisions the lower Court applied to arrive at its decision

being challenged in this appeal, entitles the 1st respondent

to the reliefs the trial Court declined jurisdiction to enquire

into let alone grant. See Akpamgbo-Okadigbo Vs. Chidi

(No. 1) (2015) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1456) Page 171, Ugwu

Vs. P.D.P (2015) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1459) Pate 478, Jev Vs.

lyortyom (2014) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1428) Page 575,

Ukachukwu Vs. P.D.P. (2014) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1435)

Page 134 and C.P.C. Vs. Ombugadu (2013) 18 NWLR

(Pt. 1385) Page 66.

The lower Court's decision founded on the foregoing

decisions of this Court cannot certainly be wrong. This

Court has held that much in the earlier appeal No. SC.

279/2010 as well. It cannot deviate from the decision in the

earlier appeal now given the same facts and the issue the

instant appeal raises. It is for this reason that l find no

merit in the appeal and dismiss same. The lower Court's

judgment is hereby affirmed in its entirety.

Parties should bear their respective costs.

KUDIRAT MOTONMORI OLATOKUNBO KEKERE-

EKUN, J.S.C.: I have had a preview of the judgment of my

learned brother, Musa Dattijo Muhammad, JSC just

delivered. I

17

(201

7) LP

ELR-43

471(

SC)

agree with the reasoning and conclusion that this appeal

lacks merit and deserves to be dismissed.

This appeal arose from the decision of the Court of Appeal,

Enugu Division in Appeal No. CA/E/207/2015 delivered on

4/2/2016 wherein the Court held that the trial Court erred

when it declined to entertain the 1st respondent's claim on

the ground that the dispute was an intra-party dispute

concerning the sponsorship of a candidate for an election

by a political party and that the Court has no business

deciding which candidate a party should sponsor. The

Court below at page 300 of the record held thus:

"Since the appellant herein averred that he participated in

the primary conduced by the 1st – 3rd respondents and the

Ken Emeakayi-led State Executive Committee, he has a

right to approach the Court to seek redress for his

complaints of manipulation of the result of the primary and

the Court has the jurisdiction to entertain same. The Court

also has the jurisdiction and the duty to decide which of the

-primaries is the valid and authentic one and who actually

won the primary. See C.P.C. Vs Ombugadu (Supra),

Ugwu Vs P.D.P. (supra)."

It is

18

(201

7) LP

ELR-43

471(

SC)

noteworthy that this appeal is on all fours with Appeal No.

SC.27912016: Hon. Chris Azubuogu Vs Hon. (Dr.)

Harry Oranezi & Ors (2017) LPELR-42669 (SC) which

arose from same judgment of the Court of Appeal in

CA/E/207/2015 delivered on 4/2/2016 wherein the present

appellant was the 1st respondent. That appeal was

instituted by the present 4th respondent. Judgment in

SC.279/2016 was delivered by this Court on 12th July,

2017. Therein, this Court cited with approval the dictum of

Akaahs, JSC in Ugwu Vs P.D.P. (2015) 1 NWLR (Pt.

1559) @ 478 thus:

"I am of the considered view that the trial Court will be

abdicating its responsibility if it declares that the suit is not

justiciable. It has a duty to say which of the two primaries

is the authentic one. This is the reason while(sic) Section

87(4)(i) 4(c), (i), (ii) and (9) has been put in place and to

avoid arbitrariness by some official of the political party

who may want to impose their preferred candidates who

probably did not take part in primaries because of the

conflicting claims by the parties. It is only the Court that

could resolve the issue. This is the dimension which the

decision in C.P.C. Vs Ombugadu (supra) introduced."

19

(201

7) LP

ELR-43

471(

SC)

His Lordship, M.D. Muhammad, JSC in Azubuogu Vs

Oranezi and Ors. (supra) @ 22-24 D-A concluded as

follows:

"The 1st respondent having participated in the 2nd

respondent's primary election is the aspirant the Electoral

Act in Section 87(4)(b) and (9) provides a platform for to

seek the reliefs he circumscribes in his claim. The section

has already been interpreted and applied by this Court in a

seemingly endless number of its decisions a great deal of

which have been cited by both sides to the appeal. In

Garba v. Mohammed (2016) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1537) 114

this Court per Mohammed CJN (as he then was) at pages

164 - 165 paragraphs H-C of the law report held as follows:

'As for the additional jurisdiction conferred on the Federal

High Court under Section 87(9) of the Electoral Act, 2010

as (as amended) quoted above, it gives any aspirant

member of a registered political party who participated in a

primary election conducted by a political party to choose a

candidate to contest an election under its platform, who is

not satisfied with the outcome of the primary election

contested with other member of the same political party, to

20

(201

7) LP

ELR-43

471(

SC)

approach the Federal High Court or High Court of a State

or FCT High Court for redress….

In other words, any dispute arising from the conduct of

primary election by political parties to nominate candidates

to contest elections, may be bought (sic) to the Federal

High Court under Section 87(9) of the Electoral Act, 2010

(as amended) by an aggrieved aspirant of any political

party who participated in the primary election conducted

by a political party for resolution by that Court.

(Underlining supplied for emphasis)

See also Lokpobiri V. Ogola (2016) 3 NWLR (Pt 1499)

328. The lone issue, for the foregoing, is determined

against the appellant. The appeal is hereby dismissed and

the judgment of the Court of Appeal in appeal No.

CA/E/207/2015 delivered on 4th February 2016 affirmed."

Having already made a pronouncement on the justiciability

of the claim before the trial Court, this Court is bound by

that decision by virtue of the doctrine of stare decisis.

I therefore hold that this appeal is devoid of merit. It is

hereby dismissed.

JOHN INYANG OKORO, J.S.C.: I read in advance the lead

judgment of my learned

21

(201

7) LP

ELR-43

471(

SC)

brother, Musa Dattijo Muhammad, JSC just delivered which

I agree that the appeal lacks merit and ought to be

dismissed. My Lord has exhaustively, meticulously and

efficiently dealt with the sole issue submitted for the

determination of this appeal. I have nothing new to add. I

rather adopt both the reasoning and conclusion in the lead

judgment and hold that this appeal is devoid of merit. It is

accordingly dismissed. I abide by all consequential orders

made therein, that relating to costs, inclusive.

Appeal Dismissed.

CHIMA CENTUS NWEZE, J.S.C.: My Lord, Musa Dattijo

Muhammad, JSC, obliged me with the draft of the leading

judgement just delivered now. I agree with the reasoning

and conclusion.

This Court has tolerably settled the question of the

imperious and overbearing attitude of political parties in

mat ters concern ing the nominat ion o f the i r

candidates. What crystallizes from several decisions of this

Court is that, where a political party breaches the

constitutional and party guidelines in the nomination of its

candidates, an aggrieved candidate has the right to

interrogate the said process; and seek for redress in

22

(201

7) LP

ELR-43

471(

SC)

either of these Courts - the Federal High Court, High Court

of a State or the High Court of the Federal Capital

Territory, CPC v Ombugadu [2013] 18 NWLR (pt.

1385) 66; Ukachukwu v PDP (2014) 17 NWLR (pt.

1435) 134; Jev v lyortyom (2014) 14 NWLR (pt. 1428)

575; Akpamgbo-Okadigbo v Chidi (No. 1) [2015] 10

NWLR (pt. 1466) 171.

This development, which derives from its potency from

Section 87 (9) of the Electoral Act, 2010, has been

consecrated in several decisions of this Court. Only one or

two of such decisions may be cited here to illustrate this

point, Uzodinma v Izunaso (No. 2) (2011) 17 NWLR

(Pt. 1275) 30. The above Courts in such a situation would

be duly seised of jurisdiction to scrutinise all the pertinent

processes and construe the extant legislation with a view to

determining due compliance therewith on the issue of

nomination.

The stark position today therefore is that Courts would

brook no arbitrary or capricious conduct of political parties

in such questions like the selection or nomination of

candidates in clear indifference to the constitutive Act,

namely, the Electoral Act, and their prevailing Guidelines. I

need not repeat what is

23

(201

7) LP

ELR-43

471(

SC)

obvious: the observance of, and diligent adherence to the

prescriptions in the Electoral Act and Constitutions of

political parties, is the only sure way to the attainment of

political maturity in our democratic experiment in Nigeria,

Ukachukwu v PDP and Ors (supra).

As the lower Courts found the first respondent's case is

very simple. The National Executive Committee of the

appellant [PDP] conducted primary elections on December

7, 2014 for the appellant's candidate in the February 14,

2015, General Elections in respect of the Nnewi

North/South/Ekwusigo House of Representatives

Constituency. He, (the first respondent), scored the highest

votes in the exercise. It was, he contended, unlawful for the

appellant to substitute his name with that of the fourth

respondent as its candidate in the said General Elections,

an action contrary to Section 87 (4) ( c) of the Electoral Act,

2010.

I entirely endorse the reasoning of the lower Court which

vacated the erroneous ruling of the trial Court. The first

respondent is surely entitled to his reliefs. In the

circumstance, I hereby enter an order dismissing this

appeal as lacking in merit. I affirm the

24

(201

7) LP

ELR-43

471(

SC)

lower Court's judgement. Appeal dismissed.

EJEMBI EKO, J.S.C.: The 1st Respondent was the plaintiff

in the Suit No. FHC/AWK/CS/24/2015, the decision in

which is the subject of this appeal as well as the earlier

appeal No. SC. 27912016 determined by this Court on 12th

July, 2017. This appeal and the said appeal rest on the

same facts and on the same issues. In the circumstance, it

will be incongruous, either on stare decisis or issue

estoppel, for the Appellant herein to expect a contrary

opinion of this same Court or for it to deviate from its

earlier decision in the appeal No. SC. 279/2016 delivered

on 12th July, 2017.

My learned brother, HON. MUSA DATTIJO MUHAMMAD,

JSC, in the Lead Judgment just delivered in this appeal has

exhaustively considered and resolved the issues in this

appeal. I had the privilege of reading in draft the said

judgment. Having nothing better and useful to add thereto,

I hereby adopt the said Judgment including the Orders

made therein.

I also find no merit in this appeal. It is hereby dismissed in

its entirety. The decision of the lower Court in the appeal

No. CA/E/207/2015 delivered on 4th February, 2016 is

hereby affirmed.

25

(201

7) LP

ELR-43

471(

SC)

Appearances:

Obinna Ajoku, Esq. with him, Ezekiel Egbo, Esq.For Appellant(s)

Chief Tagbo Ike for the 1st Respondent.Echezona Etiaba, Esq. with him, Joy Etiaba, Esq.and Henry Leonards , Esq. for the 2ndRespondent.Fidelis lteshi, Esq. for 3rd Respondent.Clement Ezika, Esq. with him, ChukwudiChikolue, Esq. and Gloria O. Ossai for the 4thRespondent.Nnenna Onyeama, Esq. for 5th Respondent.Lotanna Okoli, Esq. with him, Nancy Shikaan,Esq. for the 6th Respondent.For Respondent(s)

(201

7) LP

ELR-43

471(

SC)