Election Petitions (568)
HELD:
"Section 87 (supra) is the statute that gave jurisdiction to the trial Federal High Court to hear and determine pre - election matters. The extent of the trial Court's jurisdiction on pre-election matters is equally provided for by the same section of the law. By Section 87 (9) of the Electoral Act, where a political party chooses to conduct indirect primary election to choose its flag bearer, any dissatisfied aspirant at the primary election has the right by Section 87 (9) of the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended) to vent his complaint before the Federal High Court or High Court of a state or of the Federal Capital Territory. PEOPLES DEMOCRATIC PARTY V. TIMIPRE SYLVA (2012) 13 NWLR (PT. 1316) 85. With the insertion of this provision in the Electoral Act, the legislature has made its intention known that a member of a political party who contested the party primary election is entitled to challenge a breach of the party Guidelines and the Electoral Act in the election, by filing an action at any of the stated Courts. Section 87 (9) (supra) accordingly gives an aggrieved aspirant the flexibility of venting his grievance in any of the Courts listed therein. JEV & ANOR V. IYORTYOM & ORS (2014) LPELR -23000 (SC)." FATI KAKENNA ALKALI MONGUNO v. ALL PROGRESSIVE CONGRESS & ORS(2019) LPELR-47740(CA)Per ONYEMENAM, J.C.A. (Pp. 29-30, Paras. A-A)
FACTS:
HELD:
"...This position of the Appellant cannot be glossed over in view of the authorities cited. On the 1st Respondent's Constitution and Guidelines, The Supreme Court per Onnoghen CJN said: "This Court has decided in quite a number of cases that political parties must obey their own constitutions as the Court will not allow them to act arbitrarily or as they like.
"There is no doubt that a correct resolution of this issue depends first on the true purport of Section 285(9) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) and secondly on a correct determination of what exactly was 1st respondent's complaint and cause of action in his originating summons. Section 285(9) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) states thus: Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Constitution, every pre-election matter shall be filed not later than 14 days from the date of the occurrence of the event, decision or action complained of in the suit. It must be noted that this provision, contrary to the tenor of the argument of the appellant, does not say that pre-election matters shall be filed 'not later than 14 days from the date of the conduct of primary election.
"On his second issue concerning the order of the lower Court that certificate of return be issued to the candidate of the political party that came second in the General Election and contested all stages of the election, appellant argues that that Order was not sought by any party and the Court not being Father Christmas cannot dole it out just like that. He also argues that the said Order was wrongly made to the extent that the Court made it in favour of a person who was not even before the Court and has not even shown interest in the action. He says no evidence was even led by parties to warrant it and the Order was in any case vague. Counsel submitted that issues before the Court are circumscribed by the claims before it so we should set it aside. That is even as he cited cases suggesting that in appropriate cases consequential orders can be validly made by a Court. Tantalizing as this argument is and would perhaps have been sustainable in a normal civil case where only the interest of the litigants before the Court are involved, it does not quite seem to me that it holds water in the peculiar circumstances of this case. Election petitions and all matters related thereto including pre-election matters are sui generis:
"The general rule is that pre-election matters do not abate even after the holding of an election. The Courts will have jurisdiction to continue with the hearing up to finality, even where the winner has been sworn in. See generally ARDO VS. INEC (2017) LPELR - 41919 (SC); OKAFOR VS. NWAZOJIE (2015) LPELR - 40690 (CA); ODEDO VS. INEC & ORS (2008) LPELR - 2204 (SC); LAU VS. P. D. P. (2017) LPELR - 42800 (SC); MATO VS. HEMBER (2017) LPELR - 42765 (SC). This suit did not therefore "become academic the moment the gubernatorial election of Adamawa State was held and results thereof announced", as held by the learned trial judge. In my respectful opinion, this suit became academic the moment it became clear that the 1st and 2nd Respondents lost the gubernatorial election for Adamawa State in the 2019 election, and that neither the 1st and/or 2nd Respondents have challenged the results of the said general election at any of the Election Petition Tribunals.
"Section 285 (9) of the (1999) Constitution FRN (as amended) provides as follows: "Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Constitution, every pre-election matter shall be filed not later than 14 days from the date of occurrence of the event, decision or action complained of in the suit." For the purpose of limitation of action, time begins to run from the moment the cause of action arose or originated. A cause of action originates from the date on which the incident which gave rise to the cause of action occurred. See Fadare V. Attorney-General Oyo State (1982) 4 SC 1. A cause of action is defined among other meanings as a state of facts that entitle a party to maintain an action. See Black's Law Dictionary 10th Edition.
Held: (Unanimously dismissing the appeal)
A political party is an abstraction. It has to canvass for votes through its members as agents, in the same way it contests, wins or loses elections through a candidate it nominates who acts as its agent. There is no provision for independent candidates. The candidate nominated to contest at an election by his party acts as an agent of his party. He is, as it were, an agent of a disclosed principal and as far as third parties are involved, benefits and liabilities accruing to the candidate (as agent) belong to his party (the disclosed principal). Uwah v. Akpabio (2016) EJSC (Vol. 38) 160; Niger Progress Ltd. v. North East Line Corporation (1989) 3 NWLR (Pt. 103) 68, Bamgboye v. University of Ilorin (1999) 10 NWLR (Pt. 622) 290; Osiyare v. PSLKS Management Consortium Ltd. (2009) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1128) 328. Wada & Ors v. Bello & Ors[2016]M. J. S. C [Po 141) Paras. A-D
"If an agent (candidate) of the party dies, or withdraws from the contest, the political party can substitute the dead candidate or the candidate who has withdrawn from the election with another candidate (agent) subject to the provisions of the Act. There is continuity as the new candidate starts and continues from where the previous candidate stopped. Wada & Ors v. Bello & Ors[2016]M. J. S. C -Per Ngwuta, JSc. [Po 141] Paras. D-E
FACTS:
Held: (Unanimously dismissing the appeal)
Declaration of a person as the winner of election is made only by INEC, not a Court or Tribunal. The Tribunal or Court will not make a second declaration in favour of the person already declared winner by INEC It can only affirm the declaration if the petitioner is unable to prove his case. The only declaration the Court or Tribunal can make in a petition before it can only be in favour of the Petitioner If he succeeds in his challenge to the declaration in favour of the Respondent by INEC Wada & Ors v. Bello & Ors[2016]M. J. S. C [Po 137] Paras. A-B
FACTS:
Held: (Unanimously dismissing the appeal)
Before a Tribunal or Court can declare anyone a winner in an election; the following conditions must be satisfied:
- the elections must have been concluded;
- the INEC must have made a declaration in favour of one of the candidates;
- There must have been a petition or petitions filed by aggrieved candidate or candidates against the declaration of the winner by INEC. Wada & Ors v. Bello & Ors[2016]M. S. C [Pp. 135-136] Paras. G-A
FACTS:
Where an election is questioned on the ground that the Respondent was not duly elected by majority of lawful votes cast under Section 138(1) of the Act, the petitioner is required to plead two sets of figures: the scores announced by INEC and the scores he considers to be correct. Awuse v. Odili (2005) 16 NWLR (952) 416 at 482 G - B; Nwobodo v. Onoh (1984) 1 SCNLR 1. Where appropriate, he is expected to call witnesses to testify as to the misapplication of the votes. Faleke v. INEC & Ors[2016] 9 M. J. S. C [Pp. 81-82] Para. G
FACTS: