Election Petitions (568)
HELD:
"The action of the 3rd Respondent complained about is the publishing of the names of the candidates submitted to it by the political parties.
HELD:
"With regard to the 1st Respondent, the lower Court relied on Section 285 (14) (c) of the 1999 Constitution as amended to hold that the 1st Respondent had the locus standi to maintain the action.
HELD:
"Now, is the lower Court correct in its decision that the 1st & 2nd Respondents have the locus standi to institute and maintain the suit?
HELD:
"Pre-election litigation is no longer an all-comers affair; the law has provided for the category of person(s) who would have the locus standi to maintain a pre-election matter.
HELD:
"It is obvious that the appellant filed the suit leading to this appeal to pre-empt the primary election that was to hold on 25-5-2022.
HELD:
"It is obvious that the part of the internal affairs of the 1st respondent that was complained against was the disqualification of the appellant as aspirant in the 25-5-2022 primary election and his exclusion from participating in that primary election.
HELD:
"My Lords, this appeal is NOT a complaint about the conduct of party primaries, but about the conduct of the Appellant's political party in scheming the Appellant out of being a participant at the primary election.
HELD:
"Political parties have put in place diverse kinds of internal dispute resolution mechanisms to handle any matter arising from disputes among members.