DAVID EDEVIE

v.

1. OBOREVWORI SHERIFF FRANCIS OROHWEDOR

2. PEOPLES DEMOCRATIC PARTY

3. INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION (INEC)

SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA

AMINA ADAMU AUGIE JSC (Presided)

MOHAMMED LAWAL GARBA JSC

ADAMU JAURO JSC

TIJJANI ABUBAKAR JSC (Read the Lead Judgment)

EMMANUEL AKOMAYE AGIM JSC

SC/CV/1132/2022

FRIDAY, 21 OCTOBER 2022

ACTION - Premature - When action is said to be - Effect of

APPEAL - Ground of appeal - Incompetence of - Counsel who alleges - Onus on to establish same

APPEAL - Notice of appeal - Appellant - Propriety of filing more than one - Where had relied on one notice earlier - Whether precluded from relying on another subsequently

COURT - Issues raised suo motu - Court - Whether mandatory to call on parties to address thereon in all cases

ELECTION LAW - Documents submitted to I.N.E.C. by electoral candidate - Falsification of - Allegation of - Who may raise - Cause of action therein - When arises - Section 29, Electoral Act considered

ELECTION LAW - False information - Submission of by electoral candidate to I.N.E.C. - Allegation of - Where established - Court - Proper order should make - Section 29(6), Electoral Act, 2022 considered

ELECTION LAW - Fraud - Allegations of - Election related matters which involve - Proper procedure to commence - Originating summons - Whether is - Federal High Court (Pre-Election) Direction, 2022 and Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2019 juxtaposed

INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES - Statute - Provisions of - Propriety of construing as a whole

INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES - Words of statute - Where clear and unambiguous - Interpretation of - Court - Proper approach to

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Action - Premature - When said to be - Effect of

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Declaratory reliefs - Claimant for - Burden of proof therein - Nature of - Admission - Whether may be granted thereon

STATUTE - Electoral Act, 2022, section 29(6) - False information - Submission of by Electoral Act to I.N.E.C. - Where established - Proper order court should make

STATUTE - Electoral Act, section 29 - Documents submitted to I.N.E.C. by electoral candidate - Falsification of -

Allegation of - Who may raise - Cause of action therein - When may arise

STATUTE - Federal High Court (Pre-Election) Direction, 2022 and Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2019 juxtaposed - Fraud - Allegations of - Election related matters which involve - Proper procedure to commence - Originating summons - Whether is

STATUTE - Interpretation Act, section 18 - Practice Direction - Legal status of - Where conflicts with statute or rule of court - Force of law - Whether has

STATUTE - Practice Direction - Legal status of - Where conflicts with statute or rule of court - Force of law - Whether has - Section 18, Interpretation Act considered

Issues:

1. Whether the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal were right when they held that the 1st respondent could rely on his notice of appeal which was filed on 20 July 2022 when it had been abandoned.

2. Whether the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal were right when they held that the 1st respondent could rely and raise issues on incompetent grounds and particulars of appeal.

3. Where the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal were right in raising, suo motu, issues which were not raised by the 1st respondent and resolving same against the appellant without affording the appellant an opportunity to be heard thereon.

4. Was the Court of Appeal right when it held that the appellant’s suit at the trial court was not properly commenced by an originating summons.

5. Was the Court of Appeal right when it held that the cause of action of the appellant had not crystallized and that this action was premature.

6. Was the Court of Appeal right when it held that the appellant was not entitled to the judgment of the trial court and thereby dismissed the appellant’s action.

Facts:

The 1st respondent was nominated by the 2nd respondent as the latter’s candidate for the gubernatorial elections for Delta State. The appellant was not satisfied and filed an originating summons in the Federal High Court, Abuja division, claiming that the 1st respondent presented false information to the 2nd respondent to satisfy the Constitutional requirements for contesting the election, while in fact, he was not qualified to contest for the office. He prayed the court for declaratory reliefs to the effect that: the 1st respondent is not qualified to participate and or be declared the winner of the 2nd respondent’s governorship primary elections; the 2nd respondent is precluded from forwarding the name of the 1st respondent as its candidate for the election, having supplied false information and submitted forged certificate in order to participate in and be declared the winner of the primary elections; the 2nd respondent is precluded from transmitting the name of the 1st respondent as its flag bearer for the election.

The appellant further prayed for declarations that; he being the next to the ineligible and unqualified 1st respondent, who scored the highest number of valid votes cast at the primary election, ought and should be returned and declared as winner of the primaries and be returned as the 2nd respondent’s candidate for the gubernatorial elections; the 1st respondent should be prohibited from parading himself as 2nd respondent’s candidate for the election, the 3rd respondent is precluded from giving effect to the 1st respondent’s name as the 2nd respondent’s candidate for the gubernatorial elections, and order disqualifying the 1st respondent from participating in the election. The trial court granted appellant’s claims and the 1st respondent was removed as the successful candidate. The appellant was by order of court made the party’s candidate.

Dissatisfied, the 1st respondent appealed to the Court of Appeal where the appeal was allowed. Also dissatisfied, the appellant appealed to the Supreme Court contending that the lower court erred in holding that his action was premature.

Held: Subscribe to access complete report

Latest Updates