IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NIGERIA
IN THE PORT HARCOURT JUDICIAL DIVISION
HOLDEN AT PORT HARCOURT
ON THURSDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2022
BEFORE THEIR LORDSHIPS:
MUHAMMED LAWAL SHUAIBU JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL
MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM SIRAJO JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL
ADEBUKUNOLA ADEOTI BANJOKO JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL
APPEAL NO. CA/PH/505/2022
BETWEEN:
1. NWANKWO NDUBISI OZOIJE
(RIVERS EAST SENATORIAL DISTRICT)
2. OJI N. NGOFA
(RIVERS SOUTH EAST SENATORIAL DISTRICT)
3. ASITA HONOURABLE OKORIE
(RIVERS WEST SENATORIAL DISTRICT)
4. ANOKWURU FELIX NDUBUISI
(PORTHARCOURT FEDERAL CONSTITUENCY II)
(BONNY/DEGEMA FEDERAL CONSTITUENCY)
5. OWHONDA COLLYNS
(PORTHARCOURT FEDERAL CONSTITUENCY I)
6. HART KINGSLEY FUBARA ===== APPELLANTS
(BONNY/DEGEMA FEDERAL CONSTITUENCY)
7. WEST ININASIYA CLINTON
(AKUKU-TORU/ASARI-TORU FEDERAL CONSTITUENCY)
8. ANDERSON ALLISION IGBIKS
(OKRIKA/OGU BOLO FEDERAL CONSTITUENCY)
9. DIKE CHISOM PROMISE
(TAI/ELEME/OYIGBO FEDERAL CONSTITUENCY)
10. EZEKIEL EZEMONYE NKASIOBI
(IKWERRE/EMOHUA FEDERAL CONSTITUENCY)
11. DIKE CHIKORDI DAVID OGWURIE
(OBIO/AKPOR FEDERAL CONSTITUENCY)
12. NWUZI EPHRAIM
(ETCHE/OMUMA FEDERAL CONSTITUENCY)
13. APIA ERIC CHINEDU
(AHOADA EAST/ABUAL/ODUAL FEDERAL CONSTITUENCY)
14. ODILI HENRY PAUL
(OGBA/EGBEMA/NDONI/AHOADA EAST FEDERAL CONSTITUENCY)
15. NWIBANI ERIC SORBARI
(KHANA/GOKANA FEDERAL CONSTITUENCY)
16. URANTA MACHEAN BETTER
(ANDONI/OPOBO FEDERAL CONSTITUENCY)
17. GIFT ONYIYECHI ONYEUKWU
(OYIGBO STATE CONSTITUENCY)
18. CHARLES OKECHUKWU ANYANWU
(ETCHE STATE CONSTITUENCY II)
19. UZODINMA NWAFOR
(ETCHE STATE CONSTITUENCY I)
20. ANTHONY KAGBARANEN BIRAGBARA
(GOKANA STATE CONSTITUENCY)
21. EMEKA EMMANUEL EDEH
(PORTHARCOURT STATE CONSTITUENCY I)
22. GODSTIME ORLUKWU
(EMOHUA STATE CONSTITUENCY)
23. UWUMA UMANTA AWALA
(AHOADA EAST STATE CONSTITUENCY I)
24. IBIM DAGOGO DUKE
(DEGEMA STATE CONSTITUENCY)
25. HOPE DAVIDSON IGWE
(ELEME STATE CONSTITUENCY)
26. CHIKERE AZUBUIKE WANJOKU
(IKWERRE STATE CONSTITUENCY)
27. KEKECHI KENNETH UBANI
(OMUMA STATE CONSTITUENCY)
28. DICKENS RUHUNDA WORLU
(PORTHARCOURT STATE CONSTITUENCY III)
29. PETER CHRISTIAN IBANICHUKA
(OKRIKA STATE CONSTITUENCY)
30. GOTEH GBARANE BANK
(TAI STATE CONSTITUENCY)
31. RAYMOND NWOKOCHA
(OGBA/EGBEMA/NDONI STATE CONSTITUENCY II)
32. BROWN EDOGHOTU
(ABUA/ODUAL STATE CONSTITUENCY)
33. KARIBO CHRISTOPHER WILSON
(AHOADA WEST STATE CONSTITUENCY)
34. OMUBOYE IWARISOIBIBA AARON SUKUBO
(AKUKU-TORU STATE CONSTITUENCY II)
35. LAWRENCE CHIJIOKE CHUKU
(OBIO/AKPOR STATE CONSTITUENCY I)
36. KAMA WINSTON BRIGGS
(AKUKU-TORU STATE CONSTITUENCY I)
37. PRINCE ERNEST MAZI
(OGBA/EGBEMA/NDONI STATE CONSTITUENCY I)
38. OBU GIBSON REUBEN
(PORTHARCOURT STATE CONSTITUENCY III)
39. NAPOLEON NYEMODUMAKPO UKALIKPE
(AHOADA EAST STATE CONSTITUENCY II)
40. UZOR KIASIRA ABUEH
(KHANA STATE CONSTITUENCY II
41. ALEX GODSPOWER WELE
(OBIO/AKPOR STATE CONSTITUENCY II)
42. STEPHEN ABOLO
(OGU/BOLO STATE CONSTITUENCY)
43. NEEKA IGBARA
(KHANA STATE CONSTITUENCY I)
44. AWAJI ROMSAN DRESSMAN
(ANDONI STATE CONSTITUENCY)
45. EMMANUEL ISAAC TARIBO
(OPOBO/NKORO STATE CONSTITUENCY)
46. DABOTA GODSWILL DABOTA BULL JUMBO
(BONNY STATE CONSTITUENCY)
47. OKORINAMA TAMUNOKORINAMA WEST
(AKUKU-TORU STATE CONSTITUENCY II)
48. OKEIPRIYE TOM GEORGE
(ASARI-TORI STATE CONSTITUENCY I)
AND
1. GEORGE ORLU
2. UEBARI FUBARA OKO
3. SARO JACOB IGBEGHE 1ST SET OF RESPONDENTS
4. HENRY N. KPUNEE
5. AKEERE PROMOTER LEDEE
6. OKOCHA EMMANUEL M.
(For themselves and representing Four
Hundred “400” other Members of the 1st
Defendant unlawfully excluded)
AND
7. ALL PROGRESSIVES CONGRESS (APC) 2ND SET OF
8. INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL RESPONDENTS
COMMISSION (INEC)
JUDGMENT
(DELIVERED BY MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM SIRAJO, JCA)
Following the grant of leave by this court to the Appellants on 04/11/2022 to appeal as persons interested against the judgment of Federal High Court, Port Harcourt Judicial Division in Suit No. FHC/PH/CS/87/2022, delivered on 25/10/2022, Coram: E.A. Obile, J., the Appellants commenced this appeal vide a Notice of Appeal filed on 07/11/2022, predicated on fifteen (15) grounds of appeal. The Notice of Appeal is domiciled at pages 1351 – 1378, Volume 2 of the Record of Appeal, while the leave to appeal occupies pages 1379 – 1382.
At the lower court, the 1st – 6th Respondents were the 1st – 6th Plaintiffs while the 7th and 8th Respondents were the 1st and 2nd Defendants respectively. The Appellants herein were not parties to the suit at the lower court, hence the need for them to seek for and obtain leave before filing the appeal. The 1st, 2nd and 3rd Appellants are the candidates of the All progressives Congress, the 7th Respondent, for the three Senatorial seats in Rivers State in the forthcoming 2023 general elections. The 4th – 16th Appellants are the 7th Respondent’s candidates for the various Federal Constituencies in Rivers State for the 2023 general elections, while the 17th – 48th Respondents are the 7th Respondent’s candidates for the various State Constituencies in Rivers State for the 2023 general elections. The 1st – 6th Respondents, who were Plaintiffs before the lower court, were neither elected delegates nor aspirants at the 7th Respondent’s primary elections in which the Appellants were elected as its candidates for the various offices to be contested in the 2023 general elections in Rivers State. After their election at the primaries conducted on 26/05/2022, 27/05/2022 and 28/05/2022, the Appellants were nominated by the 7th Respondent as its candidates for the 2023 general elections in Rivers State and their names forwarded to the Independent National Electoral Commission, the 8th Respondent. The 1st – 6th Respondents claimed that they paid for the nomination forms of the 7th Respondent to contest internal election as Ward and Local Government delegates but they were denied the forms. Aggrieved with their exclusion from the conduct of the Ward and Local Government Congresses for the election of delegates who will participate in the primary election, the 1st – 6th Respondents took out an Originating Summons against the 7th & 8th Respondents only, claiming the following reliefs:
1. A DECLARATION that the 1st Defendant, its officials and members are bound by Section 84 (3) of the Electoral Act ,2022 (as amended) which relates to the qualification of aspirant for any election in the Party.
2. A DECLARATION that the Plaintiffs and all other members of the 1st Defendant who paid for Nomination Forms to participate in the 1st Defendant’s 2022 Ward and Local Government Congresses in order to be elected as delegates have the constitutional right to participate in the said Congresses.
3. A DECLARATION that the exclusion of the Plaintiffs by the 1st Defendant from participating in the Party’s Ward and Local Government Congresses that were purportedly held on the 18th and 19th of May, 2022 in Rivers State is unconstitutional, null, void and a denial of the Plaintiffs’ Constitutional right to participate in the election of delegates.
4. AN ORDER setting aside the purported Ward and Local Government Congresses of the 1st Defendant that were purportedly conducted in Rivers State on the 18th and 19th of May, 2022 or any other date in exclusion of the Plaintiffs.
5. AN ORDER setting aside the primary election of the 1st Defendant held in Rivers State for the election of the 1st Defendant’s candidates for offices of Governor of Rivers State, Members of National Assembly and State House of Assembly conducted following the exclusion of the Plaintiffs from participating in the purported Ward and Local Government Congresses of the 1st Defendant of May 18th and 19th 2022.
6. AN ORDER OF PERPETUAL INJUNCTION restraining the 2nd Defendant from recognizing, acting on or accepting the result of the said Ward and Local Government Congresses of the 1st Defendant that were purportedly held on the 18th and 19th of May, 2022 or any other date.
7. AN ORDER OF PERPETUAL INJUNCTION restraining the 2nd Defendant from recognizing, or in any way acting upon the Rivers State purported primary elections of the 1st Defendant conducted based on the result of the alleged Ward and Local Government Congresses of the 1st Defendant of May 18th and 19th 2022 in Rivers State that excluded the Plaintiffs from participation.
And for such Order(s) as the Honourable Court may deem fit to make in the circumstance.
At the time of filing the suit, the Appellants have already been nominated by the 7th Respondent as its candidates for the various offices in the 2023 general elections in Rivers State. The 7th Respondent not only contested the suit by filing a counter affidavit to the Originating Summons, it also filed a preliminary objection by way of motion on notice challenging the competence of the action. The 8th Respondent, as 2nd Defendant, did not file any process against the suit at the lower court. There was an attempt by one Chijemezu Welendu Mmanhobu-Amadi and Frank Womeodu to join the suit as 3rd and 4th Defendants (for themselves and representing elected delegates of Ward one Ikwerre Local Government Area of Rivers State), via a motion for joinder filed on 10/08/2022. The learned trial Judge heard the application for joinder, the preliminary objection and the substantive Originating Summons together. In a judgment delivered on 25/10/2022, at pages 1274 – 1349, Volume 2 of the Record of Appeal, the lower court dismissed both the application for joinder and the preliminary objection and granted all the reliefs claimed by the Plaintiffs, now 1st – 6th Respondents, even though it has not gone into the merits of the case. The lower court ended its judgment with the following statement at page 1349, Volume 2 of the Record:
“It is important to state here that based on the reasons given above this court cannot proceed to determine this suit on merits.”
The reliefs sought by the Appellant at paragraph 4 of the Notice of Appeal are for an order allowing the appeal, setting aside the judgment of the lower court and an order striking out the suit before the lower court for want of jurisdiction. In the alternative, the Appellants sought for an order dismissing the suit and setting aside the orders of the trial court.
Briefs of Argument were filed and exchanged by the Appellants and the 1st – 6th Respondents. The 7th Respondent did not contest the appeal, so it did not file any Brief. The 8th Respondent filed a Brief of Argument in support of the appeal but same was struck out during the hearing of the appeal. The Appellants also filed a Reply Brief to the Brief of Argument of the 1st – 6th Respondents. Appellant’s Brief of Argument, settled by Chief Emenike N. Ebete with Chief S.J.Effik, A.G. William-Wobodo and Chimenim W. Jerome, was filed on 18/11/2022, while the 1st to 6th Respondents’ Brief of Argument, settled by Joseph Dents was filed on 19/11/2022. The Appellants also filed a Reply Brief on 30/11/2022. The Appeal was argued on 06/12/2022 with parties adopting their respective processes. While Chief Ebete urged the court to allow the appeal, Mr. Dents asked for the opposite, he urged the court to dismiss the appeal. In the Appellants’ Brief of Argument, the following four Issues were distilled for determination:
These four Issues were adopted by the 1st – 6th Respondents in their Brief of Argument. They are therefore the Issues upon which the appeal would be determined.
Appellants’ Argument
The summary of the Appellants’ argument on Issue 1 is that the lower court was wrong in assuming jurisdiction over the suit of the 1st – 6th Respondents in that the substance of the suit, which alleged exclusion of the 1st – 6th Respondents in Ward and Local Government Congresses held on 18th and 19th May, 2022, falls within the internal affairs of political party which the court has no jurisdiction to enquire into. It was submitted that complaints arising from Ward and Local Government Congresses are non-justiciable, if the complaint is not by an aspirant in a primary election of the political party concern, save for the narrow jurisdiction conferred on the court provided by section 84 (14) of the Electoral Act, 2022 and section 285 (14) (a) and (b) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended). Reliance was placed on Akinremi & Anor vs. Suleman & Ors (2022) LPELR-56903 (CA); APC vs. Garba & Ors (2022) LPELR-57513 (CA) 32-40; Onayefeme & Anor vs. APC (2022) LPELR- 57311 (CA); Hon. Monday Iyore Osagie & Ors vs. Victor Enoghan Charles Egbon, Unreported Appeal No. SC/CV/980/2022, Judgment delivered on 30th September, 2022. Learned counsel submitted that the trial court was in grave error when it proceeded on a sentimental note to resolve the vexed issue of the non-justiciability of the suit before it. On the reliance by the trial court on APC vs. Umar (2019) 8 NWLR (Pt.1675) 564, counsel commended to the court the case of PDP vs. Ogwulegbo SC/CV/471/2021 (Unreported) Judgment of the Supreme Court delivered on 11/04/2022 which departed from the former which held that disputes arising preparty congresses are justiciable.
It was the argument of counsel that before filing their suit at the lower court, the 1st – 6th Respondents did not exhaust the internal dispute resolution mechanism provided in the APC Constitution and the Guidelines for nomination of candidates. That the letters the 1st – 6th Respondents purportedly wrote to the National Chairman of the APC and his Vice did not satisfy the requirements of the Constitution and the Guidelines by not presenting their complaint to the Congress Election Appeal Panel, citing Aguma vs. APC (2021) 14 NWLR (Pt.1796) 398 @ 401.
On the locus standi of the 1st – 6th Respondents, Appellants faulted the finding of the trial court that because the 1st – 6th Respondents were deliberately excluded to participate in the screening at the Ward Delegate Congresses, they had the locus standi to institute the suit. Counsel contended that the exclusion of the 1st – 6th Respondents in the Ward Congress is not a ground to vest them with jurisdiction because, in this area of the law, locus standi is limited to only aspirants who participated in the primaries, relying on Aliyu vs Namadi & Ors (2022) LPELR-58823 (CA) @ 26-27; Osagie & Ors vs. Egbon (supra).
Counsel further submitted that the case of the 1st – 6th Respondents before the lower court did not disclose a reasonable cause of action in that they admitted in the Originating Summons and the affidavit in support that they did not contest at the delegate congresses and did not also contest the primaries that produced the Appellants. That their cause of action will only crystalize upon their contesting primaries. Reference was made to Aliyu vs. Namadi & Ors (supra); PDP vs. Lawal & Ors (2012) LPELR-7972 (CA). Relying on the case of Skye Bank Plc vs. GTB Plc (2020) LPELR-50529 (CA), counsel submitted that the 1st – 6th Respondents having not responded in their counter affidavit to the preliminary objection challenging their suit for lack of cause of action, were deemed to have admitted that their case was bereft of cause of action or reasonable cause of action.
On Issue 2, counsel maintained that the learned trial Judge denied the Appellants fair hearing when he granted orders nullifying their nominations as candidates of the 7th Respondents for 2023 general elections in Rivers State after refusing to join them as parties on the prompting of the 7th Respondent, contending in his judgment, that no relief was sought by the 1st – 6th Respondents against the Appellants. He submitted that any person that suffers harm from the outcome of a judgment is an interested party and ought to be joined in the suit, citing Ochala & Ors vs. John & Ors (2019) LPELR-47001 (CA); PDP vs. APC & Ors (2015) LPELR-25704 (CA), where the court held that it is futile to make an order against a person who is not a party to a case. Learned counsel made a lengthy treatise on denial of fair hearing in the Appellants’ Brief which I have read, comprehended and digested.
Arguing Issues 3 and 4 together, counsel submitted that the decision of the lower court was perverse in that it was not based on appraisal of the evidence before it but based on the allege non-contest of the suit by the 7th Respondent following the striking out of the 7th Respondent’s counter affidavit. It was submitted that since the 1st – 6th Respondents sought for declaratory reliefs, they must succeed only on the strength of their case, not on the weakness of the defence. The court was urged to set aside the findings of the lower court as same has occasioned miscarriage of justice, placing reliance on Anyaegbu vs. Hussaini (2001) FWLR (Pt.84) 247 @ 254; Aliero vs. Muhammadu & Ors (2019) LPELR-47338 (CA). The court was urged to resolve the Issues in favour of the Appellant and grant the reliefs in the Notice of Appeal.
1st – 6th Respondents’ Argument
Learned counsel argued that the lower court was not wrong in assuming jurisdiction over the suit and that the 1st – 6th Respondents have locus standi to institute the action at the lower court. Counsel argued that the complaint of the 1st – 6th Respondents was not against the purported Congresses held by the 7th Respondent, as wrongly submitted by the Appellants, but against the refusal of the 7th Respondent to issue them nomination forms for the Ward and Local Government Congresses which they paid for to the 7th Respondent, thus denying them their right to vote and be voted for as enshrined in section 40 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) and also in breach of section 84 (3) of the Electoral Act, 2022. He submitted that the use of the word adhoc delegate was introduced on appeal for the first time by the Appellants as opposed to delegates simpliciter. He contended that contrary to the argument of the Appellants, the 1st – 6th Respondents duly exhausted the internal dispute resolution mechanism of the 7th Respondent before instituting the suit, having written a letter of complaint to the National Chairman and the Chairman of the South-South Zonal Committee (National Vice Chairman) as evidenced by exhibits FA7 and FA8, but they refused/neglected to resolve the issue.
It was submitted that the issue of cause of action and locus standi are intertwined and that it is lack of understanding of the correlation of the two issues that made the Appellant to conclude that the 1st – 6th Respondents did not react to their argument on lack of reasonable cause of action, citing the case of Jatau vs. Auta (2022) LPELR-57146 (CA). Counsel submitted that on the authority of APC vs. Ibrahim Umar & Ors (2019) 18 NWLR (Pt.1675) 564, the 1st – 6th Respondents suit did not fall within the internal affairs of a political party, rather, it is a pre-election matter and the reasoning of the lower court on that is unassailable. It was forcefully argued that the decisions of this court in Akinremi & Anor vs. Suleiman & Ors; APC vs. Garba & Ors; Enoghama vs. Osagie and Onayefeme & Anor vs. APC, cited and relied upon by the Appellant must perforce give way in the face of the decision in APC vs. Ibrahim Umar & Ors (supra), which is a decision of the Supreme Court for which this court is bound. It was contended that the non-participation of the 1st – 6th Respondents in the Congress due to their exclusion does not detract from the justiciability of the 1st – 6th Respondents’ claims and that the Appellant is estopped from benefitting from its illegality. On this submission, counsel referred to the cases of Polaris Bank Ltd vs. Munaish Investment Ltd & Anor (2022) LPELR-58135 (CA); Katagum & Anor vs. Me-Mai (2014) LPELR-23227 (CA); Saleh vs. Monguno & Ors (2006) LPELR-2992 (SC). I do not know if by the continuous use of the word “Appellant” in his submission counsel for the 1st – 6th Respondents means the 7th Respondent. I say so because there is no Appellant before this court in this appeal but Appellants. Secondly, the Appellants herein were not sued by the 1st – 6th Respondents at the lower court, so they could not have been the persons who allegedly excluded the 1st – 6th Respondents from participating in the Ward and Local Government Congresses.
Learned counsel opined that in deserving cases the court will intervene where a political party breaches its constitution or acts arbitrarily; Ogwulegbo & Ors vs. PDP (2021) LPELR-54713, because the Constitution of a political party is binding and enforceable by the court against its members; Gana vs SDP & Ors (2019) LPELR-47153.
Arguing Issues 2, 3 and 4 together, learned counsel submitted that the Appellants’ right to fair hearing has not been breached because they were not parties before the lower court and no relief was sought or granted against them. He contended that all necessary parties were before the lower court and that it is not for the Appellants to dictate to the 1st – 6th Respondents who to sue. Relying on Bauchi State Government vs. Gumau & Anor (2019) LPELR-47061 (CA); Aromire vs. Awoyemi (1971) 1 ALL NLR (Pt.1) 101; Ayorinde vs. Oni (2000) NWLR (Pt.649) 348, counsel submitted that a person against whom a claimant has no cause of action and against whom he has not made any claim should not be made a defendant in a case. It was argued that from the relief claimed by the 1st – 6th Respondents, Appellants are not necessary, relevant, desirable and proper parties for the effectual and complete adjudication of the claim before the lower court, citing Re: Mogaji (1986) 1 NWLR (Pt.19) 759 @ 782. It was the contention of the 1st – 6th Respondents that the audi alteram partem principle has not been breached because the Respondents have no complaints or allegations against the Appellants. Counsel submitted that since there is no independent candidacy in Nigeria, once a political party is sued, its candidates are automatically sued.
In submitting that the 1st – 6th Respondents have locus standi to sue against their illegal exclusion from the Congresses after paying for the nomination forms, counsel cited some authorities on what locus standi denotes, such as Santos Estate Ltd vs. Associated Properties & Trust Plc (2022) LPELR-56937 (CA); Wushishi vs. Imam (2017) EJSC (Vol.66) 19 @ 51. The court was urged to resolve Issues 2 & 3 in favour of the 1st – 6th Respondents.
Learned counsel further submitted that the lower court was not in breach of the Appellant’s right to fair hearing when it raised suo motu the issue of the competence of the Appellant’s affidavit and ruled on same. There appears to be a case of copy and paste gone wrong in this submission. There are 48 Appellants in this appeal and none of them was a party at the lower court so the issue of them or any of them filing a counter affidavit does not arise. I am aware that the 7th Respondent herein is also an Appellant in another appeal but certainly not in the instant appeal. The preceding argument of counsel to the 1st – 6th Respondents appeared to be directed to the Appeal filed by the 7th Respondent, the All Progressives Congress, but was wrongly imported into this appeal without adaptation and editing. Counsel concluded his argument by submitting that in the absence of a valid counter affidavit from the 7th Respondent in opposition to the Originating Summons, the judgment of the lower court was on merit based on the strength of the case of the 1st – 6th Respondents. The court was urged to dismiss the appeal for lacking in merit.
The Appellants filed a Reply Brief to the Brief of the 1st – 6th Respondents wherein it was submitted on their behalf that:
Other submissions in the Reply Brief which amounted to re-arguing the appeal are hereby discountenanced.
Resolution of the appeal
In this appeal, four Issues were formulated by the Appellants for determination. Let me commence the resolution of the appeal by expressing my agreement with learned counsel for the 1st – 6th Respondents when he submitted that the issue of locus standi and cause of action which were treated as separate issues by the Appellants are actually the same and/or intertwined. This is so because where a party lacks the locus standi to commence any action, it automatically means that such a party does not have a cause of action. Conversely, where a cause of action exists, the person with that cause of action will naturally possess the locus standi to ventilate his cause of action in court. It is therefore inappropriate to treat the two issues separately as doing so will lead to a specie of proliferation of issues.
Because of the prime position and fundamental nature of the issue of jurisdiction to any adjudication, I will commence the resolution of this appeal with that issue, along with the issue of locus standi, which is also jurisdictional. The Appellants questions the jurisdiction of the lower court to entertain the suit when, according to them, the 1st – 6th Respondents, who were Plaintiffs before that court, have not exhausted the internal dispute resolution mechanism of the party as provided for in the Constitution of the APC and the Guidelines. The 1st – 6th Respondents, on the other hand, maintained that they wrote letters to the National Chairman of the 1st Respondent and the National Vice Chairman, who is also the Chairman of the South-South Zonal Committee of the party, but that these two officers did not resolve the dispute, hence their resort to the court.
As a threshold issue, the importance of jurisdiction was re-echoed by Okoro, JSC, in Ikpekpe vs. Warri Refinery & Petrochemical Co. Ltd & Anor (2018) LPELR-44471 SC), thus:
“The importance of the jurisdiction of a Court cannot be over emphasized. The law is trite that jurisdiction is a threshold issue and livewire that determines the authority of a Court of law or Tribunal to entertain a case before it and it is only when a Court is imbued or conferred with the necessary jurisdiction by the Constitution or law that it will have the judicial power and authority to entertain, hear and adjudicate upon any cause or matter brought before it by the parties. Where a Court proceeds to hear and determine a matter without the requisite jurisdiction, it amounts to an exercise in futility and the proceedings and judgment generated therefrom are null, void and of no effect no matter how well conducted.”
The fundamental nature of jurisdiction was recently restated by the Apex Court in the case of Yongo & Ors vs. Hanongon & Ors (2022) LPELR-57282 (SC), per Adamu Jauro, JSC, thus:
"It is settled that jurisdiction is a threshold issue which is fundamental and crucial to adjudication. A Court cannot assume jurisdiction to adjudicate in a cause or matter unless its jurisdiction has been properly invoked. It is crucial because where a Court proceeds without jurisdiction to hear the case, the proceedings so embarked upon by the Court are a nullity ab initio however well conducted the proceedings and brilliantly decided the issues agitated therein are.
n Utih vs. Onoyivwe (1991) LPELR-3436 (SC), Bello, CJN, graphically painted the picture of jurisdiction in the following words:
"...jurisdiction is blood that gives life to the survival of an action in a court of law and without jurisdiction, the action will be like an animal that has been drained of its blood. It will cease to have life and any attempt to resuscitate it without infusing blood into it would be an abortive exercise."
Bairamian, JSC, stated how jurisdiction can be determined in the celebrated case of Madukolu vs. Nkemdilim (1962) LPELR-24023 (SC) as follows:
"Before discussing those portions of the record, I shall make some observations on jurisdiction and the competence of a court. Put briefly, a Court is competent when (1) it is properly constituted as regards numbers and qualifications of the members of the bench, and no member is disqualified for one reason or another; and (2) the subject matter of the case is within its jurisdiction, and there is no feature in the case which prevents the court from exercising its jurisdiction: and (3) the case comes before the court initiated by due process of law, and upon fulfillment of any condition precedent to the exercise of jurisdiction. Any defect in competence is fatal, for the proceedings are a nullity however well conducted and decided: the defect is extrinsic to the adjudication."
In my considered view, the appropriate starting point in the resolution of this issue is a detour of the Constitution of the 1st Respondent, particularly Article 12 thereof with a view to determining whether the dispute resolution mechanism of the 1st Respondent was/were exhausted by the 1st – 6th Respondent before they instituted the suit now on appeal. Annexed to the 1st – 6th Respondents’ affidavit in support of their Originating Summons as exhibit ‘E’ is the Constitution of the All Progressives Congress, which occupies pages 26 – 74 Volume 1 of the Record of Appeal. Article 12 (B) of the said Constitution deals with Disciplinary Procedure while Article 21 (C) covers the right of appeals by aggrieved members. The grouse of the 1st – 6th Respondents is that they paid for forms to contest the positions of Ward, Local Government, State and National Delegates of the 1st Respondent but they were denied the forms and therefore excluded from the delegates’ election. They were aggrieved. They claimed to have written a letter of complaint to the National Chairman of the party, copy of which was annexed to their affidavit as exhibit ‘D’ at pages 24-25 of the Record. A careful look at exhibit ‘D’ did not show that it was received by anybody at all as there is totally no evidence of acknowledgment of receipt. In fact, the 7th Respondent denied receiving the said letter. Apart from the purported letter which has no evidence of receipt by the addressee, no other step was taken by the 1st – 6th Respondents to internally ventilate their grievances with the 7th Respondent. Learned counsel for the 1st - 6th Respondents claimed in their Brief of Argument that a letter was also written to the Vice chairman of the 7th Respondent who is also the South-South Zonal Committee Chairman. The proof of delivery annexed to the further affidavit in support of the Originating Summons at pages 433, 433A and 444 of the Record of Appeal did not indicate that any letter was served on the Zonal Chairman. Assuming, however, that the National Chairman was served with the letter of complaint, that did not satisfy the requirement of the provisions of Article 21 (B) & (C) of the Constitution of the 1st Respondent. The complaint of the 1st – 6th Respondents being against a State Chapter of the Party, the appropriate organ to which the complaint shall be lodged by virtue of Article 21 (B) (vi) (d) is the Zonal Executive Committee, the adjudicatory body of first instance over complaints or allegations from the State Chapter in the Zone. An appeal from the Zonal Executive Committee as an adjudicatory body of first instance shall, by virtue of Article 21 (C) (ix), lie to the National Executive Committee. There is no evidence on the printed Record of the lower court transmitted to this court to show that the 1st – 6th Respondents’ complaints against the Rivers State Chapter of the party was lodged with the South-South Zonal Committee of the party and a further appeal lodged to the National Executive Committee without success, before their recourse to the court. Having rushed to the court without ventilating their grievances through the various stages of the internal dispute resolution mechanism of their party, the lower court was bereft of the requisite jurisdictional competence to adjudicate on the claim of the 1st – 6th Respondents because:
(1) There is a feature in the case which prevents the court from exercising its jurisdiction, and
(2) The case was instituted without fulfilment of a condition precedent to the exercise of jurisdiction, which is the non-exhaustion of the internal mechanism for the resolution of intra-party disputes as stipulated in the Constitution of the 1st Respondent.
The suit of the 1st – 6th Respondents at the lower court was premature at the time it was filed, consequently, the lower court was without jurisdiction when it heard and determined the matter. In resolving this jurisdictional issue in favour of the Appellant, I place reliance on the case of Aguma vs. APC (2021) 14 NWLR (Pt.1796)351 (SC), cited by learned counsel for the Appellant, also reported as (2021) LPELR-55927 (SC).
I will not end the discuss on this issue without drawing attention to an important development in the jurisprudence of pre-election matters as it concerns the authority of APC vs. Ibrahim Umar (2019) LPELR-47296 (SC), heavily relied upon by the 1st – 6th Respondents to argue that their suit at the lower court was a pre-election matter. It is correct to say that the case of APC vs. Umar expanded the scope of what constitute pre-election matters as well as the parties who are competent to file same. In that case, the Supreme Court, per Sanusi, JSC, held at pages 15-16 of the E-Report that:
I think it would be apt to say that the word "election' means the process of choosing by popular votes, a candidate for political office in a democratic government. See Ojukwu v Obasanjo (2004) 12 NWLR (pt.886) 169, Buhari v Obasanjo (2005) 2 NWLR (pt.910)241. It goes without saying therefore, that any preparation or process embarked upon by a political party in preparation for an election can as well be regarded as "PRE-election" or prior to the election or before the election as opposed to post-election which would obviously relate to any exercise or process done after the election. To my mind therefore, the process or exercise embarked upon by a political party such as congress, nomination exercise etc are all pre-election matters or exercise. The instant suit being an exercise before or prior to election is therefore caught up by or is within the purview of Section 285 (14) of the Constitution 4th Alteration Act 2017.
The Supreme Court has seen the need to depart and did depart from that decision by whittling down the expanded definition of pre-election matters earlier given by it in APC vs. Umar (supra). The occasion that offered itself for that positive review was the case of PDP vs. Ogwulegbo & ors, Unreported Judgment of the Supreme Court in Appeal No. SC.CV/471/2022, delivered on 11th April, 2022. The facts of that case had similarity with the facts in the instant appeal. In that case, the Respondents wanted to contest for various party offices in the Appellant’s Ward and Local Government Congresses in Imo State but were denied the sale of nomination forms to enable them contest. They approached the court seeking, among other reliefs, the nullification of the Congresses. In departing from its decision in APC vs. Umar (supra), the Supreme Court, per Ogunwumiju, JSC, held at page 17 of the Judgment:
“Rather than the elastic interpretation given to section 285 (14) in APC vs. Umar, I would prefer a narrower interpretation of the provision which accords more with the letters of the Constitution. The Courts, particularly this Court cannot be an all-comers Court of a pot pouri of all litigations including the banal, the serious and the impactful. It is very important for the Courts not to assume jurisdiction in respect of intra party disputes. The facts of this case show clearly that it is an intra-party dispute. The cause of action is one in which the trial court as it rightly held, has no jurisdiction.
The above position of the Supreme Court was further amplified by the same Court in the case of Osagie & Ors vs. Enoghama & Ors (2022) LPELR-58903 (SC), another Ward Congress dispute, this time around, from Edo State. The Supreme Court decided that the election of Ward delegates is a domestic affair of a political party over which no right of legal action is vested in persons dissatisfied with the exercise. Consequent upon these binding judicial authorities, I hold that the lower court lacks the requisite jurisdiction to entertain the suit of the 1st – 6th Respondents as it falls squarely within the internal affairs of the 7th Respondent, for which a court has no jurisdiction.
Notwithstanding the decision just reached on the threshold issue of jurisdiction, I shall proceed to examine the other issues in the appeal in the event my decision on jurisdiction is found to be wrong, as this court is a penultimate court.
The challenge to the locus standi of the 1st – 6th Respondents to institute the action before the lower court is one the twin issues of jurisdiction raised by the Appellants under Issue 1. The plank of the argument of the Appellants on this issue is that the 1st – 6th Respondents, not being members of the 7th Respondent and having not participated in the primary election conducted by the 7th Respondent as aspirants, lack the locus standi to complain about the nomination of the Appellants. Learned counsel faulted the lower court for proceeding with the case after finding in its judgment, copied at page 1299 of the Record, that the 1st – 6th Respondents did not participate in the primary election because they were denied nomination forms. Proceeding on the assumption that the 1st – 6th Respondents are members of the 7th Respondent, in view of their non-participation in the primaries that produced the Appellants as National Assembly and State House of Assembly candidates of the 7th Respondent, either as delegates or aspirants, do they possess the necessary locus standi to institute the suit at the lower court?
Locus standi is the legal capacity to institute legal proceedings before a court. It is the standing to sue or the competence of a party to sue. See Taiwo vs. Adegboro (2011) 11 NWLR (Pt.1159) 562. The term was also defined by Kekere-Ekun, JSC, in B.B. Apugo & Sons Ltd vs. OHMB (2016) LPELR-40598 (SC), as follows:
“Locus standi is the legal right of a party to an action to be heard in litigation before a court or tribunal. The term connotes the legal capacity of instituting or commencing an action in a competent court of law or tribunal without any inhibition, obstruction or hindrance from any person or body whatsoever.”
Thus, for a person to approach a court, he must be able to show that his civil rights and obligations have been or are in danger of being violated or infringed upon. Locus standi is a condition precedent for proper initiation of any judicial proceeding and therefore goes to the competence of or jurisdiction of the court to entertain the action. Therefore, where a claimant has no locus standi, his action will be incompetent and the court will have no jurisdiction to hear and adjudicate on the action. See Pam vs. Mohammed (2008) LPELR-2895 (SC); Opobiyi & Anor vs. Muniru (2011) LPELR-8232 (SC); Bakare & Ors vs. Ajose-Adeogun & Ors (2014) LPELR-22013; Daniel vs. INEC (2015) LPELR-24566 (SC). Similarly, where a person has no locus standi to institute an action, he will equally not have a cause of action to ventilate in court. I need to also stress that an objection to the locus standi of a claimant in an action is automatically an objection to the jurisdiction of the court before which the action is pending. As an unquestionable threshold issue which goes to the capacity of a party to institute legal proceedings and, a fortiori, the jurisdiction of the court, the challenge to a party’s locus standi can be taken at any time during the proceedings or even for the first time on appeal to this court, without leave. In an election related matter such as the instant one, the locus standi of a party is donated by a statute not under the common law. In this wise, the locus standi of the 1st – 6th Respondents to institute the matter at the lower court is donated either by the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as altered) or by the Electoral Act, 2022. In order for the courts to be insulated from the sphere of politics and determination of political questions, the locus standi of political party members to institute proceedings in court over party affairs is majorly restricted, as issues of nomination and sponsorship of candidates by a political party for any election is within the exclusive preserve of the political party and the courts have no jurisdiction to interfere therein. The essence of this rule is to restrict access to the courts on purely political questions arising from the internal affairs of political parties, except within the narrow compass of section 84 (14) of the Electoral Act, 2022, which provides:
“Notwithstanding the provisions of this Act or rules of a political party, an aspirant who complains that any of the provisions of this Act and the guidelines of a political party has not been complied with in the selection or nomination of a candidate of a political party for election, may apply to the Federal High Court for redress.”
This provision is plain and self-explanatory. It provides a window to an aspirant to challenge the conduct of primary election by his political party if, in his opinion, the provisions of the Electoral Act and Rules and Guidelines of his political party have not been complied with. The emphasis here is on the word ‘aspirant’, not a delegate, a proposed delegate or any other party member. Only an aspirant, that is, a candidate at the primary election, possess the locus standi to challenge the conduct of the primary election of his political party or the nomination of a candidate made sequel to the primary election. For a person to qualify or have the locus to institute an action arising from the nomination of a party’s candidature for an election, he must have participated in the nomination exercise as an aspirant and failed, otherwise he would be regarded as a meddlesome interloper and busybody. See Daniel vs.INEC (supra); PDP vs. Amin (2019) LPELR-48096 (CA); Ogba vs. Ifeanyi & Ors (2022) LPELR-58653 (CA); Kambaza & Ors vs. APC & Ors (2020) LPELR-50305 (CA); Muyiwa vs. Muhammed & Ors (2021) LPELR-56446 (CA).
The 1st – 6th Respondents have admitted, and the lower court has also made a finding which has not been challenged, that they did not participate in the congresses that produced delegates who voted at the primary election, which they asked the lower court to nullify. Even if the 1st – 6th Respondents were elected delegates and they participated at the primary election as voters, they cannot challenge the primary election that produced the 7th Respondent’s candidates for want of requisite standing, having not participated in the primaries as aspirants. The lower court was therefore wrong in clothing the 1st – 6th Respondents with locus standi in a matter in which they ought to be left ‘naked’, bereft of the standing to sue. In view of my legal analysis above, I resolve the issue of locus standi in favour of the Appellant and against the 1st – 6th Respondents.
Another grouse of the Appellant with the judgment of the lower court is
that far reaching orders affecting their rights and interests were made by the lower court against them even though they were not parties to the suit. That by making the orders against them without giving them the opportunity to be heard, the lower court has breached their fundamental right to fair hearing. See Arije vs. Arije (2018) 44193 (SC); Wagbatsoma vs. Federal Republic of Nigeria (2018) LPELR-43722 (SC). The right to fair hearing is a constitutionally guaranteed right, observance of which gives validity to any legal proceeding. Section 36 (1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria which encapsulates the right to fair hearing provides:
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations, including any question or determination by or against any government or authority, a person shall be entitled to a fair hearing within a reasonable time by a court or other tribunal established by law and constituted in such manner as to secure its independence and impartiality.”
Fair hearing within the meaning of the above quoted provisions means a trial conducted according to all the legal rules and procedures to ensure that justice is done to the parties. The true test of whether a trial is conducted fairly is the impression of a reasonable man or an impartial observer who was present at the trial, whether from his observation he will conclude that the court was fair to all the parties in the proceedings, i.e., that justice has been done. See Amanchukwu vs. F.R.N. (2009) LPELR- 455 (SC); Mpama vs. First Bank of Nigeria Plc (2013) LPELR-19896 (SC); Pam vs. Mohammed (2008) LPELR-2895 (SC). A party complaining of the breach of his right to fair hearing must be able to show that he has not been accorded a fair opportunity to ventilate his grievances before the court, and the determination of such complaint depends upon a careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of each case.
In the above restatement of the law on fair hearing, there is heavy emphasis on “party” to the proceedings. In the instant case on appeal, the Appellants were not parties to the proceedings at the lower court, yet the court made an order adverse to their respective rights and interests. That was the basis of their complain of denial of fair hearing as they were not parties to the suit to enable them defend their interests. The Appellants’ contention is that as the National Assembly and State House of Assembly candidates of the 7th Respondent, the order of the trial court, granting relief 5 claimed by the 1st – 6th Respondents in a proceeding in which they were not parties, has adversely affected their interests and denied them the right to be heard. In its judgment copied at page 1349 Volume 2 of the Record of Appeal, the lower court set aside the primary election of the 7th Respondent held in Rivers State on 18th and 19th May, 2022 for the election of the 7th Respondent’s candidates for the offices of Governor of Rivers State, Members of National Assembly and State House of Assembly. This order was made in line with relief 5 claimed by the 1st – 6th Respondents. From the reliefs claimed by them, the 1st – 6th Respondents were aware that at the time of filing their action at the lower court, the Appellants and the Governorship candidate they sought to set aside their nomination have already acquired vested rights to contest the election to the various offices they were nominated for by their political party. Having known this fact, the 1st – 6th Respondents ought to have joined all the 7th Respondent’s candidates who were elected at the primary election and whose election they want to set aside, as parties to the suit at the lower court, since reliefs were sought against them. It is curious that the candidates of the 7th Respondent against whom reliefs were sought by the 1st – 6th Respondents were not made parties to the suit to enable them defend the suit and demonstrate why the reliefs sought against them should not be granted. To worsen matters, the learned trial Judge aided the 1st – 6th Respondents in their desire to shut out the winners of the primary election from the suit, when in his judgment, reproduced at pages 1312 – 1314 of the Record of appeal he held that the Governorship, National and State Assembly candidates of the 7th Respondent are not necessary, relevant, desirable or proper parties in the suit because no relief was claimed against them. With that Ruling, the lower court proceeded to set aside the election of these same candidates he held to be unnecessary, undesirable, irrelevant and improper parties that he refused to allow their joinder as parties to the suit.
In our adversary system of adjudication, the rule has evolved over time that the court cannot make a finding that will be prejudicial against a person that is neither before it nor party to the case and in the same vein, cannot grant a relief against such a non-party. In other words, a court has no power to make an order that will affect the interest of any person or persons who is or are not parties to the case or dispute before it. Where such an order is made it cannot be binding against the person who is not a party to the action. See Kokoro-Owo & Ors vs. Lagos State Government & Ors (2001) LPELR-1699 (SC); Uwazuruike & Ors vs. A.G. Federation (2013) LPELR-20392 (SC) @ 32-33; Alioke vs. Oye 7 ors (2018) LPELR-45153 (SC) @ 16; Oyeyemi vs. Owoeye 92017) LPELR-41903 (SC); Ndoma-Egba vs. Chukwuogor (2004) LPELR-1974(SC). The general principle of law is that no person is to be adversely affected by a judgment in an action to which he was not a party because of the injustice in deciding an issue against him. The argument of learned counsel to the 1st – 6th Respondents that in the absence of independent candidates in Nigeria, once a political party is sued, its candidates are automatically sued, is pedestrian and an insult to the law. A political party is an Association of persons in pursuit of political power. That Association apart, individual members of a political party have their distinct legal personality and distinct personal interests within the wider political Association. A political party cannot be the soul and conscience of all its members. Candidates of a political party are distinct personalities from their political party, they are not appendages or privies or even servants of the party. I jettison and discountenance that argument for being in confrontation with the law.
To say that the Appellants were adversely affected by the orders of the lower court in a suit in which they were not parties, is an understatement. The Appellants were nominated by their political party as its flag bearers for the 2023 National Assembly and State House of Assembly election in Rivers State and their names submitted to the Independent National Electoral Commission. The lower court set aside the primary election that led to the emergence of the Appellants as the 7th Respondent’s candidates after refusing to allow their joinder as parties to the suit on the ground that they were not necessary or desirable parties. The rights and interest of the Appellants have now been curtailed by the lower court’s order in a proceeding in which they were denied participation. With the order made granting relief 5 claimed by the 1st – 6th Respondents, the lower court has breached the Appellants’ right to fair hearing for making an order adverse to their interest without affording them a hearing. I so hold. The law is trite that any decision reached where there has been a denial of fair hearing cannot stand. I resolve this issue in favour of the Appellant and against the 1s – 6th Respondents.
Another issue worth noting is that counsel for the 1st – 6th Respondents concluded his argument by submitting that in the absence of a valid counter affidavit from the 7th Respondent in opposition to the Originating Summons, the judgment of the lower court was on merit based on the strength of the case of the 1st – 6th Respondents. This submission is far from the truth, taking into consideration the printed Record of Appeal transmitted to this court. In fact, the records speak of the opposite of what counsel has submitted. While still on this point of fact, let me digress a little into the law. The Apex Court has always admonished the lower courts not to get into the merits of a case at the interlocutory stage as doing so would lead to prejudging the substantive case before its time to do so, the consequence of which, the adverse party may be denied fair hearing, leading to a failure of justice. See Agwu & Ors vs. Julius Berger Nig. Plc (2019) LPELR-47625 (SC); CIL Risk & Asset Management Ltd vs. Ekiti State Government & Ors (2020) LPELR-49565 (SC); Otti & Anor vs. Ogah & Ors (2017) LPELR-41986 (SC).
My lords, in the instant appeal, the learned trial Judge did something strange and out of the ordinary course of events in judicial adjudication. As is the usual practice in matters commenced by way of Originating Summons, the trial Judge heard the preliminary objection of the 7th Respondent along with the substantive matter. What the law expects him to do at the end of the hearing was to decide the preliminary objection at the commencement of his judgment before going into the determination of the questions raised in the substantive action. The determination of the preliminary objection must end with an order either upholding the objection and striking out or dismissing the suit in limine, or an order dismissing the preliminary objection and proceeding with the substantive suit. Rather than take one of the two courses of action opened to him, the learned trial Judge, in an unprecedented speed, chose to grant all the prayers sought by the 1st – 6th Respondents at the end of his ruling on the preliminary objection without going into the merit of the case. I was actually perplexed by this novel approach when I read the concluding part of the Judgment of the lower court copied at page 1349 Volume 2 of the Record of Appeal where the trial Judge ended his judgment with this statement: “It is important to state here that based on the reasons given above this court cannot proceed to determine this suit on merits.” This statement was made after all the reliefs claimed by the 1st – 6th Respondents were granted following the striking out of the 7th Respondent’s counter affidavit to the Originating Summons. The striking out of the counter affidavit of the 7th Respondent is no reason why the learned trial Judge cannot go into the merits of the case by properly evaluating the evidence before it. This is more so that the principal reliefs sought by the 1st – 6th Respondents are declaratory. Even if the 7th Respondent did not contest the suit, the lower court owe a bounden duty to look at the justiciability of the case and assess the evidence before it critically before handing down its judgment. This must be done because declaratory reliefs are not granted on the weakness of the case of the defence or even the complete absence of defence. See Attorney General Rivers State vs. Attorney General of the Federation & Anor (2022) LPELR-57708 (SC); Adamu vs Nigerian Airforce & Anor (2022) LPELR-56587 (SC); Kwajafa & Ors vs. Bank of the North Ltd (2004) LPELR-1727 (SC); Akaninwo & Ors vs. Nsirim & Ors (2008) LPELR-321 (SC). Since the lower court did not proceed to determine the merits of the case by properly evaluating the evidence before it, the question that arises is: Upon what materials was the grant of the reliefs claimed by the 1st – 6th Respondents predicated? The trial Judge was in serious error when he granted the reliefs of the 1st – 6th Respondents without going into the merits of the case, as stated by him in the judgment. On this score, and without much ado, I also resolve the 4th Issue in favour of the Appellant.
The 3rd Issue on whether the 1st – 6th Respondents discharged the burden of proof in the case before the lower court is no longer a live issue that deserve consideration in view of my decision on Issue 3 supra which was predicated on the admission of the trial Judge that he did not go into the merits of the case. A plaintiff cannot be said to have discharged the burden of proof when the court that heard the matter has not determine the case on the merits.
Having resolved all the Issues in this appeal in favour of the Appellant, the destiny of the appeal is now very clear. I hold that the appeal is imbued with merits and is hereby allowed. I order that the judgment of the Federal High Court, Port Harcourt Judicial Division, delivered in Suit No. FHC/PH/CS/87/2022 on 25th October, 2022, by E.A. Obile, J., be and is hereby set aside. The Appellants are entitled to the cost of this appeal. I award cost of N500,000.00 to the Appellants against the 1st – 6th Respondents.
MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM SIRAJO
JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL
APPEARANCES:
