[Stare Decisis] – [Meaning and Operation of] [Party Primary] – [Political Party – [Candidate who Refuses to Participate Therein – Effect of] – [Setting Aside of Judgment] – [Where Court Sets Aside a Judgment – [Effect of]
ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION:
- Whether a judgment of the trial Court which has been upturned by the Court of Appeal can still stand.
- What happens where a party relies on a judgment of the Court which has been set aside.
FACTS:
This Appeal arose from the dispute over which of the results of two Primary Elections held in Enugu State to nominate the first Respondent’s candidates for the 2015 General Election, was the authentic and legally binding one. They were held on the same day. One of them, which held at Nkwo Nike Field, was conducted with the list of Delegates sent from the National Executive of the first Respondent, and it was monitored by the third Respondent.
The fourth Respondent emerged as the winner of that Primaries. The other one, which held at the Nkwo Nike Primary School was conducted with another list of Delegates, who were recognized by the Federal High Court in its Judgment delivered by Ademola, J., in Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/830/2014: Barr. Orji Chineye Godwin & 2 Ors V. PDP & 4 Ors, on 24/11/2014. The Appellant, who won this other Primary Election, was nominated as first Respondent’s candidate for the House of Representatives seat of Enugu East/lsi Uzo Federal Constituency of Enugu State. But rather than send his name to the third Respondent, the first and second Respondent forwarded the name of the fourth Respondent, as their candidate for the said seat. In his judgment delivered on 22/11/2016, the learned trial Judge, Dimgba, J., upheld the Objections of the two sets of Respondents, and struck out the Suit. The Court of Appeal dismissed and affirmed the decision of the trial Court. The Supreme Court unanimously dismissed the appeal.
HELD:
On Effect where a candidate did not take part in primary election authorised by his party:
Where a candidate of a political party refuses to participate in the primary election organized by his party in accordance with the rules and guidelines of the party’s constitution, such a candidate will have no locus standi to challenge the result of the said primary election.
On Meaning and operation of ‘stare decisis’:
Stare decisis (Latin “to stand by things decided), signifies the common law convention of judicial devotion to binding precedent; that Judges are to follow the decisions of applicable prior cases and they are not to revisit issues of law that have already been settled.
On Effect of setting aside a judgment:
To set aside something is to say that it is no longer in effect. Anything that is no longer in effect is not operating or functioning, it is no longer in existence, it is dead, extinct. It follows, therefore, that a judgment, which has been set aside is no longer in existence, it has no life, no power, and cannot be the basis for any legal claims.
NIGERIAN CASES REFERRED TO IN THE JUDGMENT:
- Atolagbe v. Awuni (1997) 9 NWLR (Pt. 522) 536
- Clement v. Iwuanyanwu (1998) 3 NWLR (Pt. 107) 39
- Godwin v. PDP unreported FHC/ABJ/CS/830/2014 delivered on 24/11/2014
- Osakue v. F.C.E. Asaba (2010) 10 NWLR (Pt.1201) 1
- Ozomgbachi v. Amadi (2018) 17 NWLR (Pt.1647) 171
- Ugwuede v. Asadu (2018) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1628) 460
FOREIGN CASE REFERRED TO IN THE JUDGMENT:
- Macfoy v. UAC Ltd. (1961) 3 WLR 1405
NIGERIAN STATUTES REFERRED TO IN THE JUDGMENT:
- Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, S. 40
- Electoral Act, 2011, (as amended), Ss. 85, 86, 87(9)
BOOK REFERRED TO IN THE JUDGMENT:
- Electoral Guidelines for Primary Elections 2014
FULL JUDGMENT
AUGIE, J.S.C. (Delivering the Leading Judgment):
In his judgment delivered on 22/11/2016, the learned trial Judge, Dimgba, J., upheld the Objections of the two sets of respondents, and struck out the suit. He considered paragraphs 12, 13, 14, 15 & 16 of the appellant’s supporting Affidavit, and observed as follows:
“If you peel off all the layers of averments and depositions and also the accompanying legal arguments, the core of the dispute remains the vital question of which between the results of two Primary Elections is the authentic and legally binding one. In my view, this is precisely the question which case law doctrine stipulates is beyond the adjudicative reach of the Courts. And when judicial authority says that this question is not justiciable, it did not create any exceptions. It did not say that if the authorities of a Political Party are violating the provisions of the Electoral Guidelines or the Party’s Constitution, then an aggrieved member or members can sponsor an alternative Primary, and that if they bring a legal action on the basis of that alternative Primary then the action will have immunity from the non-justiciability virus that judicial authority has infested on this sort of question.”
The appellant appealed, and in dismissing his appeal and affirming the decision of the trial Court, the Court of Appeal held as follows:
“What is highly illuminating here and which is not in doubt is that the appellant did not participate in the Primary Election conducted by the Party Officials sent to Enugu East/lsi-Uzo Federal Constituency which was conducted at the rightful designated place. Appellant failed to participate in the primary election for Enugu East/lsi-Uzo Federal Constituency at the VENUE designated for it by 1St and 2nd respondents and which primary was conducted by Officials appointed by 1st and 2nd respondents. His purported emergence as flag bearer or candidate of 1st respondent for 2015 general election for Enugu East/lsi-Uzo Federal Constituency is a sham and null and void and of no effect whatsoever.”
Further aggrieved, he appealed to the Supreme Court. In dismissing the appeal, the Court noted:
“The appellant has not provided this Court with any reason to depart from its recent decision in SC. 292/2017: Hon. Chief Ogbuefi Ozomgbachi V. Mr. Dennis Amadi & Ors., and SC. 293/2017: Hon. Chief Ogbuefi Ozomgbachi V. PDP & Ors. (consolidated), wherein this Court dealt specifically with the status of the judgment of Ademola, J., in FHC/ABJ/CS/816/2014, which was set aside by the Court of Appeal in CA/A/28/2015, and dismissed the Appeals because having been set aside, the said judgment of Ademola, J., which the appellant herein also based his entire case on, had ceased to exist. To set aside something is to say that it is no longer in effect. Anything that is no longer in effect is not operating or functioning, it is no longer in existence, it is dead, extinct. It follows, therefore, that a judgment, which has been set aside is no longer in existence, it has no life, no power, and cannot be the basis for any legal claims.”
In this case, the appellant made the judgment of Ademola, J., in FHC/ABJ/CS/816[2014, the foundation for his suit at the trial Court, and with the setting aside of the judgment by the Court of Appeal, his whole case collapsed because everything therein, every word, comma or full stop in the said judgment got completely wiped out. At the end of the day, the appellant had nothing to stand on, because any reference to the said Delegate List was also wiped out. He was, therefore, on a frolic of his own when he chose to take part in the Primary Election conducted on the basis of that Delegate List, instead of the one conducted by Party Officials sent to Enugu State.
The respondents are right; this Appeal must suffer the same fate as SC. 292/2017: Hon. Chief Ogbuefi Ozomgbachi V. Mr. Dennis Amadi & Ors., and SC. 293/2017: Hon. Chief Ogbuefi Ozomgbachi V. PDP & Ors. (consolidated), decided by this Court on 2017/2018.
LIST OF COUNSEL:
Alex Akoja, Esq., with him, Adesina Agbede, Esq., A.B. Eleburuike, Esq., Nnamdi Akuneto, Esq. – for the Appellant.
Alex Ejesieme, Esq., with him, N. Obiesie, Esq. – for the 1st and 2nd Respondents.
Abdul Mohammed, Esq., with him, C.N. Onyia, Esq. – for the 3rd Respondent.
Tochukwu Odo, Esq., with him, John Amoke, Esq. – for the 4th Respondent.