COURT OF APPEAL ABUJA JUDICIAL DIVISION DISMISSES PDPS’ APPEAL AGAINST APC PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE, ASIWAJU BOLA AHMED TINUBU BORDERING ON ALLEGED SHETTIMA’S DOUBLE NOMINATION, AWARDS COST OF N5 MILLION IN FAVOUR OF APC
Recall that the Federal High Court sitting in Abuja per Honourable Justice Ekwo Inyang on the 13th of January, 2023 dismissed a suit filed by Peoples’ Democratic Party, against the All-Progressives Congress & Senator Bola Ahmed Tinubu in FHC/ABJ/CS/1734/2022. Other parties sued are; Kasshim Shettima, and the Independent National Electoral Commission. The suit which prayed the Court for reliefs as follows:
i. A DECLARATION of the Honorable Court that by the provisions of Section 35 of the Electoral Act 2022, the 4th Respondent is disqualified from participating in the February 25th ,2023 Presidential Election having knowingly allowed himself to be nominated in two consistencies as Senator Borno Central District and as Vice Presidential Candidate of the 2nd Respondent.
ii. A DECLARATION that the nominations of the 3rd and 4th Respondents as Presidential and Vice-Presidential candidates of the 2nd Respondent is void having regards to the double nominations of the 4th Respondent.
iii. AN ORDER disqualifying the 3rd and 4th Defendants from contesting or participating in the forthcoming 2023 Presidential General Election as a candidate of the 2nd Defendant
iv. AN ORDER directing the 1st Respondent to strike off the names of the 3rd AND 4th Respondents as candidates of the 2nd Respondent eligible to contest for the Presidential Election slated for February 25th 2023.
v. AN injunction restraining the 3rd and 4th Respondent from further representing themselves as candidates of the 2nd Respondent for the Presidential Election slated for 23rd February, 2023.
vi. AN Order restraining the 2nd Respondent from further nominating candidates for the Presidential Election scheduled for the 25th of February, 2023.
vii. AND FOR such orders as the Honorable Court may deem fit to make as consequential to the reliefs sought by the Plaintiffs in this suit.
AT THE TRIAL COURT.
In defence of the suit, the Law office of Babatunde Ogala (SAN) & Co on behalf of All Progressives Congress filed its Memorandum of Conditional Appearance, a Notice of Preliminary Objection and a Counter-Affidavit with Written Addresses. The Preliminary objection was premised on the following grounds:
a. That the Plaintiffs not being aspirants in the Primaries of the 2nd Defendant lacked the Locus standi to institute and maintain the suit against the 2nd Defendant.
b. The Originating summons is incompetent not issued or sealed by the Registrar of the Federal High Court.
c. The Plaintiffs lacked the cause of action to institute or maintain the suit against the 2nd Defendant.
d. That the suit was statute Barred and robbed the Court of the Jurisdiction to entertain same.
e. And the suit constituted an abuse of Court Process.
On the 25th of October, 2022 when the matter came up for hearing, Mr. Gbenga BENSON Esq, counsel in the law office of Babatunde Ogala SAN & Co, appeared for the All-Progressives Congress and adopted on behalf of the All-Progressives Congress the Notice of Preliminary objection, counter Affidavit and written Addresses and prayed the Court to dismiss/strike out the suit for want of jurisdiction.
The trial judge while delivering the judgment of the Court on the 13th of January, 2023, agreed with learned counsel to the 2nd Defendant (APC) that the Plaintiff had no locus standi to file the Action not being an aspirant who partook in the Primaries of the 2nd Defendant as mandated by Section 29(5) of the Electoral Act,2022. The Court further held that the reliance on the provisions of Section 285(14)(c) of the 1999 Constitution would not aval the Plaintiff as it is meant for political parties to file actions against INEC with respect to its’ own candidates and not another political party’s candidates.
Having held that the Plaintiffs who were not aspirants in the Primaries of the 2nd Respondent lacked locus standi and being a threshold issue, the court dismissed the suit as lacking in merit.
Aggrieved by the Decision, the Plaintiff (now Appellants) challenged the decision of the trial Court
COURT OF APPEAL.
The Appeal was commenced by a Notice of Appeal dated the 26th January, 2023, with Appeal No CA/ABJ/108/2023. Records were transmitted and the Appellants Brief of Argument was filed. The gamut of the Appeal was a total reliance on Section 285(14(c) of the 1999 Constitution for locus and that the Court of Appeal interpret Section 35 of the Electoral Act 2022 on double nominations viz a vis the case of the Appellant at the trial Court.
The reliefs sought by the Appellant were;
a. AN ORDER allowing the Appeal;
b. AN ORDER invoking Section 15 of the Court of Appeal Act, 2021 to hear and determine the substance of the Suit.
Gbenga BENSON Esq counsel in the law office of Babatunde Ogala SAN & Co filed the 2nd Respondent Brief against the Appeal and the Appeal was heard by a 3-man Panel of the Court of Appeal on the 4th day of March, 2023 and judgment was reserved.
In a considered judgment, delivered on the 24th Day of March, 2023 the Court of Appeal, delivered its’ judgement and upheld the arguments filed by the office of Babatunde Ogala SAN & Co as follows;
a. That the Appellant lacked the locus standi to institute, maintain or to demand the reliefs sought at the Court of Appeal not being an Aspirant in the Primaries of the 2nd Respondent and that Section 285(14) (c) of the 1999 Constitution does not grant the Appellant Locus to challenge the primaries and indeed the nominations of the 2nd Respondent.
b. Having held that the Appellant lacks the Locus standi to institute this Appeal, the appeal is bereft of merit and is hereby dismissed.
c. The Judgement of Ekwo J of the Federal High Court Abuja is hereby affirmed.
d. Cost of N5,000,000.00 (Five Million Naira Only) is awarded in favour of the Respondents each against the Appellant to be paid personally by counsel to the Appellant, James Olotu Esq.
On the Merits of the case, the Court of Appeal held thus;
a. Having held that the Appellant lack the Locus standi to institute this Appeal, the Appellant have failed to cross the threshold requiring Judicial adjudication. The Appeal is dismissed accordingly.
