If you want to hide something from a Black person, put it in a book... Barrister Juluis Abure and lies, falsehood, deception and deceitful behaviour are one and the same

PART 1

OWERRI HIGH COURT JUDGEMENT, ACHONU VS LABOUR PARTY

BETWEEN IN THE FEDERAL HIGH COURT OF NIGERIA IN THE OWERRI JUDICIAL DIVISION HOLDEN AT OWERRI

BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP, HONOURABLE JUSTICE B.O. QUADRI

ON THE 23RD DAY OF JUNE 2023

AND

SIR BASIL MADUKA

1. LABOUR PARTY (LP)

JUDGE

COMMISSION (INEC)

SUIT NO: FHC/OW/CS/28/2023

2. INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL

3. CHIEF UKAEGBU IKECHUKWU JOSEPH

JUDGEMENT

PLAINTIFF

-DEFENDANTS

By an originating summons dated and filed 27I4/2023, the

plaintiff seeks the determination of the following questions:

1. Whether the plaintiff is not the winner of the 1t defendants (Labour Party) Governorship Primary Election Conducted on Saturday 15th April, 2023 by the 1st defendant in Imo State for the 11th November, 2023 Imo State Governorship election considering the

following documents.

a)The Plaintiff's membership card of the 1st defendant.

b)The Plaintiff's receipt and proof and proof of payment of N25,000,000 (twenty five million naira) fee for the 1st Defendant's Governorship Nomination

and Expression of Interest forms.

c)Copy of the ]st Defendant's Governorship Nomination and Expression of Interest forms as

obtained by the Plaintiff from the 1st Defendant, completed and returned to the 1s Defendant.

d)Copy of list of Governorship aspirants of the 1Defendant screened for the 1|th November, 2023 Governorship Election in Imo, Kogi and Bayelsa States issued by the 1# Defendant's Acting National

Secretary.

e) Copy of the Governorship Primary Result Sheet dated 15/04/2023 signed by the Chairman and Secretary of the Primary Election Planning Committee attached to the report on the Primary

Election dated 16th April, 2023 as issued to the 1st Defendant's Acting National Chairman by its Imo State Chairman and Secretary and acknowledged by the 1st Defendant's Acting National Secretary.

2. Whether the 1st Defendant's submission of the 3rd Defendant's name instead of the Plaintiff's name to the 2nd Defendant for recognition as the 1st

Defendant's candidate for the 1|th November, 2023

Governorship Election in Imo State is proper and lawful considering the following documents;

a) Result sheet of the 15th April, 2023 Governorship primary election in Imo State signed by the Chairman and Secretary of the Electoral Committee among others.

b) Report on the primary election issued on 16/04/2023 by the 14 Defendant's Imo State Chairman and Secretary to its Acting National Chairman and received by the 1st Defendant's Acting National

Secretary.

c) 1st Defendant's letter to the 2nd Defendant dated 17th April, 2023 forwarding the 3rd Defendant's name

as the 1st Defendant's candidate for the 11h November, 2023 Governorship election in Imo state.

3. Whether the Plaintiff is not entitled to have his name and particulars forwarded to the 2nd Defendant by the 1st Defendant as the winner of the 1st Defendant's Governorship primary election held on the 15th April, 2023 and as its Candidate for the 1|th November, 2023 Imo State Governorship Election considering the documents aforementioned.

4. Whether the Plaintiff is not the rightful person and candidate by virtue of the documents the 2nd aforementioned to be recognized by Defendant to contest under the platform of the 1st

Defendant (Labour Party) in the 11 th November, 2023 Imo State Governorship Election pursuant to the rules and guidelines of the 2nd Defendant. In anticipation of a favorable disposition of these questions.

the Plaintiff seeks the following reliefs:

1. A DECLARATION of the Honourable Court that the Plaintiff is the winner of the Labour Party Governorship primary election held in Imo State on 15th April, 2023 for the 1 1 h November, 2023 Governorship Election.

2. A DECLARATION that the presentation of the 3d Defendant to the 2nd Defendant by the 1st Defendant

in its letter dated 17th April, 2023 as the candidate of the 1st Defendant for the 1|th November, 2023 Imo State Governorship Election is unlawful, null and void and of no effect whatsoever.

3. AN ORDER of the Honourable court directing the 1s Defendant, its officers and any person or persons acting on its behalf to submit the name and

particulars of the Plaintiff to the 2nd Defendant as the candidate of the 1st Defendant for the Imo State Governorship election scheduled for 1|th November, 2023.

4. AN ORDER of the Honourable Court directing the 2nd Defendant to recognize the Plaintiff and publish his name as the rightful candidate of the 1st Defendant

for the Imo State Governorship election scheduled for 11th November, 2023.

5. AND FOR SUCH FURTHER ORDER or orders as the Honourable Court may deem fit to make or determine in the circumstances.

The Originating Summons is supported by a number of affidavit, first, is a 5 paragraph Affidavit of non-multiplicity of

action on same subject matter deposed to by NZE ROBERT AHANEKU on 27/4/2023, a 16 paragraph Affidavit in support of the Originating Summons deposed to by NZE ROBERT AHANEKU dated 27/4/2023 to which 11 Exhibits were attached and marked exhibits A, B, B1, C, D, E, F, F1, G, H, I and a Written Address dated and filed 27/4/2023 wherein the CERTIFIED TRUE COPY

questions for determination was adopted as the issues raised and argued.

In the response the lst Defendant filed a 12 paragraph Counter Affidavit deposed to COMRADE ERAGBE ANSLEM APHIMIA on 25/5/2023 to which five Exhibits were attached marked exhibits LP1, LP2, LP3, LP4, LP5 and a written address dated 24/5/2023 and filed on 25/5/2023 wherein lone issue was formulated and argued as follows:

Whether the plaintiff has disclosed a sufficient legal interest to be entitled to the grant of the reliefs sought.

In reaction the plaintiff filed an 8 paragraph further affidavit deposed to ONYEKWULISI F.B.I dated and filed 30/5/2023 wherein three exhibits were attached and marked Exhibits PTF1, PTF2, PTF3 and a reply on points of law.

In the response the 3rd Defendant also filed a 12 paragraph Counter Affidavit deposed to MR. ROWLAND OBIYO or

52/5/2023 to which four Exhibits were attached marked exhibit 1, 2, 3, 4, and a written address dated 24/5/2023 and filed on 25/5/2023 wherein lone issue was formulated and argued as

follows:

Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to the grant of the reliefs sought in this suit.

In reaction the plaintiff filed an 8 paragraph further affidav deposed to ONYEKWULISI F.B.I dated and filed 30/5/202 wherein three exhibits were attached and marked Exhibi PTF1, PTF2, PTF3, PTF4 anda reply on points of law.

The 2nd defendant did not file anything.

The above represent the processes filed by the parties in this suit. When the matter came up for hearing on 5/6/2023, parties adopted their processes, adumbrated on same and urged the

cOurt to resolve the dispute in favour of the parties they represent.

BACKGROUND FACTS.

The case of the plaintiff is that he is a member of the 1st defendant, who obtained the nomination and expression of interest form of the 1t defendant to participate in the Governorship Primaries of the party for the l|th November, 2023 Governorship Election in Imno State. That he was screened and cleared upon which he took part in the primary election which was initially scheduled for 13/4/2023 but was shifted to 15/4/2023 after an Abuja High Court issued a restraining order against the National chairman and some other national officer of the party.

That the Governorship prinmary election was held on 15/4/2023 wherein he scored the highest votes cast and was declared the winner but that in total disregard to the outcome of the primary election that produced him as a winner, the 1st defendant through a letter dated 17/4/2023 forwarded the name of the 3rd defendant to the 2nd defendant as its candidate for the 1]th November, 2023 Governorship Election in Imo State instead of his name, since he won the primary election and has not withdrawn or consented to any substitution of his name with any other name. That it will be in the interest of justice for this Court to grants his reliefs in this suit.

The defendants on their part substantialy denied the story of

he plaintiff and stated that its rescheduled primary election was conducted on 16/4/2023 and not on 15/4/2023 as alleged by the plaintiff. That the plaintiff was never screened and did not contest in the primary election of 16/4/2023 wherein the 3rd

th defendant was elected as the governorship candidate

7/ 24

hi,

1st defendant for the 11th November, 2023 Election in Imo State and it was based on the outcome of the primary election that the name of the 3rd defendant who won the primary election was forwarded to the 2nd defendant as

the name of its candidate for the November governorship election. That it will be the interest of justice and fairness to refuse the grant of the reliefs sought by the plaintiff as he did not participate in the said primary election.

DETERMINATION OF SUIT

This suit was brought by the plaintiff alleging that he contested and won the primary election of the 1st defendant that was conducted on 15/4/2023 but instead of the 1st defendant to forward his namne as its candidate for the 1]h NOvember, 2023 Governorship Election in Imo State, it disregarded the outcome

of the primary election and fowarded the name of the 3rd defendant instead.

The plaintiff in arguing the questions raised for determination irfo its Originating Summons adopted the questions determination as the issues for determination. To wit;

1. Whether the plaintiff is not the winner of the 1st defendants (Labour Party) Governorship Primary Election Conducted on Saturday 15th April, 2023

by the 1st defendant in Imo State for the 11th

November, 2023 Imo State Governorship

election considering the following documents.

a)The Plaintiff's membership card of the 1# defendant.

b)The Plaintiff's receipt and proof and proof of payment of N25,000,000 (twenty five milion naira) fee for the 1# Defendant's Governorship

Nomination and Expression of Interest forms.

c)Copy of the 1# Defendant's Governorship

Nomination and Expression of Interest forms as obtained by the Plaintiff from the 1# Defendant, completed and returned to the 1t Defendant.

d) Copy of list of Governorship aspirants of the 1#

Defendant screened for the 11h November, 2023 Governorship Election in Imo, Kogi and Bayelsa States issued by the 1# Defendant's

Acting National Secretary.

e) Copy of the Governorship Primary Result Sheet dated 15/04/2023 signed by the Chairman and Secretary of the Primary Election Planning Committee attached to the report on the Primary Election dated 16th April, 2023 as issued

to the 1st Defendant's Acting National

Chairman by its Imo State Chairman and

Secretary and acknowledged by the 1st

Defendant's Acting National Secretary.

2. Whether the 1s Defendant's submission of the 3rd Defendant's name instead of the Plaintiff's name to the 2nd Defendant for recognition as the 1t

Defendant's candidate for the 11th November,

2023 Governorship Election in Imo State is proper and lawful considering the following documents;

a) Result sheet of the 15th April, 2023 Governorship primary election in Imo State signed by the Chairman and Secretary of the Electoral Committee among others.

b) Report on the primary election issued on 16/04/2023 by the 1st Defendant's Imo State Chairman and Secretary to its Acting National Chairman and received by the 1t Defendant's

Acting National Secretary.

c) 1st Defendant's letter to the 2nd Defendant dated 17h April, 2023 forwarding the 3d Defendant's name as the 1t Defendant's candidate for the

11th November, 2023 Governorship election in Imo state.

3. Whether the Plaintiff is not entitled to have his name and particulars forwarded to the 2nd Defendant by the 1# Defendant as the winner of the 1s# Defendant's Governorship primary election held on the 15th April, 2023 and as its candidate for the 11h November, 2023 Imo State Governorship Election considering the documents

aforementioned.

4. Whether the Plaintiff is not the rightful person and the documents candidate by virtue of aforementioned to be recognized by the 2nd Defendant contest under the platform of the 1t Defendant (Labour Party) in the 11h November,

2023 Imo State Governorship Election pursuant to the rules and guidelines of the 2nd Defendant. It should be noted that the plaintiff filed a motion on notice dated 3/5/2023 and which was moved before this court on 5/6/2023 and this court after considering the prayers sOught in the motion and the reliefs sought in the substantive suit was of the opinion that since the motion touches on the substantive suit, the reasoning and ruling of court would be considered in

this substantive suit, moreso since the substantive suit was moved on the same day with the motion. The application

itself toUches and concerns issues between the parties and there is no way it can determined without allowing all partie to air their grievances and the apex court has held that you cannot use an interlocutory application to determine

substantive suit. See ALEXANDER MARINE MANAGEMENT V KODA INTERNATIONAL LTD. (1999) 1 NWLR (PT. 585) 40 where was held that It is not proper fora trial Court to prejudge issuE

in the substantive case in the process of deciding a interlocutory application. Iin other words, the trial Court must be cautious and avoid comments on the main issue in the Substantive matter. Needless to say that if the court shou

grant the injunctive relief sought or refuse the granting of the injunction it would tantamount to recognizing or ne

recognizing either of the warring parties; that is, it would be tantamOunt to either recognizing the erstwhile chairman Ba

Julius Abure and his Exco members or in another brea recognizing the incoming chairman Lamidi Apapa, an issue which is the gravamen this main suit and which is still pending at the Court of Appeal.

Moreso the prayers being sought for in the motion is a subject of an appeal before the Court appeal which parties informed the court that judgment has not been given and any prouncement made by this cOurt on that wOuld amount to this court pre-empting the outcome of the matter on appeal.It would be a smacked of judicial iresponsibility, rascality,. impertinence and insubordination, if this court, being aware of the pending appeal the Court of Appeal goes ahead to rule on the motion before this court.

To effectively determine this suit, this Court must examine the facts, circumstances and evidence adduced by the parties in this suit in line with the relevant provisions of the Electoral Act

2022 and Party Guidelines.

Learned Counsel to the plaintiff had argued that paragraphs 5, 10 and 1l of the supporting affidavit and exhibits B, B1, E, G and H confirms that the plaintiff as a member of the 1st defendant purchased nomination form and expression of interest form, was screened, participated in the primary

election of the 1st defendant and was declared the winner and that the law is settled that it the aspirant with the

highest number of votes cast that shall be declared winner of the primary election in line with Section 84(5) (B) of the Electoral Act, 2022 and that the affidavit evidence before the Court shows that the plaintiff scored the highest votes cast thereby making him the winner of the primary election.

Learned Counsel relied on BOKO V. NUNGWA & ORS (2018) LPELR- 45890 (CA) to submit that the plaintiff having scored the highest votes cast in the primary election had acquired a vested interest which can only be taken away in accordance with the law and that by the express provision of Section 84(5)(B) (ü) of the Electoral Act, 2022 the 1st defendant has a duty under law to forward only the name of the winner of the primary election to the 2nd defendant and the law does not give the lst defendant the luxury of forwarding any person's name other than the name of the winner of the primary election.

Learned Counsel further submitted that the plaintiff has not has he withdrawn from contesting in the election nor

consented to any substitution of his name and that in the absence of any withdrawal from the election by the plaintiff, that it is unlawful for the 1st defendant to submit the name of the 3rd defendant to the 2nd defendant instead of that of the plaintiff as its candidate for the election. Learned Counsel also argued that the facts and documents

before the Court confirms that the plaintiff participated in and won the said governorship primary election and that the law imposes a duty on the 1t defendant to forward the name of

the plaintiff to the 2nd defendant as its candidate for the election in Imo State.

Learned Counsel finally submitted that by publishing names of candidate for an election as provided for in Section 32(1) of the Electoral Act, 2022, that the nd defendant has given recognition to that candidate and that by the fact that the

plaintiff won the primary election of the 1st defendant, that makes him the candidate of the 1st defendant that is entitled to be recognized by the 2nd defendant pursuant to Section 32(1) of the Electoral Act, 2022 and urged the Court to resolve all the issues in favour of the plaintiff and grant the reliefs sought. Both the learned Counsel to the 1st defendant and 3rd defendant while addressing the issues submitted that by the questions submitted for determination used the written

address to attack the locus standi of the plaintiff. Learned Counsel submitted that the law is trite that a plaintiff who did

not participate in the primary election of a political party lacks the locUS standi to challenge the outcome of the primary

election. That the plaintiff not being part of the primary election of 16/4/2023 cannot be heard challenging its

outcome and that the Court should dismiss the suit of the plaintiff for lack of locus standi as the plaintiff commenced the suit without locuS standi. Reliance was placed on EMENIKE

PDP (2012) NWLR PT. 1315 @573, DANIEL V. INEC (2015) 9 NWLR

PT. 1463 @155, EZE V. ADP & ORS (2018) LPELR- 44907(SC), UBA

V. OZIGBO (2022) 10 NWLR PT. 1839 @431.

Having clearly set out the above arguments and submissions from both learned counsel for the plaintiffs and defendants' on the issues adopted, I am inclined to find out if the plaintiff has

the locUs standi to institute the action as same has been challenged by the 1 and 3rd defendant which if sustained would rob this Court of the jurisdiction to hear and determine this suit. It has been held that Jurisdiction is sucha fundamental

issue that it can be raised in court by any of the parties or by the court suo motu where there are sufficient facts on the

record establishing a lack of jurisdiction and a trial court has the jurisdiction to determine whether it has jurisdiction to try the case of a plaintiff based on the claim before it. See OKOYE V. C.P.M.B LTD (2008) 15 NWLR (PT. 1110) 335

Inconsideration of the suit, may I state in clear terms from my understanding of the submissions from learned counsel on both sides and from the averments as contained in the affidavit in Support of the originating summons of the plaintiffs, the further affidavits of the plaintiffs as well as those contained in the Moreso the prayers being sought for in the motion is a subject of an appeal before the Court appeal which parties informed the court that judgment has not been given and any prouncement made by this court on that would anmount to this court pre-empting the outcome of the matter on appeal.It would be a smacked of judicial iresponsibility, rascality, impertinence and insubordination, if this cOurt, being aware of the pending appeal the Court of Appeal goes ahead to rule on the motion before this court.

To effectively determine this suit, this Court must examine the facts, circumstances and evidence adduced by the parties in this suit in line with the relevant provisions of the Electoral Act

2022 and Party Guidelines. Learned Counsel to the plaintiff had argued that paragraphs 5, 10 and 1l of the supporting affidavit and exhibits B, B1, E, G and H confirms that the plaintiff as a member of the 1st defendant purchased nomination form and expression of

interest form, was screened, participated in the primary election of the 1st defendant and was declared the winner

and that the law is settled that it is the aspirant with the highest number of votes cast that shall be declared winner of the primary election inline with Section 84(5)(B) of the Electoral Act, 2022 and that the affidavit evidence before the Court shows that the plaintiff scored the highest votes cast thereby making him the winner of the primary election.

Learned Counsel relied on BOKO V. NUNGWA & ORS (2018) LPELR- 45890 (CA) to submit that the plaintiff having scored the highest votes cast in the primary election had acquireda

vested interest which can only be taken away in accordance with the law and that by the express provision of Section

84(5)(B)(ü) of the Electoral Act, 2022 the 1st defendant has a 2X BAIDO V. INEC (2008) 12 NWLR (PT.1101) 379, PDP V. EDEDE (2022) 11 NWLR (PT. 1840) 94. To determine whether or not a party has a standing to sue, the court must look at the originating summons and the affidavits in support of it.

Having been so guided by the above state of law. I have meticulously examined the plaintiff's affidavit in support of the originating summons, most particularly paragraphs 7, 8,

9, 10, 1l and Exhibits D,F, Fl, and G as they were all issued and signed by an already dissolved State Executive

Committee as confirmed by Exhibit LP2. Even the plaintiff in his paragraph of the affidavit in support stated that Exhibit

D was issued on 5/4/2023 same day as that in which the restraining order was granted by the FCT High Court via

Exhibit C. Moreso The Electoral Act confers on the party at the national level through the National Executive

Committee the power to give a date for the party primaries in the State. The congress, howwever, is to be held in the State. The discretion is that of the political party to delegate party members that will conduct the primaries in nominating candidates for Gubernatorial, National and State Assemblies. The provisions are unequivocal on the responsibility of the National Executive Council of the party

to initiate and coordinate party primaries giving a specific date for the primaries. See C.P.C V. LADO (2011) 14 NWLR

(PT. 1266).

The question is in what capacity was the 2nd defendant notified by the 1st defendant in that Exhibit D of the date fixed for its governorship election, was it acting in defiance of the cOurt order or is its directive superior to the court order.

Also the plaintiff denied Mr. Obiyo as Chief Obiyo but did not in anywhere thrOUghout the face of the processes before this cOurt bring another Obiyo to the effect that the deponent of the affidavit of the 3rd defendant committed perjury on oath.

Moreso the plaintiff never placed anything before the Court to the effect that 15/4/2023 was the actual date slated for the primary election, Exhibit PTF2 Was never acknowledged by the

2nd defendant as opposed to Exhibit LP1 titled Notice of Change of Primary Election date in Kogi, Imo and Bayelsa

State, same was issued and signed by the acting national chairman of the 1st defendant, same was also served and

acknowledged by the 2nd defendant and the said letter under paragraph 2 line l clearly stated thus: "We hereby reschedule the primaries to 6ih April, 2023.......".

The plaintiff had argued that the primary election wherein he Won was conducted on 15/4/2023 and strongly relied on all

the exhibits attached especially the above mentioned exhibits but from the findings of this court as stated earlier all the exhibits relied upon were issued by an already suspended state executive assuming but not conceding that state

executives were not suspended, based on the provisions of the Electoral Act, 2022 and the above cited authority does the state executive have the power to conduct a primary election wherein the governorship candidate of the 1st defendant would be elected. The plaintiff has not put forward any material evidence to that effect neither has he shown to this cOurt that such power Was delegated to it by the national

executive committee of the 1st defendant, al it placed before this court that have semblance of the national executive committee is exhibit D which this court and even all the parties are in agreement according to paragraph 7 of the affidavit in support of the originating summons and paragraph 6 of the

COunter affidavit of both the 1s and 3rd defendant respectively that by 5/4/2023 the parties mentioned in exhibit C were

restrained from acting and as such this court cannot rely on that piece of evidence.

above exhibits this court is inclined to attach value and weight to exhibit LP1, LP2, LP3 and LP4 in resolving the conflict in the affidavit as they were issued and signed by the acting national

chairman on behalf of the national executive committee of the 1st defendant and the issue of date is hereby resolved in favour of the 1st and 3d defendant that the 1st defendant

primary election was held on 16/4/2023.

From a careful analysis, of all the exhibit attached to all the process before this court, this cOurt finds and agrees with the 1st and 3rd defendant that the primary election of the 1st defendant for the 1|th November, 2023 Governorship Election in Imo State was held on 16/4/2023 and not on 15/4/2023 as

alleged by the plaintiff. To better appreciate the above findings of the court we review some of the vital exhibits attached to both the affidavit

in support of the originating summons, the further affidavits and those attached to the counter affidavit of the 1st and 3rd

defendant: Exhibit E which is dated 11/4/2023 and titled list of Labour Party

Gubernatorial Aspirants Screening For the Imo, Bayelsa and Kogi 11th November, 2023 Gubernatorial Election. The above mentioned exhibit was typed on a plain paper and signed by one Alhaji Saleh Lawal Acting National Secretary.

Exhibit Fl which is dated 12/4/2023, titled List of Members of the Imo State Governorship Primary Election Committee. The Exhibit has 5 names of members of the Imo State Committee

and was also issued and signed by the same members of the State Executive Committee, addressed to nobody in particular with an undated original copy received by me Alh. Saleh lawan written on it.

Exhibit G undated but titled Result of the Party Primary Election held on 15th day of April, 2023 and was issued and signed by the State Executives with original copy received by me Alh. Saleh Lawan written on it.

Exhibit PTFI dated 14/4/2023 titled Notification of LP Guber

electorl primary Election, addressed to the resident commissioner Imo State and atten: to HOD EPM. With the body

as "Madam, as you are aware, the LP Gubernatorial Primary Election, comes up on Saturday 15th April, 2023. The time is 12noon prompt..........The Said letter was also issued and signed by the State Executive

The above exhibits were some of the exhibit attached to the affidavit in support of the originating summons as well as the further affidavit.

Exhibit LPI dated 6th April, 2023 titled Notice of Change of Primaries Dates in Kogi, Imo and Bayelsa Stated addressed to the Chairman ndependent National Electoral Commission, Abuja. It was issued and signed by the acting national

chairman and the acting national secretary and with an acknowledgment stamp of INEC stamped on the face of it.

Exhibit LP2 dated 13/4/2023 titled dissolution and reinstatement of democratic elected executives in Imo State issued and signed by the acting national chairman and the acting

national secretary Exhibit LP3 dated 13th April, 2023, titled Imo State Gubernatorial

Planning Committee issued and signed by the acting national chairman of Labour Party. Exhibit LP4 titled Imo stated Gubernatorial Primary Election of

Saturday 16th April, 2023 Result Sheet signed by those whose names were contained in Exhibit LP3

The defendants on their part substantially denied the story of the plaintiff and stated that its rescheduled primary election was conducted on 16/4/2023 and not on 15/4/2023 as alleged by the plaintiff. That the plaintiff was never screened and did not contest in the primary election of 16/4/2023 wherein the 3rd defendant was elected as the governorship candidate of the

1st defendant for the 1]th November, 2023 Governorship Election in Imo State and it was based on the outcome of the

primary election that the name of the 3rd defendant who won the primary election was forwarded to the 2nd defendant as

the name of its candidate for the November governorship election, That it will be in the interest of justice and fairness to refuse the grant of the reliefs sought by the plaintiff as he did not participate in the said primary election.

DETERMINATION OF SUIT

This suit was brought by the plaintiff alleging that he contested and won the primary election of the 1st defendant that was conducted on 15/4/2023 but instead of the 1st defendant to forward his name as its candidate for the 1]th November, 2023 Governorship Election in Imo State, it disregarded the outcome

of the primary election and forwarded the name of the 3rd defendant instead.

The plaintiff in arguing the questions raised for determination in its Originating Summons adopted the questions for

determination as the issues for determination. To wit;

1. Whether the plaintiff is not the winner of the 1st defendants (Labour Party) Governorship Primary Election Conducted on Saturday 15th April, 2023

by the 1st defendant in Imo State for the 11th Governorship November, 2023 Imo State election considering the following documents.

a) The Plaintiff's membership card of the 1t defendant.

b) The Plaintiff's receipt and proof and proof of payment of N25,000,000 (twenty five milion naira) fee for the 1# Defendant's Governorship Nomination and Expression of Interest forms.

c) Copy of the 1# Defendant's Governorship Nomination and Expression of Interest forms as obtained by the Plaintiff from the 1# Defendant,

completed and returned to the 1# Defendant.

d) Copy of list of Governorship aspirants of the 1st Defendant screened for the 11h November, 2023 Governorship Election in Imo, Kogi and Bayelsa States issued by the 1 Defendant's Acting National Secretary.

to the 1st Defendant's Acting National

Chairman by its Imo State Chairman and

Secretary and acknowledged by the 1#

Defendant's Acting National Secretary.

2. Whether the 1st Defendant's submission of the 3rd Defendant's name instead of the Plaintiff's name to the 2nd Defendant for recognition as the 1

Defendant's candidate for the 11h November,

The 2nd defendant did not file anything.

The above represent the processes filed by the parties in this suit. When the matter came up for hearing on 5/6/2023. parties adopted their processes, adumbrated on same and urged the

cOurt to resolve the dispute in favour of the parties they represent.

BACKGROUND FACTS,

The case of the plaintiff is that he is a member of the 1st defendant, who obtained the nomination and expression of interest form of the 1s defendant to participate in the Governorship Primaries of the party for the 1]h November, 2023 Governorship Election in Imo State. That he was screened and cleared upon which he took part in the primary election which was initially scheduled for 13/4/2023 but was shifted to 15/4/2023 after an Abuja High Court issued a restraining order against the National chairman and some other national officer of the party.

That the Governorship primary election was held on 15/4/2023 wherein he scored the highest votes cast and was declared the winner but that in total disregard to the outcome of the primary election that produced him as a winner, the 1s defendant through a letter dated 17/4/2023 forwarded the name of the 3rd defendant to the 2nd defendant as its candidate for the 1]h November, 2023 Governorship Election in Imo State instead of his name, since he won the primary election and has not withdrawn or consented to any substitution of his name with any other name. That it will be in the interest of justice for this Court to grants his reliefs in this suit.

The defendants on their part substantially denied the story of the plaintiff and stated that its rescheduled primary election was conducted on 16/4/2023 and not on l5/4/2023 as alleged by the plaintiff. That the plaintiff was never screened and did not contest in the primary election of 16/4/2023 wherein the 3rd defendant was elected as the governorship candidate of the

1st defendant for the 11 th November, 2023 Governorship Election in Imo State and it was based on the outcome of the

primary election that the name of the 3rd defendant who won the primary election was forwarded to the 2nd defendant as

the name of its candidate for the November governorship election. That it will be in the interest of justice and fairness to refuse the grant of the reliefs sought by the plaintiff as he did not participate in the said primary election.

DETERMINATION OF SUIT

This suit was brought by the plaintiff alleging that he contested and won the primary election of the 1st defendant that was conducted on 15/4/2023 but instead of the 1st defendant to forward his name as its candidate for the 1]th November, 2023 Governorship Election in Imo State, it disregarded the outcome

of the primary election and forwarded the name of the 3rd defendant instead.

The plaintiff in arguing the questions raised for determination in its Originating Summons adopted the questions for

1. Whether the plaintiff is not the winner of the 1st defendants (Labour Party) Governorship PrimaryElection Conducted on Saturday 15th April, 2023

by the 1st defendant in Imo State for the 11th determination as the issues for determination. To wit:

Governorship November, 2023 Imo State

election considering the following documents.

a) The Plaintiff's membership card of the 1t defendant.

b) The Plaintiff's receipt and proof and proof of payment of N25,000,000 (twenty five million naira) fee for the 1# Defendant's Governorship Nomination and Expression of Interest forms.

c) Copy of the 1# Defendant's Governorship Nomination and Expression of Interest forms as

obtained by the Plaintiff from the 1# Defendant, completed and returned to the 1# Defendant.

d) Copy of list of Governorship aspirants of the 1st

Defendant screened for the 11h November, 2023 Governorship Election in Imo, Kogi and Bayelsa States issued by the 1s Defendant'sActing National Secretary.

e) Copy of the Governorship Primary Result Sheet dated 15/04/2023 signed by the Chairman and Secretary of the Primary Election Planning

Committee attached to the report on the

Primary Election dated 16th April, 2023 as issued to the 1st Defendant's Acting National Chairman by its Imo State Chairman and

Secretary and acknowledged by the 1#

Defendant's Acting National Secretary.

2. Whether the 1st Defendant's submission of the 3rd Defendant's name instead of the Plaintiff's name to the 2nd Defendant for recognition as the 1t

Defendant's candidate for the 11h November, 2023 Imo State Governorship Election pursuant to the rules and guidelines of the 2nd Defendant.

It should be noted that the plaintiff filed a motion on notice dated 3/5/2023 and which was moved before this court on

5/6/2023 and this court after considering the prayers sought in the motion and the reliefs sought in the substantive suit was of the opinion that since the motion touches on the substantive suit, the reasoning and ruling of cOurt would be considered in this substantive suit, moreso since the substantive suit was moved on the same day with the motion. The application

itself toUches and concerns issUes between the parties and there is no way it can determined without allowing all parties to air their grievances and the apex court has held that you cannot Use an interlocutory application to determine a substantive suit. See ALEXANDER MARINE MANAGEMENT V. KODA INTERNATIONAL LTD. (1999) 1 NWLR (PT. 585) 40 where it was held that It is not proper for a trial Court to prejudge issues in the substantive case in the process of deciding an interlocutory application. In other words, the trial Court must be cautious and avoid comments on the main issue in the

Substantive matter. Needless to say that if the court should grant the injunctive relief sought or refuse the granting of the

injunction it would tantamount to recognizing or not recognizing either of the waring parties; that is, it would

tantamount to either recognizing the erstwhile chairman Barr. Julius Abure and his Exco members or in another breath recognizing the incoming chairman Lamidi Apapa, an issUe which is the gravamen this main suit and which is still pending at the Court of Appeal.

It would be a smacked of judicial iresponsibility, rascality, impertinence and insubordination, if this cOurt, being aware of the pending appeal the Court of Appeal goes ahead to rule on the motion before this court.To effectively determine this suit, this Court must examine the facts, circumstances and evidence adduced by the parties in

this suit in line with the relevant provisions of the Electoral Act

2022 and Party Guidelines. Learned Counsel to the plaintiff had argued that paragraphs 5, 10 and 11 of the supporting affidavit and exhibits B, B1, E, G and H confirms that the plaintiff as a member of the 1st defendant purchased nomination form and expression of

interest form, was screened, participated in the primary election of the 1st defendant and was declared the winner

and that the law is settled that it is the aspirant with the highest number of votes cast that shall be declared winner ofthe primary election in line with Section 84(5) (B) of the Electoral Act, 2022 and that the affidavit evidence before the Court shows that the plaintiff scored the highest votes cast thereby making him the winner of the primary election.

Learned Counsel relied on BOKO V. NUNGWA & ORS (2018) LPELR- 45890 (CA) to submit that the plaintiff having scored the highest votes cast in the primary election had acquireda

vested interest which can only be taken away in accordance with the law and that by the express provision of Section

84(5)(B) (iü) of the Electoral Act, 2022 the 1st defendant has a Learned Counsel relied on BOKO V. NUNGWA & ORS (2018) LPELR- 45890 (CA) to submit that the plaintiff having scored the highest votes cast in the primary election had acquired a vested interest which can only be taken away in accordance with the law and that by the express provision of Section 84(5)(B) (iü) of the Electoral Act, 2022 the 1st defendant has a

|CERTIFIED TRUE COPY

EENERAL MIGHCOURT

SUT NO: FHC/OW/CS/28/2023: SIR BASIL MADUKA V. LAOOiARfity & ORS JUDĠMENT Page 11 duty under law to forward only the name of the winner of the primary election to the 2nd defendant and the law does not

give thelst defendant the luxury of fowarding any person's name other than the name of the winner of the primary

election.

Learned Counsel further submitted that the plaintiff has not withdrawn from contesting in the election nor has he

before the Court confirms that the plaintiff participated in and won the said governorship primary election and that the law imposes a duty on the 1st defendant to forward the name of

the plaintiff to the 2nd defendant as its candidate for the election in Imo State.

Learned Counsel finally submitted that by publishing names of candidate for an election as provided for in Section 32(1) of the Electoral Act, 2022, that the 2nd defendant has given recognition to that candidate and that by the fact that the

Both the learned Counsel to the 1st defendant and 3rd defendant while addressing the issues submitted that by the D.6 questions submitted for determination used the written address to attack the locUs standi of the plaintiff. Learned Counsel submitted that the law is trite that a plaintiff who did not participate in the primary election of a political party lacks the locUs standi to chalenge the outcome of the primary

election. That the plaintiff not being part of the primary election of 16/4/2023 cannot be heard challenging its

outcome and that the Court should dismiss the suit of the plaintiff for lack of locus standi as the plaintiff commenced the suit without locus standi. Reliance was placed on EMENIKE V. PDP (2012) NWLR PT. 1315 @573, DANIEL V. INEC (2015) 9 NWLR

PT. 1463 @155, EZE V. ADP & ORS (2018) LPELR- 44907(SC), UBA

V. OZIGBO (2022) 10 NWLR PT. 1839 @431.

Having clearly set out the above arguments and submissions from both learned counsel for the plaintiffs and defendants' on the issues adopted, I am inclined to find out if the plaintiff has

the locUS standi to institute the action as same has been challenged by the 1t and 3rd defendant which if sustained wOuld rob this Court of the jurisdiction to hear and determine this suit. It has been held that Jurisdiction is SUch a fundamental

issue that it can be raised in court by any of the parties or by the court suo motu where there are sufficient facts on the

Inconsideration of the suit, may I state in clear terms from my understanding of the submissions from learned counsel on both sides and from the averments as contained in the affidavit in support of the originating summons of the plaintiffs, the further affidavits of the plaintiffs as well as those contained in the cOunter-affidavit of the 1st and 3rd defendant, it can be clearly decipher that the bane of this suit arose from the conduct of the primary election of the 1st defendant and the actual date of the primary election and whose name should be forwarded to the 2nd defendant. While all the parties are in agreement that primary election was conducted. The contention lies on

the actual date the primary election was conducted and who won the primary. While the plaintiff contends that the primary election was conducted on 15/4/2023 wherein he scored the

highest votes cast and was declared the winner, the 1st and 3rd defendant contended that the primary was held on 16/4/2023band that the plaintiff did not participate in the primary election and as sUch has no locUs standi to challenge the outcome of the primary election and to effectively decide this suit, the issue of locus as stated in the earlier part of this judgment would have to be decided.

Locus standi means a place of standing, that is, right to be heard, as opposed to a right to sUCceed on the merits and In

determining the issue of competence of a suit and the locus standi to institute an action, the cOurt will only have regard to

the endorsement on the writ of Summons and the statement of claim of the plaintiff and not to the statement of defense. See UBA V. UKACHUKWU 2004) 10 NWLR (Pt. 881) 224. The 1s and 3rd

defendant had argued that the plaintiff does not have the locus standi to institute this instant action questioning the outcome of its primary election conducted on 16/4/2023.

The issue of locuS standi constitutes a condition precedent to the institution of any action before a court of law. The

concept being to protect the court from being used as a playground for professional litigants, busybodies and

meddlesome interlopers and cranks who have no real stake or interest in the subject matter of the litigation.

cOunter-affidavit of the 1st and 3rd defendant, it can be clearly decipher that the bane of this suit arose from the conduct of the primary election of the 1st defendant and the actual date

of the primary election and whose name should be forwarded to the 2nd defendant. While all the parties are in agreement that primary election was conducted. The contention lies on

the actual date the primary election was conducted and who won the primary. While the plaintiff contends that the primary election was conducted on 15/4/2023 wherein he scored the

highest votes cast and was declared the winner, the 1st and 3rd defendant contended that the primary was held on 16/4/2023 and that the plaintiff did not participate in the primary election and as sUch has no locUs standi to challenge the outcome of the primary election and to effectively decide this suit, the issue of locus as stated in the earlier part of this judgment would have to be decided.

Locus standi means a place of standing, that is, right to be heard, as opposed to a right to sUCceed on the merits and In

determining the issue of competence of a suit and the locus standi to institute an action, the cOurt will only have regard to

the endorsement on the writ of Summons and the statement of claim of the plaintiff and not to the statement of defense. See UBA V. UKACHUKWU 2004) 10 NWLR (Pt. 881) 224. The lst and 3rd

defendant had argued that the plaintiff does not have the locus standi to institute this instant action questioning the outcome of its primary election conducted on 16/4/2023.

The issue of locuS standi constitutes a condition precedent to the institution of any action before a court of law. The

concept being to protect the court from being used as a playground for professional litigants, busybodies and

meddlesome interlopers and cranks who have no real stake or interest in the subject matter of the litigation.

Moreso the plaintiff never placed anything before the Court to the effect that 15/4/2023 was the actual date slated for the primary election, Exhibit PTF2 Was never acknowledged by the

2nd defendant as opposed to Exhibit LPI titled Notice of Change of Primary Election date in Kogi, Imo and Bayelsa

State, same was issued and signed by the acting national chairman of the 1st defendant, same was also served and

acknowledged by the 2nd defendant and the said letter under paragraph 2 line l clearly stated thus: "We hereby reschedule the primaries to 6th April, 2023.......

The plaintiff had argued that the primary election wherein he Won was conducted on 15/4/2023 and strongly relied on all

executives were not suspended, based on the provisions of the Electoral Act, 2022 and the above cited authority does the state executive have the power to conduct a primary election wherein the governorship candidate of the 1st defendant WOuld be elected. The plainiff has not put forward any material evidence to that effect neither has he shown to this cOurt that such power was delegated to it by the national executive committee of the 1st defendant, all it placed before this court that have semblance of the national executive

committee is exhibit D which this court and even all the parties of the affidavit in

are in agreement according to paragraph

support of the originating summons and paragraph 6 of the cOunter affidavit of both the 1st and 3rd defendant respectively that by 5/4/2023 the parties mentioned in exhibit C wererestrained from acting and as sUch this court cannot rely on that piece of evidence.

The 2nd defendant did not file anything.

The abOve represent the processes filed by the parties in this suit. When the matter came up for hearing on 5/6/2023, parties adopted their processes, adumbrated on same and urged the cOurt to resolve the dispute in favour of the parties they represent.

BACKGROUND FACTS.

The case of the plaintiff is that he is a member of the 1st defendant, who obtained the nomination and expression of interest form of the 1st defendant to participate in the Governorship Primaries of the party for the 1]th November, 2023 Governorship Election in Imo State. That he was screened and cleared upon which he took part in the primary election which was initially scheduled for 13/4/2023 but was shifted to 15/4/2023 after an Abuja High Court issued a restraining order against the National chairman and some other national officer of the party.

That the Governorship primary election was held on 15/4/2023 wherein he scored the highest votes cast and was declared the winner but that in total disregard to the outcome of the primary election that produced him as a winner, the 1st defendant through a letter dated 17/4/2023 forwarded the name of the 3rd defendant to the 2nd defendant as its candidate for the 1|th November, 2023 Governorship Election in Imo State instead of his name, since he won the primany election and has not withdrawn or consented to any substitution of his name with any other name. That it will be in the interest of justice for this Court to grants his reliefs in this suit.

1st defendant for the 11th November, 2023 Governorship Election in Imo State and it was based on the outcome of the

primary election that the name of the 3rd defendant who won the primary election was forwarded to the 2nd defendant as

DETERMINATION OF SUIT

This suit was brought by the plaintiff alleging that he contested and won the primary election of the 1st defendant that was conducted on 15/4/2023 but instead of the 1st defendant to forward his name as its candidate for the 1]th November, 2023 Governorship Election in Imo State, it disregarded the outcome

of the primary election and forwarded the name of the 3rd defendant instead.

The plaintiff in arguing the questions raised for determination in the its Originating Summons adopted

questions for determination as the issues for determination. To wit;

1. Whether the plaintiff is not the winner of the 1st defendants (Labour Party) Governorship PrimaryElection Conducted on Saturday 15th April, 2023

by the 1st defendant in Imo State for the 11th November, 2023 Imo State Governorship election considering the following documents.

a)The Plaintiff's membership card of the 1t defendant.

b)The Plaintiff's receipt and proof and proof of payment of N25,000,000 (twenty five million naira) fee for the 1 Defendant's Governorship Nomination and Expression of Interest forms.

c) Copy of the 1# Defendant's Governorship Nomination and Expression of Interest forms as obtained by the Plaintiff from the 1 Defendant,

completed and returned to the 1t Defendant.

d) Copy of list of Governorship aspirants of the 1 Defendant screened for the 11h November, 2023 Governorship Election in Imo, Kogi and Bayelsa States issued by the 1# Defendant's Acting National Secretary.

to the 1s# Defendant's Acting National

Chairman by its Imo State Chairman and

Secretary and acknowledged by the 1st

Defendant's Acting National Secretary.

2. Whether the 1# Defendant's submission of the 3rd Defendant's name instead of the Plaintiff's name to the 2nd Defendant for recognition as the 1t

Defendant's candidate for the 11th November, 2023 Governorship Election in Imo State is proper and lawful considering the following documents;

a) Result sheet of the 15th April, 2023 Governorship primary election in Imo State signed by the Chairman and Secretary of the Electoral Committee among others.

b) Report on the primary election issued on 16/04/2023 by the 1t Defendant's Imo State Chairman and Secretary to its Acting National Chairman and received by the 1t Defendant's Acting National Secretary.

c) 1st Defendant's letter to the 2nd Defendant dated 17th April, 2023 forwarding the 3rd Defendant's name as the 1st Defendant's candidate for the

11th November, 2023 Governorship election in Imo state.

3. Whether the Plaintiff is not entitled to have his name and particulars forwarded to the 2nd Defendant by the 1t Defendant as the winner of the 1st Defendant's Governorship primary election held on the 15th April, 2023 and as its candidate for the 11th November, 2023 Imo State Governorship Election considering the documents

4. Whether the Plaintiff is not the rightful person and candidate by virtue of the documents aforementioned to be recognized by the 2nd Defendant to contest under the platform of the 1st

Defendant (Labour Party) in the 11th November, aforementioned.

2023 Imno State Governorship Election pursuant to the rules and guidelines of the 2nd Defendant.

It should be noted that the plaintiff filed a motion on notice dated 3/5/2023 and which was moved before this court on

5/6/2023 and this court after considering the prayers sought in

the motion and the reliefs sought in the substantive suit was of the opinion that since the motion touches on the substantive suit, the reasoning and ruling of court would be considered in this substantive suit, moreso since the substantive suit was moved on the same day with the motion. The application

itself toUches and concerns issues between the parties and there is no way it can determined without allowing all parties to air their grievances and the apex court has held that youbcannot Use an interlocutory application to determine a substantive suit. See ALEXANDER MARINE MANAGEMENT V. KODA INTERNATIONAL LTD. (1999) 1 NWLR (PT. 585) 40 where it was held that It is not proper for a trial Court to prejudge issues in the substantive case in the process of deciding an interlocutory application. In other words, the trial Court must be cautious and avoid comments on the main issUe in the

substantive matter. Needless to say that if the court should grant the injunctive relief sought or refuse the granting of the

injunction it would tantamount to recognizing or not recognizing either of the waring parties; that is, it would

tantamount to either recognizing the erstwhile chairman Barr.Julius Abure and his Exco members or in another breath

recognizing the incoming chairman Lamidi Apapa, an issue which is the gravamen this main suit and which is still pending at the Court of Appeal.

Moreso the prayers being sought for in the motion is a subject of an appeal before the Court appeal which parties informed the court that judgment has not been given and any prouncement made by this cOurt on that wOuld amount to this court pre-empting the outcome of the matter on appeal. It would be a smacked of judicial irresponsibility, rascality. impertinence and insubordination, if this court, being aware of the pending appeal the Court of Appeal goes ahead to rule on the motion before this court.

To effectively determine this suit, this Court must examine the facts, circumstances and evidence adduced by the parties in this suit in line with the relevant provisions of the Electoral Act

2022 and Party Guidelines.

election of the 1st defendant and was declared the winner and that the law is settled that it is the aspirant with the

Learned Counsel relied on BOKO V. NUNGWA & ORS (2018) LPELR- 45890 (CA) to submit that the plaintiff having scored the highest votes cast in the primary election had acquired a vested interest which can only be taken away in accordance with the law and that by the express provision of Section 84(5) (B) (üi) of the Electoral Act, 2022 the 1st defendant has a duty under law to forward only the name of the winner of the primary election to the 2nd defendant and the law does notgive the lst defendant the luxury of forwarding any person's name other than the name of the winner of the primary election.

Learned Counsel further submitted that the plaintiff has not withdrawn from contesting in the election nor has he

consented to any substitution of his name and that in the absence of any withdrawal from the election by the plaintiff, that it is unlawful for the 1# defendant to submit the name of

the 3rd defendant to the 2nd defendant instead of that of the plaintiff as its candidate for the election.

Learned Counsel also argued that the facts and documents before the Court confirms that the plaintiff participated in and won the said governorship primary election and that the law imposes a duty on the 1st defendant to forward the name of the plaintiff to the 2nd defendant as its candidate for the

election in Imo State.

Learned Counsel finally submitted that by publishing names of

candidate for an election as provided for in Section 32(1) of the Electoral Act, 2022, that the 2nd defendant has given

recognition to that candidate and that by the fact that the plaintiff won the primary election of the 1st defendant, that

makes him the candidate of the 1st defendant that is entitled to be recognized by the 2nd defendant pursuant to Section 32(1) of the Electoral Act, 2022 and urged the Court to resolve

all the issues in favour of the plaintiff and grant the reliefs sought.Both the learned Counsel to the 1st defendant and 3rd defendant while addressing the issues submitted that by the questions submitted for determination used the written address to attack the locUs standi of the plaintiff. Learned Counsel submitted that the law is trite that a plaintiff who did not participate in the primary election of a political party lacks

the locus standi to challenge the outcome of the primary election. That the plaintiff not being part of the primary

election of 16/4/2023 cannot be heard challenging its outcome and that the Court should dismiss the suit of the

plaintiff for lack of locus standi as the plaintiff commenced the suit without locuS standi. Reliance was placed on EMENIKE V. PDP (2012) NWLR PT. 1315 @573, DANIEL V. INEC (2015) 9 NWLR

PT. 1463 @155, EZE V. ADP & ORS (2018) LPELR- 44907(SC), UBA V. OZIGBO (2022) 10 NWLR PI. 1839 @431.

Having clearly set out the above arguments and submissions from both learned counsel for the plaintiffs and defendants' on the issues adopted, I am inclined to find out if the plaintiff has

the locUs standi to institute the action as same has been challenged by the 1st and 3rd defendant which if sustained

would rob this Court of the jurisdiction to hear and determine this suit. It has been held that Jurisdiction is SUch a fundamental issue that it can be raised in court by any of the parties or by

the court suo motu where there are sufficient facts on the record establishing a lack of jurisdiction and a trial court has the jurisdiction to determine whether it has jurisdiction to try the Case of a plaintiff based on the claim before it. See OKOYE V. C.P.M.B LTD (2008) 15 NWLR (PT. 1110) 335

Inconsideration of the suit, may I state in clear terms from my understanding of the submissions from learned counsel on both sides and from the averments as contained in the affidavit in Support of the originating summons of the plaintiffs, the further affidavits of the plaintiffs as well as those contained in the cOunter-affidavit of the 1st and 3rd defendant, it can be clearly decipher that the bane of this suit arose from the conduct of the primary election of the 1st defendant and the actual date of the primary election and whose name should be forwarded to the 2nd defendant. While all the parties are in agreement that primary election was conducted. The contention lies on

the actual date the primary election was conducted and who won the primary. While the plaintiff contends that the primary election was conducted on 15/4/2023 wherein he scored the

highest votes cast and was declared the winner, the 1st and 3rd defendant contended that the primary was held on l6/4/2023 and that the plaintiff did not participate in the primary election

and as SUch has no locUS standi to challenge the outcome of the primary election and to effectively decide this suit, the issue of locus as stated in the earlier part of this judgment would have to be decided.

Locus standi means a place of standing, that is, right to be heard, as opposed to a right to SUCceed on the merits and In

determining the issue of competence of a suit and the locUs standi to institute an action, the court will only have regard to

the endorsement on the writ of summons and the statement of claim of the plaintiff and not to the statement of defense. See UBA V. UKACHUKWU 2004) 10 NWLR (Pt. 881) 224. The 1t and 3rd

defendant had argued that the plaintiff does not have the locus standi to institute this instant action questioning the outcome of its primary election conducted on 16/4/2023.

The issue of locUs standi constitutes a condition precedent to the institution of any action before a court of law. The

concept being to protect the court from being used as a playground for professional litigants, busybodies and

meddlesome interlopers and cranks who have no real stake or interest in the subject matter of the litigation.

BAIDO V. INEC (2008) 12 NWLR (PT.1101) 379, PDP V. EDEDE (2022) 11 NWLR (PT. 1840) 94. To determine whether or not a party has a standing to sue, the court must look at the

originating summons and the affidavits in support of it. Having been so guided by the above state of law. I have

meticulously examined the plaintiff's affidavit in support of the originating summons, most particularly paragraphs 7, 8, 9, 10, 1l and Exhibits D,F, Fl, and G as they were all issued and signed by an already dissolved State Executive

Committee as confirmed by Exhibit LP2. Even the plaintiff in his paragraph of the affidavit in support stated that Exhibit

D was issued on 5/4/2023 same day as that in which the restraining order was granted by the FCT High Court via

Exhibit C. Moreso The Electoral Act confers on the party at the national level through the National Executive

Committee the power to give a date for the party primaries in the State. The congress, however, is to be held in the State. The discretion is that of the political party to delegate party members that will conduct the primaries in nominating candidates for Gubernatorial, National and State Assemblies. The provisions are unequivocal on the responsibility of the National Executive Council of the party

to initiate and coordinate party primaries giving a specific date for the primaries. See C.P.C V. LADO (2011) 14 NWLR

(PT. 1266).

The question is in what capacity was the 2nd defendant

notified by the 1st defendant in that Exhibit D of the date fixed for its governorship election, was it acting in defiance of the cOurt order or is its directive superior to the court order.

Also the plaintiff denied Mr. Obiyo as Chief Obiyo but did not in anywhere throughout the face of the processes before this cOurt bring another Obiyo to the effect that the deponent of

the affidavit of the 3rd defendant committed perjury on oath.

Moreso the plaintiff never placed anything before the Court to the effect that 15/4/2023 was the actual date slated for the primary election, Exhibit PTF2 Was never acknowledged by the

2nd defendant as opposed to Exhibit LP1 titled Notice of Change of Primary Election date in Kogi, Imo and Bayelsa

State, same was issued and signed by the acting national chairman of the 1st defendant, same was also served and

acknowledged by the 2nd defendant and the said letter under paragraph 2 line l clearly stated thus: "We hereby reschedule the primaries to 6th April, 2023......".

The plaintiff had argued that the primary election wherein he won was conducted on 15/4/2023 and strongly relied on all

committee is exhibit D which this cOurt and even all the parties are in agreement according to paragraph 7 of the affidavit in support of the originating summons and paragraph 6 of the cOUnter affidavit of both the 1st and 3rd defendant respectively that by 5/4/2023 the parties mentioned in exhibit C were restrained from acting and as sUch this court cannot rely or that piece of evidence.

Also it has been held that where there is a conflict in affidavit evidence, the cOurt can resolve same by calling for oral

evidence or by resorting to authentic documentary evidence which supports the affidavits in conflict with another, where there are documentary evidence before the court, it can sou motu resolve sUch conflicting evidence by resort to the documentary evidence. See BORNO STATE V. GADANGARI (2016) 1 NWLR, U.B.N PLC V. AWMAR PROPERTIES LTD (2018) 10 NWLR. It is indisputable from the facts given by the plaintiff in

his affidavit in support of the originating summons, also the 1st and 3rd defendant counter affidavit that there is a conflict as to the date the primary election was held, the best way to

resolve the conflict is to look at the documentary evidence annexed as exhibits in the originating summons, cOunter affidavit and other affidavits before the court. Having perused

through the documentary evidence attached to the affidavits am of the humble view that in order to clear the conflict in the affidavit of both the plaintiff and the defendants resort will

have to be made to the documents attached as exhibits D, F, Fl andG for the plaintiff and LP1, LP2, LP3 and LP4 for the 1st and 3rd defendant. It has been held earlier by this court that those mentioned exhibits attached by the plaintiff, that its authenticity is in doubt and it goes to no effect and value as

this court cannot attach probative value to it as exhibitD is a product of an already restrained national chairman who as at the time he issUed the letter had no vires to do so, exhibit F, F1and G were issued by an already suspended state executive members who also acted outside the pOwer they do not have

and a document that the court does not attach value to, is as good as the mere paper it was made on. See TSOKWA V. IBI (2017) 10 NWLR, NAMMAGI V. AKOTE (2021) 3 NWLR. Flowing from the above and having considered the nature of the above exhibits this court is inclined to attach value and weight

to exhibit LP1, LP2, LP3 and LP4 in resolving the conflict in the affidavit as they were issued and signed by the acting national chairman on behalf of the national executive committee of the 1st defendant and the issue of date is hereby resolved in favour of the 1st and 3rd defendant that the 1st defendant

primary election was held on 16/4/2023.

alleged by the plaintiff.

To better appreciate the above findings of the court we review some of the vital exhibits attached to both the affidavit

in support of the originating summons, the further affidavits and those attached to the counter affidavit of the 1st and 3rd

defendant:

Exhibit E which is dated 11/4/2023 and titled list of Labour Party Gubernatorial Aspirants Screening For the Imo, Bayelsa and Kogi 11th November, 2023 Gubernatorial Election. The above

mentioned exhibit was typed on a plain paper and signed by one Alhaji Saleh Lawal Acting National Secretary.

Exhibit Fl which is dated 12/4/2023, titled List of Members of the

Imo State Governorship Primary Election Committee. The Exhibit has 5 names of members of the Imo State Committee

and was also issued and signed by the same members of the State Executive Committee, addressed to nobody in particular with an undated original copy received by me Alh. Saleh lawan written on it.

Exhibit G Undated but titled Result of the Party Primary Election held on 15th day of Apil, 2023 and was issued and signed by the State Executives with original copy received by me Alh.Saleh Lawan written on it. Exhibit PTFI dated 14/4/2023 titled Notification of LP Guber

primary Election, addressed to the resident electoral commissioner Imo State and atten: to HOD EPM. With the body as "Madam, as you are aware, the LP Gubernatorial Primary Election, comes up on Saturday 15th Apil, 2023. The time is 12noon promp. ..... The Said letter was also issUed and The above exhibits were some of the exhibit attached to the affidavit in support of the originating summons as well as the

further affidavit. Exhibit LPI dated 6th April, 2023 titled Notice of Change of

Primaries Dates in Kogi, Imo and Bayelsa Stated addressed to the Chairman Independent National Electoral Commission, Abuja.It was issued and signed by the acting national

chairman and the acting nalional secretary and with an acknowledgment stamp of INEC stamped on the face of it.

Exhibit LP2 dated 13/4/2023 titled dissolution and reinstatement

of democratic elected executives in Imo State issued and signed by the acting national chairman and the acting

national secretary Exhibit LP3 dated 13th April, 2023, titled Imo State Gubernatorial

Planning Committee issued and signed by the acting national chairman of LabOur Party.

Exhibit LP4 titled Imo stated Gubernatorial Primary Election of

Saturday 16th April, 2023 Result Sheet signed by those whose names were contained in Exhibit LP3 signed by the State Executive regulating election in Nigeria has not been complied with by the Independent National Electoral Commission in respect of the election or

nomination of candidates and participation in an election.

(c) A political party challenging the actions, decisions, or activities of the Independent National Electoral Commission disqualifying its candidates from participating in an election or a complaint that the provisions(c) of the Electoral Act or any other applicable law has not been complied with by the

Independent National Electoral Commission in respect of the nomination of candidates of political

parties for an election time table for an election, registration of voters and other activities of the Commission in respect of preparation for an election.

It went further to reiterate that It is a precondition that for a claim to come squarely within the purview of the section 285(14). it must be instituted either by an aspirant, an aggrieved participant in the process or event of the party's congresses or the nomination or sponsorship of the party's candidate in a subsequent election or the political party,

itself, whose candidate is being excluded by Independent National Electoral Commission from participating in the

election. In the instant suit no matter the coloration the plaintiff has chosen to give its suit and the muffled facts it tries

to depose to in its supporting affidavit the fact still remains that it has not shown anywhere that it met the established requirement of the law by the apex cOurt in the authority above.

The above exhibits were attached to the counter of both the 1st and 3rd defendants respectively.

| am of the view that the plaintiff was never an aspirant in the nomination process complained of as he never paticipated in the primnary election that was held by the plaintiff on 16/4/2023

and being a member of the 1st defendant does not confer on it the right to question the out the outcome of the primary election with regards to who it nominates as candidate for the

1|th November, 2023 Governorship Election in Imo State and thus it lacks the locus standi to institute this action which makes this court to be devoid of jurisdiction to entertain this suit. The

Supreme Court in explaining what constitutes pre-election matter and who can bring an action within the purview of pre-election in the case of ANYAKORAH V. PDP (2022)12 NWLR (PT.1843) 1. Stated that Section 285(14) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended by the 4th Alteration Act) regulates and defines a

pre-election suit. It states that "pre-election matter" for the purpose of the section is any suit by:

(a) An aspirant who complains that any of the provisions of the Electoral Act or any Act of the National Assembly regulating the conduct of primaries of political parties and the provisions of

the guidelines of a political party for conduct of party primaries has not been complied with by a political party in respect of the selection or nomination of candidates for an election.

(b) An aspirant challenging the actions, decisions or activities of Independent National Electoral Commission in respect of his participation in an

election or who complains that the provisions of the Electoral Act or Any Act of the National Assembly

Upon on a critical analysis of the provision of Section 285 (14)

of the Constitution and Section 84 (14) of the 2022 ElectoralbAct, the following salient conditions are necessary and oUght

to be fulfilled contingent to bringing an action there under the section.

ii.

iv.

There must first have been a primary for the selection or nomination of candidate by a political party:That the exercise for the primary must have been in

respect of an election:The complainant must be an aspirant who ought to

have taken part in the political party's primaries; and That the political party designate did not comply with

a provision of the Electoral Act or its political guidelines for the selection done.

KEKERE-EKUNJSC, IN

Restating the position further,

UKACHUKWU VS. PDP (2014) 17NWLR (PT. 1435) 134 @ 210-202 pointed out that: "...a complaint under Section 87 (9) of the Electoral Act which is word for word with the above section 285(14) of the Electoral Act, 2022 falls within a very narrow Compass. The complainant must be an aspirant who participated in the primary and his complaint must relate to

non-compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act or the guidelines of the political party" See also PDP VS. SYLVA (2012) 13 NWLR (PT. 1316) 85 @ 148, EMENIKE VS. PDP (2011) LPELR-

19752 (CA). In other words, it is the state of the law that for a complainant to qualify as an aspirant within the contemplation of Section 285 (14) of the Constitution, he must have participated in the primary elections being complained about. See IBEZIM V. ARARUNME & ORS (2022) LPELR-56936 (CA), GAGARAWA & ORS V. PDP (2022) LPELR-56674 (CA), ABDUL V.SHEKWOLO (2022) LPELR-56682 (CA). Also on the issue, the apex Court in the case of SENATOR UGOCHUKWU UBA VS. VALENTINE OZIGBO & ORS (2021) LPELR-56672 (SC). per Okoro JSC, had maintained its position by holding that: "Before a candidate for the primaries can invoke the provisions of Section 87 (9) of the Electoral Act 2010 as amended, and thus be imbued with the locus standi or the ground to sue, he must have been

screened and cleared by his political party and actually participated in the said primaries in this instant the plaintiff

was never an aspirant who participated in the primary election that was conducted by the 1t defendant on

16/4/2023

The law is firmly settled that where there is no locus standi, there is no jurisdiction in the Court to entertain the action of

the Plaintiff. Also where an action is improperly constituted, whether on the side of the Defendant the plaintiff, as the

case may be, the action is incompetent and no adjudication can validly be undertaken on the suit bya Court.. LocUs standi is married to jurisdiction. Where a plaintiff has no locUs standi to bring a suit, the suit becomes incompetent and the Court lacks the jurisdiction to entertain it, the only order the Court

can make in the circumstance is that of dismissal. See CORPS MARSHAL v. GANA (2022) LPELR-57813(CA), AJAYI v. ADEBIYI & ORS (2012)) LPELR-7811(SC)

This court has not found anything to aid the plaintiff to the effect that it has the locus standi to institute this action against the defendants and where a plaintiff has no locus standi to bring a suit, the suit becomes incompetent and the Court lacks the jurisdiction to entertain it.From the totality of all the considered argument and, authorities, this court finds in favour of the 1st and 3rd

suIT NO: FHC/ow/cs/28/2023: SIR BAŞIt iABOKAVZENGiakiYSORS JUDGMENT Page 23

gTE.

defendant as the plaintiff does not fall within the definition of an aspirant as it never participated in the process

leading to the primary election nor took part in the primary election of the 1st defendant and as such lacks the locUS

standi to institute this action as such this court lacks the requisite jurisdiction to entertain and determine this suit pplsame being incompetent. Accordingly this suit is hereby

dismissed.

CASJE

EEDEROi

3378Gts-S&7

SIGNED

HON.

|CERTIFIED-TRUE COPY

FEDERAL AiGH COURT

SiGM..

CATE

SUIT NO: FHC/OW/Cs/28/2023: SIR BASIL MADUKA V, LABOUR PARTY & ORS JUDGMENT Page 24

JUSTIicE B.o UADRI

23/6/2023

STAY TUNED FOR PART 2 AND MORE

Search This Blog

project change9ja

If you want to hide something from a Black person, put it in a book... Barrister Juluis Abure and lies, falsehood, deception and deceitful behaviour are one and the same

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

RE: "I did not promise to build Labour party" Peter Obi is an epitome of dishonesty and a serial betrayal - Arabambi

THIS IS WHY INEC STOPPED RECOGNISING ABURE AS THE NATIONAL CHAIRMAN OF LABOUR PARTY

Ignore INEC shenanigans ,Sola Ebiseni remains the Governorship candidate of Labour Party.