ALL PROGRESSIVE CONGRESS & ORS V. ANAMBRA STATE INDEPENDENT ELECTORAL COMMISSION & ORS (2022)

Background

This appeal arose from the controversy surrounding the failure to conduct the 2015 local government elections in Anambra State and the subsequent appointment of caretaker or transition committee chairmen for the State’s 21 Local Government Councils. The All Progressive Congress (APC) and its nominated chairmanship candidates commenced proceedings at the High Court of Anambra State. They contended that the constitutional guarantee of a democratically elected local government system under section 7 of the 1999 Constitution, together with sections 4 and 59 of the Anambra State Local Government Law, prevented the continued appointment of caretaker committees.

The appellants argued that the other political parties’ refusal to nominate candidates did not justify postponing the election. They further claimed that, because they alone had nominated candidates, their candidates should be treated as duly elected and issued certificates of return. They sought declarations invalidating section 208 of the Anambra State Local Government Law, orders removing the caretaker chairmen, and an order compelling the Anambra State Independent Electoral Commission to fix a date for the election.

The trial court granted the claims in part. It held that section 208 was constitutionally valid but found that the appointment of the caretaker chairmen was unlawful in the absence of an emergency or similar situation. It ordered the electoral commission to appoint a date for elections within 90 days, while rejecting the claim that the APC candidates were deemed elected. The Court of Appeal allowed the respondents’ appeals, set aside the trial court’s judgment and dismissed the originating summons. The APC candidates then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Issues

1. Whether the Court of Appeal denied the appellants fair hearing by failing to determine all the issues raised in their appeal.
2. Whether the statutory duty of the Anambra State Independent Electoral Commission to appoint a date for local government elections was subject to the Governor’s determination under section 208(2) of the Anambra State Local Government Law.
3. Whether the respondents’ preliminary objection, directed only at one ground of appeal, was procedurally competent.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. It held that although a court ordinarily must determine every issue properly placed before it, that rule has recognised exceptions. An issue need not receive a separate determination where it has already been subsumed in, and necessarily resolved by, another issue decided by the court. The Court of Appeal had first determined a sister appeal arising from the same High Court judgment, involving the same parties and substantially the same issues. In that earlier appeal, it interpreted section 208(2), held that the refusal of the political parties to field candidates constituted an unusual situation making an election impracticable, and set aside the entire trial court judgment. The issues in the present appeal were therefore already resolved.

The Court also explained that fair hearing is a substantive, not technical, doctrine. The relevant question is whether the party had an opportunity to be heard, not merely whether the judgment reproduced or separately answered every argument. Since the appellants participated fully in the sister appeal and the outcome they sought—the setting aside of the trial judgment—had already been achieved, no denial of fair hearing or miscarriage of justice was established.

On statutory interpretation, the Court affirmed that the word “or” ordinarily expresses alternatives and is disjunctive. Section 208(2) therefore covered both an emergency and any other situation making the holding of an election impossible. Sections 64(1) and 208(2) had to be read together. The electoral commission’s duty to fix an election date under section 64(1) could not operate where the statutory conditions in section 208(2) made an election impossible. The Governor’s determination under section 208(2) was treated as a statutory duty, not an unfettered personal discretion.

The preliminary objection was also held incompetent because a preliminary objection should attack the competence of the appeal as a whole and, if successful, terminate the appeal. Where only particular grounds or issues are challenged, the proper procedure is a motion on notice.

Court Findings

The Court found that the Court of Appeal was entitled to rely on its earlier judgment in the related appeal rather than repeat the same reasoning in a separate judgment. The appellants’ two issues—whether the facts justified the caretaker committees and whether an election date should be fixed within 90 days—were directly covered by the earlier decision. The Court further noted that an appellate court is not required to decide academic or no-longer-live issues.

The Supreme Court distinguished the binding ratio of a judgment from an obiter dictum. A statement made by a judge which was not necessary for the decision cannot ordinarily be the subject of an appeal. The observations of Dongban-Mensem JCA concerning the Governor’s role were therefore treated as obiter rather than the ratio decidendi of the Court of Appeal’s decision.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court unanimously dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeal delivered on 23 January 2019. No order as to costs was made. The related appeals, SC.759/2019 and SC.761/2019, were directed to abide the judgment in this appeal.

Significance

The decision confirms that a court may resolve several related appeals by reference to an earlier judgment where the parties, issues and reliefs substantially coincide. It also clarifies the interaction between the statutory duty to schedule local government elections and the statutory power to address circumstances making elections impossible. More broadly, the case reinforces the principles that legislation must be construed as a whole, that “or” normally denotes an alternative, that fair hearing requires a real opportunity to be heard, and that an appeal lies against the ratio decidendi rather than an obiter observation.