DELE MOSES & ANOR V. VICTOR GIADOM & ORS (2021)

Background

This case involves a dispute concerning the leadership of the All Progressives Congress (APC) in Nigeria. The 1st respondent, Hon. Victor Giadom, had resigned as Deputy National Secretary to contest in the 2019 Elections as Deputy Governor of Rivers State. After resigning, he returned to his role and became’s the National Chairman or Acting National Chairman of the APC. This triggered the appellants, registered members of the party, to seek declaratory and injunctive reliefs against Giadom’s reinstatement. They filed a suit in the High Court of Rivers State, arguing that Giadom's resignation was valid and perpetually restraining him from acting in various capacities within the party.

Issues

The primary issue before the court was whether the appellants' appeal, without a live issue, was competent. Additionally, the nature of academic and hypothetical issues in the context of legal proceedings was examined.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that an appeal becomes academic if there are no live issues to adjudicate upon. Specifically, the determination of such matters must hold practical or tangible significance. The Supreme Court firmly established that an academic question does not contribute to the judicial process, as it does not relate to any remedy sought in the matter.

Court Findings

The Supreme Court found that the appeal had become academic due to changed circumstances. By the time the appeal was heard, Giadom was no longer acting as National Chairman, and another chairman had been appointed. Consequently, the court determined that engaging with the appeal would yield no practical value or benefit, rendering it an exercise in futility. The lower court's orders were therefore struck out for lack of jurisdiction.

Conclusion

Ultimately, the Supreme Court struck out the appeal, emphasizing that judicial resources should not be expended on matters that hold no potential to resolve actual disputes between the parties. The ruling reinforced the principle that courts must refrain from making orders in vain.

Significance

This case is significant as it underscores the importance of live issues in determining the competency of appeals within the Nigerian judiciary. It illustrates the judicial system's reluctance to engage in hypothetical situations, ensuring that courts focus on tangible matters requiring adjudication.