site logo
Skip to case content
Case Digest

DR. UMAR ARDO V. INEC & ORS. (2018)

Supreme Court of Nigeria

Coram
  • Amina Adamu Augie JSC
  • Mary Ukageo Peter-Odili JSC
  • Clara Bata Ogunbiyi JSC
  • Chima Centus Nweze JSC
  • Sidi Dauda Bage JSC
  • Nweze JSC
Parties

Appellant:

  • Dr. Umar Ardo

Respondents:

  • Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC)
  • All Progressive Congress (APC)
  • All Progressive Grand Alliance (APGA)
  • Peoples Democratic Party (PDP)
  • Social Democratic Party (SDP)
  • Senator Bindawo Jibrilla
Suit number
SC. 153/2016
Delivered on

Background

This appeal arises from a gubernatorial election in Adamawa State conducted on February 28, 2015. Dr. Umar Ardo contested the legality of the election, citing purported violations of sections 178(2) and 180(2) of the 1999 Constitution. After initial dismissal at the Federal High Court, his appeal to the Court of Appeal was also rejected on similar grounds.

Issues

The key legal issues considered in this case are:

  1. Whether the appeal has become academic and moot.
  2. Whether the refusal of the lower court to hear the appellant's motion constituted a breach of fair hearing.

Ratio Decidendi

The court ruled that:

  1. An academic question arises when no live issues remain to be adjudicated upon, rendering the appeal without practical significance.
  2. The principle of fair hearing requires that parties are given equal opportunity to present their cases in court, but the appellant waived his rights to respond within the stipulated time and actively participated in previous hearings.

Court Findings

The Supreme Court found that:

  1. The appellant's claims had indeed become moot as the governor's term had ended, making the outcome of the case no longer pertinent.
  2. Dr. Umar Ardo's assertion of a denial of a fair hearing was dismissed as he voluntarily chose to waive his right to respond to the preliminary objection raised by the respondents.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, concluding that no grounds for revisiting the issues presented were found. The ruling emphasized the necessity of upholding procedural propriety and the principles surrounding fair hearing rights.

Significance

This case underscores the judicial principle that courts are not obliged to entertain cases that lack practical relevance, while also emphasizing the importance of procedural adherence by litigants. The ruling serves as a reminder that fair hearing rights cannot be invoked selectively by parties who have previously waived their opportunities to address concerns during legal proceedings.

Counsel:

  • A. Amuda-Kannike SAN
  • T. M. Inuwa, Esq.
  • Yemi Pitan, Esq.
  • Kenneth Ahia, Esq.
  • Dr. Soni Ajala, Esq.
  • J. J. Usman, Esq.