FASUYI V. PEOPLES DEMOCRATIC PARTY (PDP) (2019)

CASE SUMMARY

Supreme Court of Nigeria

Before Their Lordships:

  • Mary Ukaego Peter-Odili JSC (Presided)
  • Olukayode Ariwoola JSC
  • John Inyang Okoro JSC
  • Amima Adamu Augie JSC
  • Paul Adamu Galinje JSC (Lead Ruling)

Suit number: SC. 759/2016

Delivered on: 2019-01-14

Parties:

Appellants:

  • MR. CYRIL FASUYI
  • MR. DOTUN ONIPEDE
  • MR. VICTOR BAMIDELE
  • MR. BANJI OYINLOYE

Respondents:

  • PEOPLES DEMOCRATIC PARTY (PDP)
  • INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION (INEC)
  • HON. CHIEF THADDEUS AKINOLA AINA

Background

This case arises from a dispute concerning the eligibility of candidates in the 2015 primary election of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP). The appellants, Cyril Fasuyi and others, contested the validity of the primary election held in December 2014 and initially filed suit at the Federal High Court, but were unsuccessful. Their appeal to the Court of Appeal was also dismissed, prompting them to seek a further appeal to the Supreme Court.

Issues

The primary issues that were considered by the Supreme Court include:

  1. Whether the appellants were entitled to appeal the judgment of the Court of Appeal without first obtaining leave as required for grounds of appeal involving mixed law and fact.
  2. The nature and competency of the grounds of appeal raised by the appellants.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court's ruling focused on the stipulations of Section 233 (2)(a) of the Constitution of Nigeria, which provides that an appeal to the Supreme Court lies as of right in matters involving only questions of law. Conversely, for grounds involving mixed law and fact, the necessity to obtain leave from the lower court or the Supreme Court was reiterated as critical to the court's jurisdiction.

Court Findings

The court found several key points:

  1. Genuine issues raising mixed law and fact require obtaining leave to appeal, and the appellants failed to meet this prerequisite.
  2. Despite addressing grounds 1 to 2 as potentially raising new legal issues, the court held that they still demanded a leave application prior to consideration.
  3. The appeal was deemed incompetent since all rendered grounds lacked the necessary legal backing, leading to a conclusion that no appeal could proceed without competent grounds.

Conclusion

Ultimately, the applications made by the appellants lacked merit due to failure to comply with procedural requirements of obtaining leave to appeal. The Supreme Court, therefore, struck down the notice of appeal as incompetent.

Significance

This case underscores the importance of complying with procedural rules regarding appeals, particularly concerning the necessity of obtaining leave for grounds of appeal that involve mixed law and facts. It serves as a reminder that adherence to legal protocols is paramount for maintaining the integrity of the appellate process in Nigeria.

Counsel:

  • Mr. Emeka Okoro (with Obiora Osakwe, Chukwudi Maduka, Moses Udo, Chiamaka Agu Esq.) for Appellants
  • Mr. Adeola Adedipe (with Zakari Garuba, A.A. Usman, D.C. Ogunyemi, Dolapo Kehinde Esq.) for 3rd Respondent