Background
This case arises from the Edo State House of Assembly, where a disruption occurred over the purported removal of the speaker and deputy speaker. The appellants, Garuba and others, initiated proceedings through an originating summons, seeking various declaratory and injunctive reliefs related to their removal. The appellants contended that their removal required a two-thirds majority vote of the 24 members of the Assembly according to section 92(2)(c) of the Nigerian Constitution. They argued that the defendants who attempted their removal lacked the necessary authority and that the actions taken were unconstitutional.
Issues
The critical issues before the Supreme Court were:
- Whether the appeal filed by the appellants was competent.
- Whether the ruling of the trial court on 26 April 2010 constituted an appealable decision.
Ratio Decidendi
The Supreme Court held that:
- The grounds of appeal raised were indeed based on mixed law and facts, necessitating the need for leave to appeal, which was not obtained by the appellants.
- The interlocutory decision made by the trial court regarding the order of hearing was not appealable under the relevant constitutional provisions.
Court Findings
The court found that:
- The appellants' failure to seek prior leave rendered the appeal incompetent, consequently upholding the decision of the Court of Appeal.
- The preliminary objections raised were valid and warranted dismissal of the appeal outright.
Conclusion
The appeal was accordingly struck out based on its incompetence, upholding the judgments of the lower courts regarding the handling of the preliminary objections and the need for procedural compliance in matters of appeal.
Significance
This ruling is significant as it underscores the critical nature of jurisdiction and procedural compliance in appellate proceedings in Nigeria. The Supreme Court reiterated that appellants must adhere strictly to statutory requirements for leave when challenging decisions based on grounds involving mixed law and fact, directly impacting the legitimacy of their appeals.