JEV V. IYORTOM (2016)

Background

This case follows an electoral dispute where Sekav Dzua Iyortom contested the results of the primaries of the Action Congress of Nigeria (now All Progressives Congress) for the Buruku Federal Constituency. Iyortom argued that he was the rightful candidate but that Engr. Steve Mozeh’s name was submitted to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) as the winner. The Federal High Court ruled in favor of Iyortom, ordering Mozeh to vacate his seat. The Court of Appeal upheld this decision.

Subsequently, the Supreme Court dismissed Mozeh's appeal but ordered INEC to conduct fresh elections within 90 days, with Iyortom's name as the APC candidate. This ruling was later challenged when Iyortom filed an application claiming that the election referenced had been nullified, leading to this ruling.

Issues

The central issues tackled by the court were:

1. Whether the Supreme Court could review its own judgment.
2. Whether the court’s earlier order to conduct elections was valid given the previously nullified section of the Electoral Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that:

1. It cannot sit on appeal over its own judgments, but it possesses inherent power to set aside its decision in deserving cases where the judgment was obtained through fraud or if the court was misled.
2. Section 141 of the Electoral Act, which barred certain courts from declaring candidates winners if they did not fully participate in all stages, did not apply to the Supreme Court in this instance.

Court Findings

The court found that:

1. Section 141 of the Electoral Act explicitly does not pertain to the Supreme Court.
2. Consequential orders must align with justice, and the specific ruling regarding a fresh election did not serve the intent of justice after recognizing the previous nullification of the said section.

Conclusion

Subsequently, the Supreme Court granted Iyortom's application to set aside the previous order for a fresh election. It mandated INEC to issue him a certificate of return and swore him in as the representative for Buruku Federal Constituency.

Significance

This case is significant as it underscores the Supreme Court's commitment to substantial justice over procedural technicalities. It clarifies the limits of the court's appellate jurisdiction and emphasizes the need for just resolutions in electoral disputes, particularly concerning the powers vested in a political party regarding candidate nominations.