MR. REUBEN IZEZE V. INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORALCOMMISSION (2018)

Background

This case addresses a dispute over the nomination of candidates for the Ughelli South Constituency in the Delta State House of Assembly elections conducted by the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) in 2015. The appellant, Mr. Reuben Izeze, contested against Mr. Festus Utuama for the PDP's candidacy. Utuama claimed victory in the primaries and was issued a certificate accordingly, but his name was later replaced with that of Izeze as the party's candidate. In response, Utuama filed an action in the Federal High Court against INEC, PDP, and Izeze, seeking declarative reliefs and damages.

Issues

The Supreme Court addressed several key legal issues, including:

1. Whether the writ of summons commencing the action was void due to non-compliance with sections 97, 98, and 99 of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act.
2. The implications of failing to rule on the cross-appeal by the Court of Appeal.
3. The appropriateness of the Court of Appeal’s order for retrial despite the trial court's prior ruling on jurisdiction and statute-barred status.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that:

1. Failure to endorse the originating process as mandated by the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act rendered it void, hence the trial court had no jurisdiction to hear the case.
2. Service of process lacking the required endorsement is a fundamental defect and cannot be cured by court discretion.
3. Previous judgments remain valid until overturned, and hence the statutory limitations must be considered before issuing retrials.

Court Findings

The Supreme Court found that Utuama's originating process was indeed void due to this lack of compliance with section 97 of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act, thus the trial court had acted correctly in striking it out. Also, it highlighted that issuing orders for retrial of a case with invalid originating summonses constitutes pursuing an invalid action.

Conclusion

The appeal was allowed, and the decision of the Court of Appeal was set aside, restoring the trial court’s ruling that it could not assume jurisdiction over the case because of the inherent deficiencies in the originating process.

Significance

This judgment is significant as it reiterates the mandatory nature of compliance with procedural statutes like the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act, emphasizing that non-compliance can lead to the dismissal of cases regardless of their substantive merits. The ruling also underscores the necessity of jurisdictional propriety in all electoral disputes within Nigeria.