site logo
Skip to case content
Case Digest

NABARUMA V. OFFODILE (2006)

Court of Appeal, Enugu Division

Coram
  • HON. JUSTICE G. M. NABARUMA
  • HON. JUSTICE I. I. AGUBE
  • HON. JUSTICE J. B. K. ALADEJANA
  • HON. JUSTICE P. A. ONAMADE
  • JOHN A. FABIYI JCA
  • CLARA BATA OGUNBIYI JCA
  • MONICA B. DONGBAN-MENSEM JCA
Parties

Appellant:

  • Nabaruma et al.

Respondent:

  • Chudi Offodile
Suit number
CA/E/6/2004
Delivered on

Background

This case arose from a decision made by the Federal High Court, Enugu, where it held that the National Assembly Election Tribunal is an inferior tribunal and thus under the supervisory jurisdiction of the Federal High Court. The trial court granted an order prohibiting the Tribunal from hearing a petition regarding the election of Chudi Offodile, represented at the appeal by the respondent.

Issues

The appeal presented several pertinent legal issues including:

  1. Whether the Federal High Court could assume supervisory jurisdiction over the National Assembly Election Tribunal.
  2. Whether the Federal High Court had jurisdiction to entertain the respondent's suit without the 6th appellant, Chief O. C. Egwuatu, being joined.
  3. Whether the constitutional right to fair hearing of the 6th appellant was breached.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Federal High Court overstepped its jurisdiction by prohibiting the Election Tribunal from hearing the matter. According to the court, section 285(1)(d) of the 1999 Constitution mandates that election Tribunals have original jurisdiction to hear election petitions to the exclusion of any other court.

Court Findings

The court's findings included:

  1. The Federal High Court could not exercise concurrent jurisdiction with the election Tribunal, which is endowed with exclusive jurisdiction over election petitions.
  2. A judgment cannot stand against a party who was not joined in the suit, constituting a breach of the right to fair hearing.
  3. The preliminary objection raised by the respondent regarding the appellants' locus standi to appeal was overruled; they were indeed aggrieved parties under the law.

Conclusion

The appeal was allowed, and the Court of Appeal set aside the orders made by the Federal High Court. The Tribunal was directed to continue proceedings on the petition challenged by Chudi Offodile.

Significance

This case underscores the importance of ensuring that parties whose interests are directly affected by judicial decisions are afforded the opportunity to be heard. It delineates the explicit boundaries of jurisdiction between different levels of courts and reinforces the foundational principle of fair hearing in judicial proceedings.

Counsel:

  • Alhaji A. Ibrahim SAN
  • U. Ikeazor (Mrs.)
  • H. Kareem