OGBEBOR V. INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION (2017)

Background

The appellants, representing the Itsekiri ethnic nationality of Warri Kingdom, commenced proceedings by originating summons at the Federal High Court, Abuja, concerning proposed changes to local government electoral wards and the adjustment of ward boundaries in Warri South, Warri South-West and Warri North Local Government Areas of Delta State. The proposed exercise was connected with forthcoming local government elections. The appellants alleged that the creation of additional wards would disenfranchise the Itsekiris, dilute their voting strength and effective representation, and amount to ethnic discrimination and gerrymandering.

INEC, the National Population Commission and the Attorney-General of the Federation were joined alongside the Delta State Independent Electoral Commission and the affected local government councils. The appellants sought declarations that the ward-creation guidelines were unconstitutional and unlawful, injunctions restraining the use of electoral registers, census data and voting materials in reliance on the proposed wards, and declarations concerning the constitutional status of Warri South-West Local Government Area and its headquarters. The respondents challenged the competence of the action, the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court, the propriety of originating summons, the existence of a reasonable cause of action and the appellants’ locus standi.

The Federal High Court held that the principal dispute concerned the creation and delineation of local government electoral wards, a matter outside its jurisdiction under section 251 of the 1999 Constitution. It also struck out INEC, the National Population Commission and the Attorney-General of the Federation because no identifiable grievance or substantive relief was directed against them. The Court of Appeal affirmed that decision. The appellants further appealed to the Supreme Court.

Issues

1. Whether the Federal High Court had jurisdiction over a dispute concerning the creation of additional local government wards and the adjustment of their boundaries merely because federal agencies were joined as parties.
2. Whether the trial court properly struck out the federal agencies, and whether it did so without giving the appellants an opportunity to be heard.
3. Whether the Court of Appeal ought to have invoked section 15 of the Court of Appeal Act to determine the merits of the claims against the remaining state defendants.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. The Court held that a properly constituted action requires the essential trinity of a competent plaintiff, a competent defendant and a claim or cause of action against that defendant. A person against whom the plaintiff has no identifiable grievance or relief cannot properly be joined as a co-defendant. Such joinder may amount to forum shopping and an abuse of the court’s process.

The Court further held that jurisdiction depends on the proper constitution of the action and the nature of the principal claim. The central issue was not the supply of voter-registration materials or population data by federal agencies, but the proposed creation of additional wards and the adjustment of local government boundaries for elections in Delta State. Those matters concern the structure and composition of local government and fall within the constitutional sphere of the state, not within the jurisdiction conferred on the Federal High Court by section 251.

Under section 7 of the Constitution, local government structure and composition are matters for the state government, while the conduct of elections into local government councils within a state is assigned to the State Independent Electoral Commission. The joinder of INEC, the National Population Commission and the Attorney-General of the Federation could not confer jurisdiction on the Federal High Court where the substantive dispute was a state cause. Ancillary claims, such as the proposed use of voter registers and census data, could not be determined independently when the court lacked jurisdiction over the principal claim.

Court Findings

The Court rejected the appellants’ submission that the presence of the Federal Government or one of its agencies automatically vested exclusive jurisdiction in the Federal High Court. That principle is limited and must be applied by reference to the subject matter and the specific constitutional jurisdiction of the Federal High Court. The Court referred to Onuoha v. Kaduna Refinery & Petrochemical Company and Adelekan v. Ecu-Line NV to explain that federal-party jurisdiction is not unlimited.

The Court also found that the federal agencies had been heard on the relevant objections. In any event, even if there had been a procedural error in raising or determining jurisdiction, it would not justify setting aside a substantively correct decision that the Federal High Court lacked jurisdiction. Jurisdiction is a threshold issue, and proceedings conducted without jurisdiction are a nullity.

The Court held that the Court of Appeal could not use section 15 of the Court of Appeal Act to determine the merits of a matter which the Federal High Court itself had no jurisdiction to hear. The appellate jurisdiction under that provision is not unlimited or independent of the jurisdiction of the trial court. It does not permit the Court of Appeal to do what the trial court could not lawfully have done in the first instance.

The Court explained that gerrymandering involves manipulating electoral boundaries to secure political or demographic advantage. The allegation, however, did not alter the constitutional allocation of jurisdiction. The Court also observed that the appellants’ claims were based substantially on anticipated conduct and speculation because the physical creation of the wards and final delineation of boundaries had not yet occurred. The separate judgments agreed that no proper cause of action had been disclosed against the federal agencies and that the principal dispute belonged before the appropriate state court.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court unanimously dismissed the appeal and affirmed the decisions of the Court of Appeal and the Federal High Court. The Federal High Court was held to lack jurisdiction over disputes concerning the creation of local government wards, the adjustment of local government boundaries and local government electoral arrangements in Delta State. The joinder of parties against whom no substantive claim was made was upheld as improper. Costs of N200,000 were awarded against the appellants in favour of each set of respondents.

Significance

The decision reinforces the principle that jurisdiction is determined by the real and principal subject matter of an action rather than by the strategic inclusion of federal agencies. It also clarifies the limits of the Federal High Court’s constitutional jurisdiction, the necessity for proper parties and a live cause of action, and the restricted nature of appellate powers under section 15 of the Court of Appeal Act. The case is important in Nigerian electoral and constitutional law because it distinguishes federal electoral functions from the state’s authority over local government structure and local government elections.