OLUWAROTIMI AKEREDOLU V. OLUSEGUN ABRAHAM (2019)

Background

This appeal arose from a suit concerning the gubernatorial primary election of the All Progressives Congress (APC) held in Ondo State on September 3, 2016. Oluwarotimi Akeredolu emerged as the party's candidate, leading to Dr. Olusegun Abraham challenging the legality of the primary election in the Federal High Court, Abuja. Abraham contended that the primary election violated APC’s electoral guidelines and sought injunctive reliefs, including an interim injunction preventing INEC from recognizing Akeredolu as the candidate.

Issues

The key issues for determination included:

1. Whether the trial court could raise an issue Sua Sponte without allowing parties to address it.
2. If the first issue was in the negative, does this breach fair hearing rights leading to a miscarriage of justice?
3. Whether the appeal should be allowed based on the case's circumstances.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court's decision upheld that:

1. It is fundamental that courts must provide fair hearing, particularly in cases where issues are raised Sua Sponte.
2. The jurisdiction of the Federal High Court was upheld as nationwide, thus allowing substituted service through the National Secretariat of the APC.
3. The interpretation of service provisions under the Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules was affirmed, confirming the validity of service on a political party's office.

Court Findings

The Supreme Court found that:

1. The trial court acted with proper jurisdiction in ordering substituted service through the APC’s National Secretariat as personal service was impossible.
2. The trial court did not improperly raise issues Sua Sponte, as the relevant facts were within the documentation submitted by the parties.
3. Technicalities should not inhibit the delivery of justice, emphasizing the ethos of substantial justice over mere procedural dictates.

Conclusion

The appeal was dismissed, affirming the judgments of the lower court and the trial court, deeming the service of processes valid, and thus preserving the outcome of the primary election.

Significance

This case underscores the importance of fair hearing in legal proceedings, particularly regarding issues raised by courts without explicit requests from parties. It affirms the broad jurisdiction of the Federal High Court in Nigeria and reinforces judicial attitudes toward technicalities in favor of substantive justice.