OSHIOMHOLE V. FULANI (2019)

Background

This appeal arose from an internal leadership dispute within the All Progressives Congress (APC) in Kwara State. On 30 July 2018, the APC National Working Committee dissolved the party’s executive committees at ward, local government and state levels in Kwara State. Hon. Ishola Balogun Fulani and Prince Christopher Tunji Ayeni, respectively the state chairman and secretary of the APC, challenged the dissolution before the High Court of Kwara State, Ilorin, by originating summons.

The respondents sought declarations that they and other members of the Kwara State executive committee had been duly elected for a four-year tenure, that the national officers and the National Working Committee lacked constitutional authority to dissolve the state executive committee, and that the purported dissolution was illegal, unconstitutional, ultra vires and void. They also sought injunctive reliefs restraining the APC and its officers from removing them or interfering with their functions.

While the action was pending, the respondents applied for leave to amend their originating summons and accompanying processes. The appellants responded with a preliminary objection challenging the competence of the action and the jurisdiction of the High Court. The objection included the failure to seal the originating summons, failure to exhaust the APC’s internal dispute-resolution procedure, lack of locus standi, the alleged improper joinder of INEC, and the contention that the proposed amendments introduced matters outside the jurisdiction of a State High Court.

On 24 October 2018, the High Court granted the amendment application, holding that the proposed amendments were related to the respondents’ cause of action and would assist in the just determination of the case. The appellants appealed against that ruling.

Issues

1. Whether the unsealed originating summons was competent and capable of vesting the High Court with jurisdiction.
2. Whether the trial court erred by failing to determine, first, the objections concerning jurisdiction, locus standi and the respondents’ failure to exhaust the APC’s internal remedies.
3. Whether the amendment application complied with Order 28, rule 1 of the Kwara State High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2005.
4. Whether the proposed amendments introduced matters unrelated to the original cause of action, including reliefs outside the constitutional jurisdiction of the State High Court.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that jurisdiction is fundamental and must be established before a court proceeds to consider the merits of a matter or an interlocutory application. A court is competent only where it is properly constituted, the subject matter falls within its jurisdiction, all conditions precedent have been fulfilled, and the action has been commenced by due process of law.

Under Order 6, rule 2(1) of the Kwara State High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2005, the registrar is required to seal every originating process, after which it is deemed to be issued. The court held that this requirement is mandatory and constitutes a condition precedent, not a procedural irregularity. The absence of the registrar’s seal therefore rendered the originating summons incompetent and deprived the High Court of jurisdiction. The Nigerian Bar Association stamp on the process could not replace the registrar’s seal.

The court further held that objections to jurisdiction may be raised at any stage of proceedings, including for the first time on appeal, without leave. A court may also raise the issue suo motu where the defect is apparent, provided the parties are given an opportunity to address it.

Court Findings

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge failed to determine the jurisdictional objections before granting the amendment. The APC Constitution was binding on both the party and its members. Article 21(D)(V) required a member who had a dispute with the party or its officers to exhaust the prescribed internal avenue for redress before commencing litigation. The respondents had not complied with that condition precedent. The court emphasised, however, that such internal-remedy provisions do not oust the jurisdiction of the courts; rather, they postpone or condition the exercise of that jurisdiction until the prescribed preliminary step has been taken.

The court also held that the amendment application was procedurally defective because it did not clearly identify or delineate the portions of the existing originating summons and supporting processes proposed to be amended. The proposed amendment was not properly attached or sufficiently explained in the affidavit supporting the application. Although amendments may generally be allowed before judgment, the discretion to grant them must be exercised judicially and judiciously.

In addition, the proposed amendments purported to introduce reliefs relating to nomination processes and claims against INEC. The APC’s state executive committee had no legal authority over the nomination of candidates for the offices of President, Governor, or members of the National and State Assemblies. Further, by section 251(1)(r) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999, as amended, matters concerning INEC within its federal statutory functions fell within the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court, not the State High Court.

Conclusion

The appeal was allowed. The ruling of the High Court of Kwara State delivered on 24 October 2018 in Suit No. KWS/292/2018 was set aside. The suit was struck out for incompetence, and each party was ordered to bear its own costs.

Significance

The decision reinforces the strict Nigerian procedural approach to originating processes and jurisdiction. It confirms that a mandatory requirement such as the registrar’s seal cannot be disregarded or cured merely because the opposing party has participated in the proceedings. It also illustrates the importance of resolving jurisdictional objections before considering amendments or substantive questions. For political-party disputes, the case affirms that party constitutions bind members and may impose enforceable pre-litigation conditions, while preserving the courts’ ultimate supervisory jurisdiction. Finally, it warns litigants that amendments cannot be used to introduce a new cause of action or bring federal-government matters within the jurisdiction of a State High Court.