Background
This case centers around an electoral dispute involving the People's Democratic Party (PDP) and Hon. Jarigbe Agom Jarigbe concerning the selection of delegates for a senatorial bye-election in the Cross River State North Senatorial District. Following the death of the elected senator, a notice for bye-elections was issued. Hon. Jarigbe contested the validity of an unapproved list of delegates that excluded him from participation.
Facts
Upon noticing that a faction within the PDP circulated an unapproved list of delegates, the 1st respondent (Hon. Jarigbe) filed an action in the Federal High Court, seeking reliefs that included a declaration to use the list certified by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) for the primary elections. The trial court ruled in favor of Hon. Jarigbe, allowing him to participate as he was later restored to the list of candidates. The appellants appealed this decision, arguing that the claims were statute-barred.
Issues
The primary issue before the Supreme Court was whether the appeal concerning the list of delegates was academic because the bye-election had already taken place. Specifically, the court had to determine:
- Whether the appeal had any practical utility remaining after the bye-election.
- If the proceedings were academic, thus warranting dismissal.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that an appeal becomes academic when it lacks live issues or practical utility that can affect the parties involved. Given that the primary election had already occurred and the candidate had been determined, any judgment rendered by the court would serve no practical purpose. Relevant precedents, such as Plateau State v. Attorney-General, Federation, established that courts do not engage in resolving academic matters.
Court Findings
The Supreme Court found that:
- The appeal was indeed academic as all reliefs sought were rendered moot by the completed bye-election.
- Even if the appellants succeeded, the judgment would result in no practical benefit given the electoral outcomes.
- The latest events surrounding the bye-election cut at the root of the controversy, leading to a clear duty for the court to terminate the proceedings.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the Supreme Court struck out the appeal due to its academic nature, emphasizing that the law mandates courts to avoid pronouncing on matters that have no practical implications for the parties involved.
Significance
This case is significant as it reinforces the principle that courts exist to resolve live disputes. The ruling underscores the importance of practical utility in maintaining judicial efficiency and preventing wastage of judicial resources on matters devoid of real-world implications.