COMRADE SALISU MOHAMMED V. CHIEF CALLISTUS OKAFOR & ORS. (2022)

Background

This appeal arose from proceedings in the Federal High Court, Abuja Division, in Chief Callistus Okafor v. Barrister Julius Abure & Ors., Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/1636/2021. Chief Callistus Okafor, the 1st respondent, commenced the action by originating summons over the leadership and internal administration of the Labour Party. He relied on an earlier consent judgment delivered on 20 March 2018 and challenged a purported National Executive Council meeting held at Minna on 9 October 2018, a purported National Convention held on 10 June 2019, and a further National Executive Council meeting held in Benin City on 29 March 2021.

Okafor sought declarations that those meetings and the decisions taken at them violated the earlier consent judgment and the Labour Party Constitution. He also sought injunctions restraining persons allegedly appointed or elected at the meetings from parading themselves as party officers, an order directing INEC not to recognise them, and an order appointing him as acting National Chairman of the Labour Party.

When the matter came before the Federal High Court on 16 June 2022, the appellant, who was a defendant, requested 30 days to file his counter-affidavit. The trial court refused the request and directed him to file within seven days, adjourning the matter to 30 June 2022. Dissatisfied with that order, the appellant appealed. In the course of determining the appeal, the Court of Appeal considered the competence of the underlying action and the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court.

Issues

1. Whether the subject matter of the respondent’s suit, being concerned with the internal affairs and leadership of a political party, was within the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court and justiciable under the Constitution.
2. Whether the trial court could abridge the time for filing a counter-affidavit.
3. Whether the trial court had jurisdiction to interpret a consent judgment delivered by a court of coordinate jurisdiction.
4. Whether the suit was incompetent because of procedural defects, including matters relating to service and the chosen procedure.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that jurisdiction is fundamental and is ordinarily determined by examining the claimant’s claims and reliefs. Where the claims fall outside the subject-matter jurisdiction of the court, the proceedings are a nullity, regardless of how carefully they are conducted. The court further held that a jurisdictional objection may be raised at any stage of proceedings, including for the first time on appeal, and may even be raised by the court suo motu where appropriate.

The court concluded that the claims were purely intra-party disputes concerning the appointment, election and recognition of Labour Party officials. They did not constitute a pre-election matter within section 285(14)(a)–(c) of the 1999 Constitution, nor did they fall within the statutory circumstances permitting judicial intervention in party primaries or the nomination of candidates for public elections. Consequently, the dispute was non-justiciable and the Federal High Court lacked jurisdiction.

The court also held that a judgment of a court cannot be interpreted or reviewed by another court of coordinate jurisdiction through an originating summons. Any challenge to, or enforcement of, an existing judgment must be pursued through the proper enforcement procedure or before the appropriate appellate court. A subsisting judgment remains binding until set aside on appeal, and parties affected by it must obey it even if they consider it erroneous.

Court Findings

The Court rejected the argument that the jurisdictional issue was incompetent because no preliminary objection had been filed at the trial court. It held that the absence of a preliminary objection did not prevent the appellant from raising jurisdiction on appeal. Although the 1st respondent failed to substantively answer the jurisdictional objection in his brief, the court stressed that such failure does not automatically establish the opposing party’s case; the court must still examine the argument on its merits.

The court found that the relief seeking Okafor’s appointment as acting National Chairman demonstrated that the action was directed at determining the internal leadership of the Labour Party. Political parties are voluntary associations, and questions concerning their domestic organisation and leadership are generally matters for the party itself, subject only to legally recognised exceptions. The court relied particularly on Onuoha v. Okafor, All Progressives Congress v. Moses and Akinremi v. Suleiman.

Having found the suit incompetent, the court declined to determine the remaining issues concerning the abridgment of time, interpretation of the consent judgment and service. Those issues had become academic because they could no longer affect the outcome. The court additionally observed that instituting a fresh action to obtain interpretation or enforcement of an existing judgment amounted to an abuse of judicial process.

Conclusion

The appeal was allowed. The order of the Federal High Court directing the appellant to file his counter-affidavit within seven days was set aside. In its place, the Court of Appeal struck out Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/1636/2021 for incompetence and awarded costs of N500,000 against the 1st respondent in favour of the appellant.

Significance

The decision reinforces the strict limits of judicial intervention in the internal affairs of Nigerian political parties. It distinguishes constitutionally recognised pre-election disputes from contests over party leadership and administration. It also confirms that competence is not a mere technicality that may be disregarded in the pursuit of substantial justice: competence is the foundation of adjudication. Finally, the judgment emphasises that a court of coordinate jurisdiction cannot sit on appeal over another decision of the same level, and that litigants must use established enforcement or appellate procedures rather than commence duplicative proceedings.