site logo

SAMUEL V. ALL PROGRESSIVES CONGRESS (2023)

case summary

Supreme Court of Nigeria

Before Their Lordships:

  • Mohammed Lawal Garba JSC
  • Helen Moronkeji Ogunwumiju JSC
  • Ibrahim Mohammed Musa Saulawa JSC
  • Adamu Jauro JSC
  • Emmanuel Akomaye Agim JSC

Parties:

Appellant:

  • Prince Kolawole Joshua Matthew

Respondents:

  • Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC)
  • All Progressives Congress (APC)
Suit number: SC/CV/1482/2022Delivered on: 2023-09-25

Background

This case revolves around a legal challenge surrounding a primary election conducted by All Progressives Congress (APC) for the nomination of its candidate for the Federal House of Assembly. The appellant, Prince Kolawole Joshua Matthew, alleged that the candidate declared the winner, the 3rd respondent, submitted false information regarding his qualifications for election. Subsequently, the appellant sought declaratory reliefs from the Federal High Court, claiming disqualification of the 3rd respondent.

Issues

The key issues in the case were:

  1. Whether the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act (Cap. S.6) is applicable to the Federal High Court.
  2. Whether the appellant's original summons was competent given the failure to abide by the requirements of section 97 of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act.
  3. Fiscal jurisdiction of the trial court given a potential statutory bar.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court, led by Jauro JSC, primarily addressed the applicability of section 97 of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act. It held that this section does not apply to the Federal High Court, allowing for originating processes to be validly filed without endorsement for service outside jurisdiction.

Court Findings

The Supreme Court affirmed that the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court extends throughout Nigeria, and that the procedural requirements under the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act regarding originating processes did not apply to this court. The court also pointed out that the trial court lacked jurisdiction due to the elapsed time for the matter to be heard under section 285 of the Constitution, leading to the striking out of the case.

Conclusion

Ultimately, while the court resolved the issue regarding the applicability of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act in favor of the appellant, it could not address the substantive issues of the case due to the jurisdictional constraints. The Supreme Court concluded that the appeal was deemed incompetent and thus was struck out.

Significance

This case sets a significant precedent regarding the jurisdictional parameters of the Federal High Court, clarifying the applicability of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act. It elucidates the importance of adhering to statutory timeframes in challenging electoral processes, emphasizing the procedural rigor expected in electoral litigation.

Counsel:

  • Ayotunde Ogunleye, Esq. (Appellant)
  • Funsho Boluromi, Esq. (1st Respondent)
  • Mohammed Kabiru Usman, Esq. (2nd Respondent)
  • Yakubu Philomen, Esq. (3rd Respondent)