Background
The appellant, Udo Brownson Ekeminua, claimed to have won the primary election conducted within the All Progressives Congress (APC) for the Onna Constituency in Akwa Ibom State, monitored by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC). However, the APC forwarded the name of the 1st respondent, Eno James Akpan, as its candidate for the general election. The appellant filed an action seeking declaratory relief to be recognized as the valid candidate.
The 1st and 2nd respondents contended that the primary election that produced the 1st respondent as candidate was the authentic election conducted by the recognized party authorities and that the appellant lacked locus standi to challenge it. The trial court dismissed the appellant's suit on the ground that he lacked locus standi to institute the action.
The appellant appealed against the dismissal asserting that he was entitled to bring the action as an aspirant and that the trial court erred in its determination.
Issues
- Whether the appellant had locus standi to institute the action at the trial court.
- Whether there was any evidence to entitle the 1st respondent to the judgment of the trial court.
Ratio Decidendi
The Court of Appeal emphasized that locus standi is the legal capacity of a party to sue and be heard, which is a condition precedent to determination on the merits. The court examined relevant provisions of the Electoral Act 2022, including sections 29(5), 84(14), and 152, alongside section 285(14) of the 1999 Constitution, defining who is vested with locus standi in pre-election matters.
The court held that an aspirant, as defined by the Election laws, must have participated in the accredited primary election to have locus standi to challenge the candidate chosen by the party. The appellant did not participate in the primary election that produced the 1st respondent as the candidate and thus lacked the legal capacity to institute the suit. Consequently, the trial court correctly held it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
Court Findings
- The appellant purchased pre-qualification forms and claimed to have emerged from a separate factional primary monitored by INEC, but this primary was not recognized as the authentic primary election by the party’s National Working Committee.
- The trial court’s judgment that the appellant lacked locus standi was affirmed, based on the fact that he did not meet the statutory criteria as an aspirant under the Electoral Act and Constitution.
- The Court of Appeal struck out grounds of appeal from which no issue was distilled and affirmed that grounds not properly raised or supported are abandoned.
- Given the lack of jurisdiction due to no locus standi, it was unnecessary to consider other issues raised on merit.
Conclusion
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appellant's appeal for being devoid of merit and affirmed the trial court's decision to strike out the appellant's action for want of jurisdiction due to lack of locus standi. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs.
Significance
This case reinforces the fundamental legal principle that locus standi is a threshold issue and must be established before a court can entertain substantive claims. Specifically, in pre-election disputes under Nigerian law, only aspirants who participated or ought to have participated in accredited party primaries have the legal capacity to file electoral challenges. This case clarifies the application of the Electoral Act 2022 and the 1999 Nigerian Constitution sections concerning locus standi, contributing to electoral jurisprudence and the maintenance of party discipline in candidate selection processes.