LawPavilion Online


Back

COMRADE MIKE ALIOKE v. DR. VICTOR IKE OYE & ORS

(2018) LPELR-45153(SC)

In The Supreme Court of Nigeria

On Friday, the 13th day of July, 2018

SC.717/2017


Before Their Lordships

OLABODE RHODES-VIVOUR Justice of The Supreme Court of Nigeria

MARY UKAEGO PETER-ODILI Justice of The Supreme Court of Nigeria

JOHN INYANG OKORO Justice of The Supreme Court of Nigeria

AMIRU SANUSI Justice of The Supreme Court of Nigeria

SIDI DAUDA BAGE Justice of The Supreme Court of Nigeria


Between

COMRADE MIKE ALIOKE - Appellant(s)

AND

1. DR. VICTOR IKE OYE
2. ALL PROGRESSIVES GRAND ALLIANCE
3. INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION (INEC)
4. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
5. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE ENUGU STATE - Respondent(s)


Other Citations

; ;


Summary

INTRODUCTION:
This appeal borders on Civil Procedure.
FACTS:
This is an appeal against the decisions of the Court of Appeal, sitting in Enugu delivered on 15th and 16th August 2017.
The 1st Respondent herein who had occupied the position of the National Chairman of the 2nd Respondent (APGA) was suspended from acting in that capacity on ground of misconduct. Subsequently, the National Working Committee (NWC) of the 2nd Respondent appointed one Hon. Ozo Nwabueze as Acting National Chairman. Unfortunately, Hon. Nwabueze died and one Chief Martin Agbaso was purportedly adopted on 30th January, 2017, as Acting National Chairman of the 2nd Respondent. 
???The 3rd Respondent refused to recognise the adoption of Chief Martin Agbaso as Acting National Chairman of the 2nd Respondent. Due to this development, an application for order of Mandamus to compel the 3rd to 5th Respondents to recognise the appointment of Chief Martin Agbaso as Acting National Chairman of the 2nd Respondent was filed on 21st April 2017, by the Appellant purportedly acting on behalf of the 2nd Respondent asking amongst others, for an order of Mandamus compelling the 3rd Respondent to accept and recognise the decision of the 2nd Respondent appointing one Chief Martin Agbaso as the Acting Chairman of the 2nd Respondent.
The 1st Respondent was neither joined as a party to the application for order of Mandamus nor was heard in the said application despite making copious references to his status, office and standing, as person to be affected directly by the outcome of the Mandamus application. The trial Court granted as prayed, the reliefs sought in paragraphs A,B, and C of the application. 
Following the order made by the trial Court, the 1st Respondent appealed to the Court of Appeal and filed along with the Notice of Appeal an application for leave to appeal as an interested party against the decision of the trial Court dated 16th June 2017.
The Appellant filed a counter affidavit to the 1st Respondent's application. The Court of Appeal heard the application on 10th July 2017, and overruled the Appellant's opposition and granted leave to the Respondent to appeal against the judgment of the trial Court as an interested party. In the said order, the Court of Appeal also deemed the Notice of Appeal dated and filed 20th June 2017, as properly filed and served. The Court 
made order for abridgement of time for parties to file their respective briefs given the nature of the subject matter of the order of Mandamus. The substantive appeal was heard on 15th August 2017, and the Court below delivered its judgment in the appeal on 16th August. Being dissatisfied with the judgment, the Appellant appealed to the Supreme Court.


 

ISSUES:
The appeal was determined on the following issues:-
"(1) Whether or not a miscarriage of justice has been occasioned by the lower Court in granting leave to the 1st Respondent to appeal as an interested party against the order for Mandamus made by the trial Court.
(2) Whether or not having been granted leave to appeal as an interested party, the 1st Respondent has a valid Notice of Appeal upon which the appeal against the Judgment of the trial Court dated 22nd May, 2017 was predicated."

DECISION/HELD:
On the whole, the Supreme Court held that the appeal lacked merit and it was dismissed. 


Read Full Judgment