LawPavilion Online


Back

ALL PROGRESSIVES GRAND ALLIANCE v. DR. VICTOR IKE OYE & ORS

(2018) LPELR-45196(SC)

In The Supreme Court of Nigeria

On Friday, the 13th day of July, 2018

SC.718/2017


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

ALL PROGRESSIVES GRAND ALLIANCE - Appellant(s)

AND

1. DR. VICTOR IKE OYE
2. INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION (INEC)
3. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
4. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE ENUGU STATE
5. COMRADE MIKE ALIOKE - Respondent(s)


Other Citations

; ;


Summary

INTRODUCTION:
This appeal borders on Civil Procedure.
FACTS:
This is an appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal, Enugu, upturning the decision of the High Court
The 1st Respondent, who had occupied the position of the National Chairman of the Appellant (A.P.G.A.) was suspended from acting in that capacity on ground of misconduct. Subsequently, the National Working Committee (N.W.C.) of the Appellant appointed one Hon. Ozo Nwabueze as Acting National Chairman. Hon. Nwabueze died and one Chief Martin Agbaso was adopted on 30th January 2017, as Acting National Chairman of the Appellant. ???The 3rd Respondent refused to recognize the adoption of Chief Martin Agbaso as Acting National Chairman of the Appellant. Due to this development, an application for order of Mandamus to compel the 2nd-4th Respondents to recognize the appointment of Chief Martin Agbaso as Acting National Chairman of the Appellant was filed on 21st April 2017, by the 5th Respondent purportedly acting on behalf of the Appellant.
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 filed a Notice of Appeal against the decision of the trial Court. Also filed along with the Notice of Appeal was an application for leave to appeal as an interested party against the decision of the trial Court. The 1st Respondent filed a similar application before the Court of Appeal. Appellant filed a counter affidavit to the 1st Respondent's application. The Court of Appeal heard the application and granted leave to the 1st Respondent to appeal against the judgment of the trial Court as an interested party. Prior to this, the 1st Respondent had filed a Motion on Notice before the Court of Appeal, praying for an order granting leave to the 1st Respondent to compile and transmit the Record of Appeal and to deem the said Record of Appeal as properly compiled and transmitted.

The Appellant, being dissatisfied with the two decisions of the appellate Court, appealed to the Supreme Court.

ISSUES:
The issues for determination are:
"(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:
In conclusion, the appeal was dismissed.


Read Full Judgment