Court lacks jurisdiction where plaintiff has no locus standi

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA
HOLDEN AT ABUJA
ON FRIDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2016
BEFORE THEIR LORDSHIPS

SULEIMAN GALADIMA JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
JOHN I. OKORO JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
OLUKAYODE ARIWOOLA JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
K.M.O. KEKERE-EKUN JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
AMIRU SANUSI JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
SC. 565/2014
BETWEEN:
1. CHIEF MAXI OKWU
2. CHIEF DICKSON OGU……………………………….. APPELLANTS
(Suing for themselves and all other National Officers elected at the National Convention of APGA held at the Women Development Centre, Awka on the 8th day of April 2013).
AND
1. CHIEF VICTOR UMEH
2. ALHAJI SANI A. SHINKAFI………………. ……… RESPONDENTS
(For themselves and on behalf of the members of the National working Committee elected on the 18th day of February, 2011 at the convention held at the Women Development Centre, Awka, on the 8th day of April, 2013).
3. COMRADE IBRAHIM CAREFOR
4. DR. GBENGA AFENI
5. ALHAJI ABUBAKAR ADAMA
6. INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION

That it is trite that when a plaintiff has been found not to have the standing to sue or locus standi as in the instant case, the question whether other issues in the case had been properly decided or not does not arise. The correct position of the law therefore is that where a Plaintiff is held to lack the locus standi to maintain his action, the finding goes to the jurisdiction of the court and it denies it jurisdiction to determine the action. So held the Supreme Court in a leading judgment of John I. Okoro(JSC) with his learned brothers Suleiman Galadima Olukayode Ariwoola, K.M.O. Kekere- Ekun, and Amiru Sanusi (JJSC) concurring while dismissing the appeal. The parties were represented by G. S. Paul (SAN), with Obi Maduabuchi Esq. Bello L. Ibrahim Esq, Kenechukwu Maduka Esq, V.M.G. Pwul Esq, A.A. Nyam Esq, Adewale Odeleye Esq, Oluwatosin Odeleke Esq, and P. E. Okoye Esq, for the Appellant. P. I. N. Ikwueto (SAN), with C. I. Mbaneri Esq, Isaiah Bozimo Esq, C. Ogbuefi Esq and N. Odumegwu for the 1st and 2nd Respondents. Rahimatu Aminu for the 6th Respondent.
JUDGMENT

This is an appeal against the judgment of the court of Appeal, Abuja Division delivered on the 18thday of June 2014 wherein the appeal of the present 1st and 2nd Respondents against the judgment of Kafarati, J, of the Federal High Court Abuja was allowed and the judgment of the trial federal high court set aside. A synopsis of the facts will suffice.

Briefly, the record of appeal shows that the 1st and the 2nd Respondents were the National Chairman and National secretary of the All Progressive Grand Alliance (APGA) from the year 2006. At the meeting of the National Executive Committee of APGA held on the 1st December, 2010, it was resolved that the tenure of the reconstituted members of the National Working Committee be renewed for another four years. On the 10th February 2011, the tenure of the Appellants was extended by a motion for another four years in a convention of APGA.

As of the 10th February 2011, the 1st Appellant was not a member of APGA having been expelled from the party in 2005. On his return to the party in February, 2013, he was issued with a new membership card No. 94811 signed by the 1st and 2nd Respondents as National Chairman and Secretary of APGA respectively.

By another convention of the party held on the 8th day of April 2013, the 1st Appellant and the others were elected as members of the National Working Committee of APGA. The Appellants instituted an action by way of Originating Summons in respect of the election of the 1st and 2nd Respondents in the convention of 10th February 2011 at the Federal High Court. The 1st and 2nd Respondents filed a notice of preliminary objection challenging the jurisdiction of the trial court. The learned trial judge determined the preliminary objection and the originating summons together. He overruled the preliminary objection and granted the reliefs sought by the Appellants in the originating summons.

Dissatisfied with the stance of the trial judge, the Respondents herein (as Defendants at the trial court) appealed to the lower court, which after a careful consideration of issues placed before it allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment of the learned trial judge.

Also, being dissatisfied with the judgment of the court below, the Appellants have appealed to this court via notice of appeal filed on the 12th December, 2014. The five issues formulated by the Appellants for the determination of this appeal are as follows:Whether the Court of Appeal was right when it overruled the preliminary objection of the Appellants challenging in effect the validity of the appeal of the 1st and 2nd Respondents to the Court of Appeal (Culled from grounds 1 and 2).What is the effect of the non-joinder of a party to an action particularly when the party not joined has not complained against such joinder. (grounds 5 & 11).

Whether the Court of Appeal was right when it held that the 1st Appellant did not have the locus standi to bring the action when:
He had enough interest in the suit since he was complaining to the duly elected National Chairman of the party as against the 1st Respondent.
The action was brought in a representative capacity and was not in his personal action. (Culled from ground 3 & 4).

Whether the judgement of the court of appeal in the suit no CA/E/84/2013 Umeh v. Ejike decided any other thing apart from deciding that the plaintiff in that suit did not have locus standi to present the action and when none of the issues presented to the court of trial and the Court of Appeal in this suit were decided in that appeal by the court of Appeal Enugu Division (grounds 10 & 12).Whether the court of appeal properly appreciated the case of the parties as presented to it before the arriving at its decision, grounds 6, 7, 8, 9, 13, 14, 15&16.

However the learned senior counsel for the 1st and 2nd Respondents has submitted three issues for the determination of this appeal as follows:-
Whether the court of appeal rightly dismissed the preliminary objection of the Appellants challenging the competence of some grounds of the 1st and 2nd Respondents’ appeal to the Court of Appeal.

Whether the court of appeal rightly held that the trial court has no jurisdiction to determine the suit (grounds 3, 4, 5, 6, 11, and 16).
Whether the court of appeal properly appreciated the case of the parties before arriving at its decision. (Grounds 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14 and 15).
I shall determine this appeal based on the issues formulated by the Appellants. However I shall first resolve Appellants’ issue two and three and issue two in the 1st Respondents’ brief together. The three issues have to do with jurisdiction and being a threshold issue has to be decided first.
On the 2nd issue the learned counsel for the Appellants submitted that the non-joinder of necessary parties does not defeat an action.That it neither affects the potency of the action nor the jurisdiction of the court to determine the case as between the parties actually before the court. Authorities cited Azu v. UBN Plc (2014) 5 S. C. (Pt. II) 112.

Referring to the questions submitted for the determination by the learned trial judge, the learned senior counsel submitted that he could not appreciate how the presence or absence of APGA will help resolve the said question. Learned senior counsel does not also appreciate how the absence of APGA will impede a just and effectual resolution of the issue

It was the further submission of the learned senior counsel that the 1st and 2nd Respondents do not have the legal vires to protest the non-inclusion of APGA as a party to the proceedings. That only APGA can complain. That of the three types of parties recognized i.e. necessary parties, desirable parties and normal parties; APGA may be regarded as a desirable party to join in the proceeding. According to him, they may have let its name just be there, but not imperative. He relies on the cases of Peenok Investment Ltd. V. Hotel Presidential Ltd. (1982) 12 S.C (Reprint) 1, Green v. Green (1987) 7 S.C (Pt. 11) (Reprint) 108.

On the 3rd issue, learned senior counsel submitted that it is unfortunate than the lower court held that the 1st Appellant did not have locus standi to bring the action since he was not a member of APGA in 2010 when the 1st and 2nd Respondent were re-elected National Chairman and Secretary of APGA respectively. According to him, nobody questioned the validity of the convention of 10/2/2010 which produced the 1st and 2nd Respondent, having been suspended, could still occupy their offices. Learned senior counsel opined that the only question which relate to the 2010 Convention are as to whether the said convention satisfied Article 18(4) of APGA Constitution and whether a motion which produced the 1st and 2nd Respondents equate to an election of the National Executive Committee of the party.

It was further argued that the 1st Appellant has the locus standi to bring the action since he claim to be the authentic National Chairman of APGA which was pleaded by him. He refers to the case of: Bakare v. Ajose-Adeogun (2014) 1 S.C. (Pt.II) 1. He contended that in the instant case, the pleading is the affidavit since the matter was commenced by originating summons. Referring to some paragraphs of the affidavit in support of the originating summons, it was argued that the Appellant have sufficient interest to bring the suit.