Oguebego and Another v Peoples Democratic Party and Others (SC.37/2015) [2016] NGSC 58 (28 January 2016)

JUDGMENT
(Delivered by JOHN INYANG OKORO, JSC)
 
This is an appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal Abuja Division delivered on the 6th of February, 2015.

In it, the lower court allowed the appeal of the 1st Respondent herein from the judgment of the Federal High Court, Abuja Division presided over by E. S. Chukwu, I, delivered on the 15th day of December, 2014. In order to appreciate the issues thrown up for the determination of this appeal, an understanding of the complicated facts of this case is sine qua non. I shall, as much as is practicable, summarize the facts as can be gleaned from the three volumes of the record of appeal.

The Anambra State Executive Committee of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP for short), led by the 1st appellant was elected into office on the 7th day of March, 2012 at the State congress election convened for that purpose. The election was duly monitored by the Independent National Electoral Commission.   The said Commission later wrote Exhibit E found on pages 33 -34 of Volume I of the record of appeal recognizing both I he congress and the executive committee emerging therefrom.
 
However, sometime in March, 2012, one Emma Mbamalu, alleging himself to be the Acting Chairman of the PDP, commenced an action at the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory in Suit No. FCT/CV/263'I./2012 - Emma Mbamalu Vs PDP, to which none of the members of the 1st appellant's led state executive committee of the PDP was joined. Judgment was entered in favour of the Plaintiff in that suit nullifying PDP Wards, local government and state congresses held on 3rd and 7th, 10th and 17th March, 2012 respectively. No order was however made against the Ejike Oguebego - led Anambra State Executive, not having made parties to the case. Records show that even when the appellants herein sought to join in the said suit as parties likely to be affected or interested party, the said court refused their application, stating that they had no interest in the matter as constituted.

When, an attempt was made by certain elements in the PDP to recognize one Ken Emeakayi (a former State Executive Chairman of PDP Anambra State Chapter), and his associates as the authentic PDP Executive Committee for Anambra State, the 1st and 2nd appellants herein, as members of the INEC-recognized Ejike Oguebego - led executive committee filed an action (during the annual vacation) at the Port Harcourt Judicial Division of the Federal High Court in Suit No. FHC / PH/ CS/ 213/2014     now    Suit No. FHC/ AWK/CS/247/2014. The action was brought in representative capacity such that all the members of the Anambra PDP Executive Committee were parties to the case.

On 12th September, 2013, the Federal High Court, presided over by Hon. Justice H.A. Ngajiwa ordered the PDP to maintain the status quo ante helium, which is that the Ejike Oguebego–led State Executive Committee is the authentic PDP Anambra State Executive. Part of the order of the said court can be found on pages 22 - 24 of Volume 1 of the record of appeal as follows:
 
of PDP, Anambra State Chapter, the present appellants being persons affected by the said act of the 1st respondent, approached the Federal High Court by way of an originating summons dated and filed on the 17th of November, 2014, presented the following questions for determination, namely:

1.    Whether in view of the subsisting and binding order of interlocutory injunction made by this Honourable Court in Suit    No. FHC/PH/CS/213/2013) (no Suit No. FHC/AVVK/CS/247/2013) - Ejike Oguebego & 2 Ors VS. Peoples' Democratic Party & Anor (which order and suit is also subject of pending appeal before the Port Harcourt judicial Division of the Court of Appeal in Suit No. CA/PH/764/2013 - Peoples' Democratic Party VS. Ejike Oguebego & 3 Ors) the 1st Defendant can validly set up a caretaker committee to run, or oversee the affairs or conduct any delegate election or primaries of the Peoples' Democratic Party, Anambra State Chapter.

2.    Whether the caretaker committee set up by the 1st
"That the 1st and 2nd defendants are hereby ordered to
 recognize and deal with the plaintiffs in all election
 matters in Anambra state pending the hearing and
 determination of the substantive matter.”                    

The 1st respondent herein appealed against the said order of the Federal High Court to the Court of Appeal in Appeal No. CA/PH/764/2013.   The notice of appeal can he found at pages 25 - 28 of Volume I of the record of appeal.   As at the time this appeal was taken, that appeal was still pending before the Court of Appeal.

Mr. Ken Emeakanyi commenced another action in the Federal High Court, Abuja in Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/680/2014 claiming to still be the Chairman of PDF Anambra State Chapter. The said suit was dismissed by E. S. Chukwu, J. of the Federal High Court Abuja.

When the 1st respondent, during the pendency of the orders of the Federal High Court and Exhibit E written by INEC, set up a caretaker committee to run the affairs
 
Defendant is not an illegal and unconstitutional body when the tenure of the Ejike Oguebego led state executive committee is still subsisting functioning and duly recognized by the court and the 2nd Defendant.

3. Whether the acts, decisions and any delegate list or nominated candidates that may emanate from the congresses and primaries conducted by the caretaker committee set up by the 1st defendant is not illegal, invalid, unconstitutional and therefore null and void and of no effect whatsoever nor can the said list be used for any purpose for the conduct of the 2015 general election.

3.    Whether the defendants in this case are not bound to recognize and accept the list of delegates and nominate candidates that may emanate from the congresses and primaries conducted by the Plaintiff in this case.

The plaintiffs then sought the following reliefs from the Federal High Court, namely:

1.    A DECLARATION that the 1st defendant cannot legally and validly set up a caretaker committee or any other body whatsoever when the order of interlocutory
Injunction made by this Honourable Court in Suit No. FHC/PWCS/213/2013 now Suit No. FHC/AWK/CS/247/2Q13 - Ejike Oguebego & 2 Ors. VS. Peoples' Democratic Party & 1 Or (which order and suit is also subject of pending appeal before the Port Harcourt Judicial Division of the Court of Appeal in CA/PH/764/2013 - Peoples' Democratic Party VS Ejike Oguebego & 3 Ors) is still subsisting and subject of an appeal.

2.    A DECLARATION that the caretaker committee set up by the 1st defendant is an illegal and unconstitutional body when the tenure of the Ejike Oguebego led state executive committee is still subsisting, functioning and duly recognized by the court and the 2nd defendant.
 
3.    A DECLARATION that the acts, decisions and any delegate list or nominated candidates that may emanate from the congresses and primaries conducted by the caretaker committee set up by the 1st defendant is illegal, invalid, unconstitutional and therefore null and void and of no effect whatsoever nor can the said list be used for any purpose for the conduct of the 2015 general election with regard to the Peoples' Democratic Party, Anambra State Chapter.

4.    AN ORDER OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT that the defendants in this case are bound to recognize and accept the list of and nominated candidates that may emanate from the congresses and primaries conducted by the plaintiff in this case.

5. AN ORDER OF PERPETUAL INJUNCTION restraining the 2nd defendant, its agents, servants, privies, assigns, officials whatsoever name they may be called from accepting or receiving any delegates list or nominated candidates that may emerge from the congresses or primaries conducted by the caretaker committee set up by the 1st defendant for the Peoples' Democratic Party, Anambra State Chapter except those that emanate from the Plaintiffs.
 
After full trial and fully hearing the parties and considering the totality of the evidence before it, the trial court granted the reliefs sought in the following terms as contained at pages 851 -853 of Volume 2 of the record of appeal, as follows:-

1.    It is  hereby  ordered  that  the  purported caretaker committee  or Ad-hoc Committee set up  by  the 1st defendant during the subsistence and pendency of this suit is illegal, null and void.

2. It is further ordered that any delegate list or nominated candidates that emanate from the congresses and primaries conducted by the caretaker Committee or Ad-hoc Committee set up by the 1st defendant during the pendency and subsistence of this suit is illegal, invalid, unconstitutional, abuse of court process, null and void and cannot he used for any purpose.

3.  The 1st defendant, agents and privies are hereby restrained from forwarding, sending or submitting to the 2nd defendant any delegates' list or nominated candidates that may emerge from the congresses or primaries conducted by the Caretaker Committee set up by the 1st defendant for the PDP.

4.    That the 1st defendant, its agents, servants, privies are restrained from forwarding, sending or submitting to the 2nd defendant any delegates list or nominated candidates that may emerge from the congresses or primaries conducted by the purported caretaker committee set up by the 1st defendant for the Peoples' Democratic Party, Anambra State Chapter except those that emanate from the plaintiffs' congresses and primaries election.

5.    That the 2"d defendant, its agents, servants, privies, assigns, officials whatsoever name they may be called are restrained front accepting or receiving any delegate list or nominated candidates that may emerge from the congresses or primaries conducted by the caretaker committee set up by the 1st defendant for the Peoples' Democratic Party Anambra State Chapter except those that emanate from the plaintiffs.
 
6.    
7.   

8.    That the 1st defendant Peoples' Democratic Party by the purported appointment of a caretaker committee to oversee, run the affairs and conduct elections for the Peoples' Democratic Party, Anambra State Chapter is in flagrant disobedience and contempt of the Order of this Honourable Court made by Hon. justice E. S. Chukwu on the 10th day of October, 2014 and re-affirmed on the 24th in Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/680/2014 - Ken Emeakayi VS Peoples' Democratic Party & Ors.

Dissatisfied with the judgment of the trial Federal High Court, the 1st respondent herein (as appellant) appealed against the said judgment. On 6th February, 2015, the Court of Appeal, Abuja Division set aside the judgment of the Federal High Court, hence, this appeal. Notice of appeal was filed on 10th February, 2015. This is contained in the supplementary record of appeal filed on 13th March, 2015. There are eight grounds of appeal contained in the said notice of appeal. In accordance with the rules or this court, parties filed and exchanged briefs except the 2nd respondent that did not file any brief. On 2nd November, 2015 when this appeal was heard, counsel for both parties adopted their various briefs.

In the brief of the appellants settled by Chief Chris Uche, SAN, leading other counsel, five issues are formulated for the determination of this appeal as follows:-

1. Whether the Court of Appeal was right in holding that
the trial judge should not have assumed jurisdiction over the subject matter of this case relating to the protection of the sanctity of the judicial process of which the 1st respondent was in contempt and also relating to an executive and/or administrative decision of the independent National Electoral Commission (Grounds 1 and 2)

 2. Whether the Court of Appeal was right to have held that the case of the appellants was an abuse of court process on the basis of another case that the appellants are not parties to.   (Ground 3)

3. Whether the Court of Appeal was competent to determine the issue of whether the case of the appellants was an abuse of court process on the basis of a point raised by the court suo motu and in respect of which the parties were not called upon to address the court.  (Ground 4)

4. Whether the cases of Okadigbo V. Emeka & others (2012) 18 NWLR (pt. 1331) 55 and Emenike V. PDP (2012) 18 NWLR (pt. 1315) have any relevance to the real issues that arose for determination before the Court of Appeal.   (Grounds 5 and 6).

5. Whether the case of the appellants was rightly commenced by originating summons. (Ground 7).

Chief Olusola Oke, of counsel for the 1st respondent, however submits that only two issues can determine this appeal. On page 13 of the 1st respondent's brief are the two issues stated as follows:

1. Whether the Court of Appeal was not right in its decision striking out appellant's suit on the ground that same was incompetent and that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to entertain it.

2. Was the Court of Appeal in error in applying the principle enunciated in the case of EMEKA V. OKADIGBO (2012) 18 NWLR (pt. 1315) in the resolution of issue of who between the 1st respondent's National Executive Committee and the State Chapter is clothed with authority to organize and conduct the 1st respondent’s primary elections and submit to the 2nd respondent 1st respondent's list of candidates.

The 3rd respondent through his senior counsel, Arthur Obi Okafor, SAN, has distilled three issues for determination.  The three issues are:

1.    Whether the court below was right in striking out the appellants’ action on the premises that the trial court had no jurisdiction to hear the matter.

 2. Whether the court below was not right in applying the cases of Emeka V. Okadigbo (2012) 18 NWLR (pt. 1,332) 55 and Emenike V. PDP (2012) 18 NWLR (pt. 1315) in resolving the issues that arose in the 1st respondent's appeal at the court below.

3.    Whether the court below was right in holding that the case of the appellants was not properly commenced, and determined under Originating Summons.

Before I take any further steps m this judgment, there are some preliminary issues to be determined. The 1st respondent filed notice of preliminary objection on page 10 of its brief of argument. The said notice of preliminary objection (without the particulars) states:

"NOTICE OF PRELIMINARY OBJECTION"

Take notice that the 1st respondent will before or at the hearing of the appeal raise and rely on preliminary objection, on point of law to urge this Honourable Court to strike out the appeal as incompetent on the ground that the purported Notice of appeal dated 10th February, 2015 is not before this court and that grounds 1 & 2 on which issue 1 was said to have arisen did not arise from the judgment of the lower court.

Now, on the first leg of the objection, it is unnecessary and a waste of precious judicial time to summarize the argument of parties on it as the said Notice of appeal is contained in the supplementary record of appeal filed on 13th March, 2015, the other three volumes of record, of appeal having been filed on 10dl March, 2015. So, there is no merit in the said ground of objection.

The other ground of objection is that grounds 1 & 2 of the grounds of appeal and issue No. 1 arising Therefrom do not arise from the judgment of the lower court. For ease of reference, I shall reproduce the two grounds of appeal complained of.  They state thus:

"Ground 1

The learned Justices of the Court of Appeal erred in law when they allowed the 1st respondent's appeal on the ground that the trial court lacked the jurisdiction to entertain the appellants' action.

Ground 2:

The learned Justices of the Court of Appeal erred in law when they held as follows:

“In this case, only the 3rd respondent is an agency of the Federal Government. The appellant (PDP) has been heId not to be an agency of the Federal Government. See PDP VS SYLVA supra. There is no deposition in the originating summons complaining against a decision or action of the 3rd respondent. Since the subject matter of the case (acts of the appellant) does not question the administrative action of the 3rd respondent, the lower court laid no jurisdiction to entertain the matter.”

Again, I find it difficult to agree with the learned counsel for the 1st respondent that these two grounds of appeal do not arise from the judgment of the Court of Appeal.
 It is trite that for a ground of appeal to be valid and competent, it must arise from and be traceable to the judgment appealed against and should constitute a challenge to the ratio of the decision on appeal. It is still good law that when a ground of appeal as formulated does not arise from the judgment and purports to raise and attack an issue not decided by the judgment appealed against, the same becomes incompetent and liable to be struck out. See Co-operative & Commerce Bank PLC & Anor. V. Jonah Dan Okoro Ekperi (2007) 3 NWLR (pt. 1022) 493.

However, that is not the situation here. Both grounds 1 & 2 relate positively and are traceable to the judgment of the lower court appealed against. To make the matter clearer, the portion of the judgment appealed against in ground 1 is even lifted from the judgment as pronounced. I am really surprised that the learned counsel for the 1st respondent raised this preliminary objection. The preliminary objection of the 1st respondent to the hearing of this appeal is hereby adjudged unmeritorious and is accordingly overruled.

There is yet another preliminary issue. The learned senior counsel for the 3rd respondent had filed a motion on notice praying for an order of this court to strike out paragraphs 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 3.5, 4.3, 4.4, 4.5, 4.7, 4.8, 5.2, T3, 5.4, 5.5, 5.6, 5.7, 5.8, 5.9, 5.10, 5.11, 5.12 and 5.13 of the appellants' reply brief of argument. According to learned counsel, these paragraphs are matters earlier dealt with by the appellants in their brief of argument. That the arguments in those paragraphs are made to beef up the appellants' argument in their brief.
 
The learned counsel for the appellant has not responded to the above objection. At least, I have searched the processes filed and I have not seen any response. Be that as it may, it is trite that a reply brief under the Rules of this court is not to afford an appellant another or further bite at the cherry or opportunity to provide additional arguments in support of an appeal, but to answer, reply or respond to any fresh or new points raised in the respondent's brief. This court in many decided cases has laid emphasis on when a reply brief is necessary and what it should address. A reply brief is filed when an issue of law or argument raised in the respondent's brief usually by way of preliminary objection calls for a reply. Where a reply brief is necessary, it should be limited to answering any new points arising from the respondent's brief. Although the filing of a reply brief is not mandatory, where a respondent brief raises issues or points of law not covered in the appellant's brief, an appellant ought to file a reply as failure to file one without an oral reply to the points raised in the respondent's brief may amount to a concession or admission of the points of law or issues raised in the respondent's brief. See Harka Air Services (Nig) Ltd V. Keazor Esq., (2011) LPELR - 1353 (SC), Fopoola v. Adeyemo (1992) 8 NWLR (pt. 257) 1, Longe V, FBN (2010) 6 NWLR (pt. 1189) I, Shuaibu V. Mailodu (1993) 3 NWLR (pt. 284) 748.

In the instant appeal, I have perused the reply brief filed by the learned senior counsel for the appellants particularly the paragraphs complained of and I say with certainty that I they do not offend any known rule governing reply briefs. They are, in my opinion modest responses to points of law and new issues raised in the 1st respondent's brief. Curiously, the 1st respondent whose brief is being replied to has not complained. The appellants did not file a reply brief to 3rd respondent's brief and yet the 3rd respondent has found umbrage in attacking the said reply brief which did not directly concern him. Be that as it may, the said prayer to strike out those paragraphs does not fly. The prayer is hereby refused as 1 hold that the said reply brief is proper and within the confines of the rules of this court. The two preliminary objections are accordingly, overruled.

Having determined all preliminary issues in this appeal, the coast is now clear for me to determine the appeal on its merit and that is why the parties are before us. I shall determine this appeal based on five issues distilled by the appellants.

Issue one has to do with the decision of the lower court that the trial Federal High Court lacked the jurisdiction to entertain this matter. Both the 1st and 3rd respondents also have this as their issue number one.

In his argument the learned senior counsel for the appellants submitted in the main that the decision of the lower court was arrived at in total misconception of the pith and substance of the case of the appellants at the Federal High. Court. It is his contention that the suit was not a claim brought under Section 87(9) of the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended) to complain about the conduct of primary election, nor was it a dispute over which organ of the political party that has the authority and competence to conduct primary election. According to him, the originating summons speaks for itself on what the case of the appellants was at the trial High Court.

After going memory lane by reiterating the facts of this case, senior counsel for the appellants submitted that the action instituted by the appellants in suit No. PHC/ ABJ/ CS/ 854/2014 was to challenge the constitutionality and legality of the appointment of a Caretaker Committee by the 1st respondent to take over the duties of the appellants contrary to the mandatory order of the Federal High Court commanding the 1st and 2nd respondents to deal with the appellants as Executive Committee of the party in Anambra State and in the face of the letter by INEC (2nd respondent) recognizing the appellants as  the authentic executive of  the 1st respondent Anambra State Chapter.

It is his contention that the Federal High Court has jurisdiction to protect the sanctity of its order as well as its processes and proceedings which the 1st respondent chose to disobey, relying on the cases of Rossek V. ACB ('1993) 8 NWLR (pt. 312) 382 at 471, Okoye & Ors V. Santili & Ors (1991) 7 NWLR (pt. 206) 753 at 770.

Referring to section 251(1) (r) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended), he submitted that there is nothing in the words used therein to suggest that a complaint has to be made against the Federal Government or its agency or that the decision of the Federal Government or its agency has to be challenged. It is his submission that upon a broad and purposive interpretation of the section, the jurisdiction, created encompasses where the benefiency of the executive or administrative decision of the Federal Government or its agency sues in order to protect that action or decision from infringement by any person, citing the cases of Ehuwa V. Ondo State INEC (2007) ALL FWLR (pt. 351) 1415 at 1448 pages E - H, DapiaJong & 5 Ors V. Dariye & Anor (2007) 4 SC (pt. 111) 118 at 176 - 177 lines 10 - 20.

Learned senior counsel submitted finally on the issue that if consideration is taken of reliefs 4 and 5 of the appellant's claims, it cannot be contended that the presence of the 2nd respondent (INEC) was cosmetic. That apart from complying with the order of the Federal High Court in Suit No. FHC/PH/213/2013, now Suit No. FHC/ AVVK/CS/247/2013, Ejike Oguebego & 2 Ors V. PDP & 3 Ors, INEC independently, in exercise of its statutory duties pursuant to Sections 85 and 86 of the Electoral Act, took a far reaching decision to recognize the appellants as PDP Executive in Anambra State. Referring to Exhibit E, the said letter of INEC, he opined that the Federal High Court had jurisdiction to entertain the matter contrary to the decision of the court below. He urged this court to resolve this issue in favour of the appellants.

In response to this issue, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent has thrown up many issues and arguments which appear to clog his case. Be that as it may, I shall wade through it to bring out those arguments relevant to the issue as to whether the court below was right to hold that the trial Federal High Court lacked the jurisdiction to determine the claims of the appellants.

After identifying eight reasons why the court below held that the trial Federal High Court did not have jurisdiction to try the case, learned counsel submitted that the appellants failed to attack these findings but busied themselves with what they perceive as the sacrosanct and immutability of the order of Nganjiwa, J

According to learned counsel, the judgment of Kekemeke, J., had nullified the election of the appellants and their attempt to appeal against it was rebuffed by the court which held that their committee did not exist in the eye of the law. He submitted that the suit the appellants filed, which gave rise to this appeal was an abuse of court process and that the court below was right to hold that the trial court lacked the jurisdiction to try the case, relying on the case of Adigun V. The Secretary, Iwo Local Government (1999) 8 NWLR (pt. 613) 30 at 38 paras E - G.

Furthermore, learned counsel submitted that the interlocutory order made by Nganjiwa, J. was a nullity since, according to him, it was given without jurisdiction.

Again, it was contended that the Federal High Court either under Section 251(1) (r) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) or Section 87(9) of the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended) is without jurisdiction to entertain a suit on the election of political parties, a matter in the domestic realm of a political party and thus not justiciable citing Onuoha V. Okafor (1983) 2 NCLR 244, Abdulkadir V. Yusuf Maman (2003) 14 NWLR (pt. 836) 1 and Pam V. ANPP (2008) 4 NWLR (pt. 1077) 224.

On the submission by the appellants that they were not bound by Kekemeke J’s judgment, learned counsel, relying on Section 173 of the Evidence Act, 2011 and the case of Alapo V. Agbokekere (2010) 9 NWLR (pt. 1199) 30 at 44, submitted that as members of the PDP, the appellants are its privies and are therefore bound by any judgment declaring a legal status against it.

Learned counsel submitted further that assuming but not conceding that the lower court wrongly applied the doctrine of estoppel per rem judicata, other grounds exist in the judgment that will sustain it. That it is not every slip in the judgment that will warrant it being set aside, relying on the cases of Ugwu V. State (2013) 14 NWLR (pt. 1374) 257 at 283, Eyiboh V. Abia (2012) 16 NWLR (pt. 1325) 51 at 82 - 83.

Finally, on the argument that it was the administrative function of INEC to recognize the Executive Committee led by the appellants, learned counsel submitted that it is not part of the duties of INEC to recognize state executive of a political party. Also that INEC cannot under the guise of executive or administrative decision, set aside the decision and/or order of a court. According to him, it is the principal relief that determines the jurisdiction of a court and not ancillary relief citing Ahmed V. Ahmed (2013) 15 NWLR (pt. 1377) 274 at 347 - 348. He opined that the case of Jev V. Iyortom (2014) 14 NWLR (pt. 1428) 575 cited by the appellants is inapplicable. He urged the court to resolve this issue in favour of the 1st respondent.

In his response on behalf of the 3rd respondent, the learned senior counsel, Arthur Obi Okafor, SAN, submitted that the appellants' contention that their suit is not a challenge as to who should conduct the party primaries and whose list of candidates should, be submitted to INEC is tenuous when considered in the light of the printed record. Referring to reliefs 4, 5 and 6 in the Originating Summons and the judgment of the trial court ceding to the reliefs sought, the learned senior counsel opines that the appellants are just Irving to make out a new case on appeal.

According to learned senior counsel, issues relating to conduct of party primaries or anticipated conduct of primaries are political questions within the internal affairs of a political party which are generally not justiciable except as provided for in Section 87 of the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended). He contended that the appellants failed to bring themselves within the purview of the said Section 87(9) of the Electoral Act, relying on Ukachukwu V. PDP & Ors (2014) 17 NWLR (Pt.1435) 134 at 201, Emenike V. PDP (2012) 12 NWLR (pt.1345) 556 at 598.

Just like the learned senior counsel for the 1st respondent, the learned senior counsel referred to kekemeke J. judgment, issue of abuse of court process and Section 287 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) and submitted that the court below was right to hold that the Federal High Court lacked the jurisdiction to hear the case. He then joined in urging this court to resolve this issue in favour the respondents.

Let me say from the outset that the facts leading to this appeal are a product of the struggle for the soul of the Peoples Democratic Party, Anambra State Chapter. As a result, many suits were filed by various contenders seeking the control of the executive committee of the state Chapter of the party. This appeal is an off-shoot of one of those suits. The sequence of events leading to the filing of the suit giving birth to this appeal clearly demarcate this matter from the many issues thrown up by the respondents which appear to make the appeal confusing.

There is no doubt that the Federal High Court in Suit No. F H.C/ PH / 213/2013, now Suit No. FHC/ AWK/CS/247/2013, on 12th September, 2013, made an interlocutory order to the effect that the PDP and INEC should recognize and deal with the Ejike Oguebego led State Executive Committee of the PDP, Anambra State Chapter in all election matters in. Anambra State. Dissatisfied, the PDP (1st respondent) herein filed an appeal against the said order in appeal No. CA/PH/764/2013. That appeal, the records show, is still pending.

On 23rd October, 2014, the 3rd respondent herein wrote Exhibit E, clearly, in obedience to the court order made by H. A. Nganjiwa, J on 12th September, 2013.
 
The content of Exhibit E is so important and I shall reproduce it as follows:

INEC/LEG/LM/AN/04/V/541      23rd October, 2014
Taiwo Abe & Co.
No.46 James Brown Street,
Garimpa, Abuja.

RE: CURRENT STATUS OF THE LEADERSHIP OF PEOPLES DEMOCRATIC PARTY IN ANAMBRA STATE

The Commission acknowledged receipt of your letter dated 20th October, 2014 and the enclosed certified true copy of court orders and originating process in Suit No. FHC/PH/CS/213/13 between Ejike Oguebego & 2 Ors VS. PDF & 3 Ors on the leadership of the Peoples Democratic Party in Anambra State.

The Commission monitored a State Congress of the Peoples Democratic Party in Anambra State at which Chief Ejike Oguebego was elected as chairman of the party in the state.

It is worthy of note that the Federal High Court, Port Harcourt Division in its Ruling of 12th September, 2013 in Suit No. FHC/PH/CS/213/13 between Ejike Oguebego & 2 Ors VS. PDP & 3