Democratic Party (PDP) failed to comply with Article 14 (a) of its party guidelines in arriving at its choice of the 3rd Respondent as its candidate for the said election thereby giving- the court jurisdiction to inquire into the alleged non- compliance to ascertain the claim or otherwise. He urged the court to resolve this issue in the appellant's favour. In response, CHIEF GADZAMA, SAN, learned Senior counsel for the 1st and 2nd respondents submitted that the lower court rightly held that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the appellant's (then plaintiff's) originating summons and that the orders made by that court were incompetent. He submitted that the PDP Electoral Guidelines for Primary Election 2010 (henceforth referred to as the 1st respondent's guidelines) in their entirety are regulatory provisions for the eligibility and qualification of aspirants to participate in and contest the party's gubernatorial primary election. He submitted that it is an intra-party matter over which the Federal High Court had no jurisdiction. He submitted that the wordings of Section 87 (9) of the Electoral Act are unambiguous and must therefore be given their natural and literal interpretation or meaning. He referred to: Uwazurike Vs Nwachukwu (2013) 2 NWLR (supra) @ 528 F. He submitted that by the ordinary, literal and natural meaning of Section 87(9) of the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended) the courts have jurisdiction to entertain complaints of aggrieved aspirants arising from the conduct of primary elections but only when there was non-compliance with the provisions of the Act or Electoral Guidelines and not in respect of any other issue or matter that may arise from the provisions of the political party's electoral guidelines or constitution, such as the eligibility of an aspirant to contest the primary election, as was the case at the trial court.
Democratic Party (PDP) failed to comply with Article 14 (a) of its party guidelines in arriving at its choice of the 3rd Respondent as its candidate for the said election thereby giving- the court jurisdiction to inquire into the alleged non- compliance to ascertain the claim or otherwise. He urged the court to resolve this issue in the appellant's favour. In response, CHIEF GADZAMA, SAN, learned Senior counsel for the 1st and 2nd respondents submitted that the lower court rightly held that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the appellant's (then plaintiff's) originating summons and that the orders made by that court were incompetent. He submitted that the PDP Electoral Guidelines for Primary Election 2010 (henceforth referred to as the 1st respondent's guidelines) in their entirety are regulatory provisions for the eligibility and qualification of aspirants to participate in and contest the party's gubernatorial primary election. He submitted that it is an intra-party matter over which the Federal High Court had no jurisdiction. He submitted that the wordings of Section 87 (9) of the Electoral Act are unambiguous and must therefore be given their natural and literal interpretation or meaning. He referred to: Uwazurike Vs Nwachukwu (2013) 2 NWLR (supra) @ 528 F. He submitted that by the ordinary, literal and natural meaning of Section 87(9) of the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended) the courts have jurisdiction to entertain complaints of aggrieved aspirants arising from the conduct of primary elections but only when there was non-compliance with the provisions of the Act or Electoral Guidelines and not in respect of any other issue or matter that may arise from the provisions of the political party's electoral guidelines or constitution, such as the eligibility of an aspirant to contest the primary election, as was the case at the trial court.
jbd_judgements_supreme_court_nicholas_c_uchachukwu_vs._peoples_democratic_party__3ors.docx