SENATOR ABUBAKAR SADDIQ YARDUA. V. SENATOR ABDU UMAR YANDOMA

Issue:

On the 13th of January 2011, the Confess for Progressive Change (CPC), a political party (as it then was), through its National Secretarial held a primary election for all the available offices for the April 2011 election in Katsina State. The appellants contested the said primary elections among other persons and emerged victorious in their different Senatorial districts and Federal Constituencies. Accordingly, the National Headquarters of the party submitted their names to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) as the candidates sponsored by their political party for the Senatorial as well as the Federal House of Representatives elections in Katsina State. These facts were stated in paragraphs 4 - 9 of the 5th - 15th respondent's (now appellants) counter affidavit with Exhibit "A" being the letter forwarding the names of the party's candidate to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC). On its own part, INEC acknowledged receipt of the names of the party's candidate vide INEC form CF001 which was Exhibit "B" to the 5th – 15th respondents' (now appellant) counter affidavit. Aggrieved by the turn of events, the 1st- 10th respondents, as plaintiffs, filed suit no: FHC/ABJ/CS/126/11 between: Lado & 42 Ors v CPC &. Ors before the Federal High Court presided over by Kafarati J wherein they claimed inter alia that they were validly nominated candidates of the party as according to them they won the primaries conducted on the 15th January 2011 by the Katsina State Congress of the party. At the trial, the Federal High Court entered judgment in their favour and directed INEC to place their names on the ballot for the April 2011 election and consequently removed the names of the persons who won the primary that was organized by the National Headquarters who had their names submitted by the said National Headquarters. Aggrieved by the said decision the appellants appealed to the Court of Appeal which court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment of the trial court. Again dissatisfied with the decision the 1st - 10th respondents appealed to the Supreme Court which apex court held that the trial court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and so both judgments of the two courts below were null and void for the absence of jurisdiction. It was after the Ruling of the Supreme Court that the present 1st - 10th respondents went to the Federal High Court submitting the questions for determination which were restated above.