➥ CASE SUMMARY OF:
Alhaji Yau Isa Mai Alewa V. Sokoto State Independent Electoral Commission (CA/K/63/03 • 17 Apr 2007)
by Branham Chima (LL.B.)
➥ SUBJECT MATTER(S)
Retrospective law;
Local government election;
Qualification for chairman.
➥ CASE FACT/HISTORY
The appellant in this appeal was elected chairman of Goronyo Local Government Council, Sokoto State sometime in 1990 and again in 1998. On 21/2/2000, the Governor of Sokoto State assented to a bill titled, Local Government Law, 2000, which the Sokoto State House of Assembly had hitherto passed into law. Section 13(4) of the Law provides: “No person shall be qualified for election to the office of chairman if he has been elected into such office at any two previous elections.” In April 2002, the appellant informed his party of his intention to contest the post of chairman, Goronyo Local Government once again on the expiration of his current term. He was advised by his party that pursuant to directives from the respondent (Sokoto State Independent Electoral Commission), he was not eligible to contest having regard to the provisions of section 13(4) of the Local Government Law, 2000. The respondent confirmed this position when the appellant wrote to it seeking clarification. Consequently, the appellant filed an originating summons against the respondent before the High Court of Sokoto State on 3/6/02 for the determination of the following questions: “1. Whether the application of the provision of section 13(4) of the Local Government Law, 2000 of Sokoto State (as amended) which came into force on the 21st day of February, 2000 is retroactive. 2. Whether the plaintiff who was elected as chairman of Goronyo Local Government Council of Sokoto State on two consecutive occasions prior to the coming into force of the Local Government Law, 2000 of Sokoto State (as amended) is a person affected by the disqualification spelt out in section 13(4) of the said Local Government Law, such that he is forthwith disqualified from being elected into the same office solely on that ground of disqualification.”
In a considered judgment delivered on 11/10/02 the learned trial Judge at page 29 of the printed record held as follows: “In conclusion, the main issue calling for determination having been considered and answered in the affirmative, the plaintiff is and hereby disqualified from contesting for the third time to the office of chairman Goronyo Local Government Council of Sokoto State. The disqualification is by virtue of the Local Government Law, 2000 prescribed under section 13(4) of same.” The appellant, aggrieved by the decision of the Sokoto State High Court, has appealed to this court by a notice of appeal dated 8/1/03 consisting of six grounds of appeal.
➥ ISSUE(S)
I. Whether upon the plain and grammatical meaning of the language used in section 13(4) of the Local Government Law, 2000 the appellant stands disqualified from contesting elections to the office of chairman, Goronyo Local Government?
II. Whether the Local Government Law, 2000 is retroactive in its application?
III. Whether section 13(4) of the Local Government Law, 2000 of Sokoto State is specific enough as to its date of operation?
➥ RESOLUTION(S) OF ISSUES
[APPEAL ALLOWED]
↪️ ISSUES 1 & 2: IN APPELLANT’S FAVOUR.
[THE APPELLANT IS NOT DISQUALIFIED FROM CONTESTING; THE LAW WAS MADE AFTER HIS PRIOR ELECTIONS
‘In the case of Attorney-General, Federation v. A.N.P.P. (supra) this court had to determine whether the 2nd respondent, Prince Abubakar Audu, was disqualified from seeking reelection into the office of Governor of Kogi State under section 182(1)(b) of the 1999 Constitution having been elected into that office at two previous elections in 1991 and 1999. The court had to determine whether the provision had retrospective effect. One of the factors that the court considered was that the 1999 Constitution came into being on 29th May, 1999 and that all rights, liabilities and privileges as contemplated by the Constitution arose on that day. The court held that its provisions could therefore only be considered prospectively. As stated earlier in this judgment, it is not in dispute that the Governor of Sokoto State assented to the bill in respect of the Local Government Law, 2000 on 21/2/2000. Pursuant to section 100(1) and (2) of the 1999 Constitution, the law came into effect on 21/2/2000. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued before us that the two previous elections by which the appellant was elected chairman of Goronyo Local Government do not come within the contemplation of section 13(4). The Local Government Law, 2000 was enacted to provide for the conduct of elections into Local Government Councils pursuant to its provisions, which came into effect on 21/2/2000. I therefore agree with learned counsel for the appellant that the provisions of the law, in the absence of any clear and unequivocal provision to the contrary must be interpreted prospectively. I agree with learned counsel for the appellant that he had not been elected as chairman of any local government in Sokoto State under the Local Government Law, 2000 and therefore could not be disqualified from contesting elections into that office pursuant to section 13(4) of the said Law. Issues 1 and 2 are accordingly resolved in favour of the appellant.’]
.
.
↪️ ISSUE 3: IN APPELLANT’S FAVOUR.
[‘In the course of resolving issues 1 and 2, I held that by the operation of section 100(1) and (2) of the 1999 Constitution, since the Governor assented to the bill on 21/2/2000, it came into effect on that day.’]
.
.
.
✓ DECISION:
‘In conclusion, the appeal succeeds and is accordingly allowed. The judgment of the High Court of Justice, Sokoto State in suit No. 55/29/2002 delivered on 11/10/2002 is hereby set aside. The two questions raised by the plaintiff on his originating summons dated 3/6/02 are answered in the negative. I hereby grant all the reliefs sought on the originating summons in favour of the plaintiff. I make no order for costs.’
➥ FURTHER DICTA:
⦿ THE PARTICULARS OF A GROUND OF APPEAL CAN BE INCORPORATED IN THE MAIN GROUND
Order 3, rule 2(2) of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2002 provides: “If the grounds of appeal allege misdirection or error in law, the particulars and the nature of the error or misdirection shall be clearly stated.” From the above provision, it is clear that a ground of appeal alleging an error in law or misdirection must contain particulars. This is to enable the respondent meet the case of the appellant and the court to properly consider and determine the error or misdirection, which is the subject of the complaint. See Global Transport Oceanico S.A. and Anor. v. Free Enterprises Nig. Ltd (2001) 5 NWLR (Pt. 706) 426 at 439 A-B; Atuyeye v. Ashamu (1987) 1 NWLR (Pt. 49) 267. However, although customarily it is not mandatory to state the particulars in a separate paragraph from the main ground. Where the ground of appeal is clear and unambiguous and the complaint made requires no further explanation, it is permissible to incorporate the particulars in the main ground itself. See Global Transport Oceanico S.A. and Anor. v. Free Enterprises Nig. Ltd (supra); Ononye v. Chukwuma (2005) 17 NWLR (Pt. 953) 90 at 109-110 H- A; Arinze v. Afribank (Nig.) Plc (2000) 7 NWLR (Pt. 665) 383; Atuyeye v. Ashamu (supra) … I am of the view that the ground is clear and unambiguous and requires no further explanation by way of particulars. The appellant’s complaint is that the learned trial Judge did not give the plaintiff’s first question the careful consideration and resolution it required because he considered it academic. The particulars of the ground of appeal have been conveniently incorporated in the ground of appeal. The Supreme Court decision in Nwokoro v. Onuma (supra), cited by learned counsel for the respondent, confirms the requirement to state the particulars of error alleged in a ground of appeal alleging error in law. It did not state that it is mandatory that the particulars must be set out under a separate heading. Ground 2 of the notice of appeal and issue No. 2 formulated thereon are therefore valid and competent. The preliminary objection is therefore overruled. — Kekere-Ekun JCA.
⦿ TEST FOR WHEN A LAW HAS RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT
Our superior courts have also had cause to determine when a law is said to have retrospective effect. In Adesanoye v. Adewole (2000) FWLR (Pt. 14) 2387, (2000) 9 NWLR (Pt. 671) 127 at 165 H, Ogundare JSC said: “A statute is deemed to be retrospective, which takes away or impairs any vested right acquired under existing laws, or creates a new obligation; or imposes a new duty, or attaches new disability in respect to transactions or considerations already past.” On the test of retrospective operation of a statute, Ogwuegbu JSC in Adesanoye v. Adewole (supra) at 170-171 held: “The test of retrospectivity of operation is whether there is anything in the Act which indicates that the consequences of an earlier event are changed not for the time before the enactment but prospectively from the time of the enactment or from the time of commencement of the Act. A retrospective statute operates for the future. It is prospective in character but imposes new results in respect of a past event or transaction where an Act attaches an obligation or disability or imposes a duty as a new consequence, prejudicial in most cases, of a prior event, then it can be said to be retrospective.” — Kekere-Ekun JCA.
➥ LEAD JUDGEMENT DELIVERED BY:
Kekere-Ekun JCA
➥ APPEARANCES
⦿ FOR THE APPELLANT(S)
Mr. J.E. Ochidi.
⦿ FOR THE RESPONDENT(S)
Mr. Isa Mohammed.
➥ MISCELLANEOUS POINTS
➥ REFERENCED (LEGISLATION)
➥ REFERENCED (CASE)
➥ REFERENCED (OTHERS)
