In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Holden at Abuja
On Thursday, the 30th day of April, 2026
Before Their Lordships
Mohammed Lawal Garba
Chioma Egondu Nwosu-Iheme
Haruna Simon Tsammani
Stephen Jonah Adah
Abubakar Sadiq Umar
Justices, Supreme Court
SC/CV/164/2026
Between
PEOPLES’ DEMOCRATIC
PARTY (PDP) APPELLANT
And
1. ALHAJI SULE LAMIDO RESPONDENTS
2. INDEPENDENT NATIONAL
ELECTORAL COMMISSION (INEC)
3. HON. AUSTINE NWACHUKWU
(PDP CHAIRMAN, IMO STATE)
4. HON. AMAH ABRAHAM NNANNA
(PDP CHAIRMAN, ABIA STATE)
5. TURNA ALABH GEORGE
(PDP SECRETARY, SOUTH-SOUTH
GEO-POLITICAL ZONE)
(Lead Judgement delivered by Honourable Stephen Jonah Adah, JSC)
Facts
The National Executive Council (NEC) of the Appellant at its 101st meeting that held on 24th July, 2025, further to the approval of a memorandum presented by its National Organising Secretary, sanctioned the conduct of the Appellant’s National Convention slated for 15th and 16th November, 2025 in Ibadan, Oyo State. On 27th October, 2025, the 1st Respondent who is a member of the Appellant party visited the Appellant’s Secretariat, to purchase a nomination form for election into the office of the National Chairman. However, he was denied the same, on the ground that the period for the sale of nomination forms for party offices had elapsed. Aggrieved, the 1st Respondent filed an Amended Originating Summons dated 10th November, 2025 at the Federal High Court, seeking amongst other declaratory and injunctive reliefs, a declaration that the Appellant is in breach of its Constitution and Guidelines by deliberately denying him the nomination form, and an order of mandatory injunction compelling the Appellant to make the form available for purchase by him. The 1st Respondent also sought an order prohibiting the 2nd Respondent from aiding or recognising the Appellant’s conduct of election into the office of its National Chairman, until the Appellant makes nomination forms for election into the office available for purchase by the 1st Respondent and all eligible party members desirous of contesting.
The Appellant reacted by filing a Notice of Preliminary Objection, challenging the jurisdiction of the trial court to entertain the suit, alongside a counter-affidavit opposing the claims in the Originating Summons. Nevertheless, the trial court assumed jurisdiction and proceeded to hear the Originating Summons, and grant the reliefs sought therein. The Court also made an order, that the Appellant’s National Convention be put on hold until the nomination form was made available to the 1st Respondent. Rather than comply with the order, the Appellant approached a court of coordinate jurisdiction with the trial court, and secured a parallel order to override the trial court’s subsisting order.
The Appellant then went on to hold the Convention, contrary to the trial court’s order. Thereafter, the Appellant lodged an appeal against the decision of the trial court, before the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s decision, and dismissed the appeal. Dissatisfied, the Appellant appealed to the Supreme Court. The parties filed their respective briefs of argument. The 1st Respondent also raised a preliminary objection. Similarly, the 3rd to 5th Respondent filed a notice of preliminary objection, challenging the competence of the appeal.
Arguments on Preliminary Objection
Respective Counsel for the 1st Respondent and the 3rd-5th Respondent argued that the grounds of appeal are, in substance, grounds of fact or at best mixed law and fact, and the Appellant’s failure to obtain prior leave rendered the Notice of Appeal incompetent and the appeal fundamentally defective.
Counsel for the Appellant argued conversely, that the grounds did not require the Apex Court to reassess evidence or make fresh findings of fact, but were simply calling for a determination of whether the Court of Appeal correctly applied the law to the undisputed fact which related to jurisdiction and statutory interpretation. Counsel submitted that the grounds are therefore, grounds of pure law and no leave was required for their determination.
Court’s Decision
The Supreme Court held that where the complaint in a ground of appeal attacks the conclusion of law reached by a court on the basis of undisputed facts, such a ground is one of law simpliciter and in such circumstances, no leave is required to appeal, as the Appellant is entitled to proceed as of right. The Court concluded that the two grounds of appeal which question the legal reasoning and conclusion of the Court of Appeal on jurisdiction, fall squarely within the category of grounds of law, and are therefore competent without the need for prior leave. On this basis, the Apex Court dismissed the preliminary objection and proceeded to consider the main appeal.
Issue for Determination in Main Appeal
The Court adopted the sole issue formulated by the Appellant as follows:
Was the lower court not in error when it held that the 1st Respondent’s claim which centred on the Appellant’s failure to sell a nomination form to the 1st Respondent to enable him contest for the office of National Chairman, is one that is justiciable and within the jurisdiction of the trial court?
Arguments
Counsel for the Appellant argued that contrary to the reasoning of the Court of Appeal, the 1st Respondent’s claim was outside the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court because the claims were primarily and essentially against the Appellant which is a political party and were based on an intra-party issue. Counsel argued that the principal reliefs sought by the 1st Respondent were against the Appellant and the only relief sought against the 2nd Respondent was dependent on the successful grant of the principal reliefs, hence the trial court acted without jurisdiction and the Court of Appeal was wrongly affirmed the trial court’s decision.
Conversely, the Respondents in their respective briefs argued that the 1st Respondent’s claim complained of the Appellant’s infractions and the violations of its Constitution and Guidelines in a manner that directly affected the 1st Respondent’s right to vie for an office within the party as an eligible member, which was a matter within the jurisdiction of the trial court. Counsel submitted that the Court of Appeal was thus right to have affirmed the decision of the trial court.
Court’s Judgement and Rationale
The Supreme Court held that, the decisions that internal or domestic affairs of a political party are not to be meddled with by the courts remain the law, however, where, as in the instant case, a political party violates its own Constitution or undermines the Electoral Act and the Constitution of the Country, the court must intervene to prevent anarchy and ensure the survival of democracy in Nigeria. The Court referred to Sections 223 and 228 of the Constitution and more particularly, Section 82(3) of the Electoral Act, which provides that the election of members of the executive committee or other governing body of a political party, including the election to fill a vacant position in any of these bodies, shall be conducted in a democratic manner, and allowing for all members of the party or duly elected delegates to vote in support of a candidate of their choice.
The Court held that political parties, though voluntary associations, are subject to the discipline of the law when their actions affect civil rights and obligations of their members and others, and the courts will not hesitate to intervene where party actions breach statutory or constitutional provisions. The Court held that the 1st Respondent’s claim goes beyond the internal affairs of the Appellant, his right was violated by the Appellant and he called out the 2nd Respondent – INEC which under the Constitution and the Electoral Act, has the duty of oversight and control of political parties. The Court held that where the acts complained of concern the performance of statutory or oversight obligations of a party to the suit such as INEC, a claim for injunctive relief enforcing or restraining such act as sought by the 1st Respondent before the trial court, transcends the real of internal party affairs and becomes justiciable, and accordingly, a Plaintiff cannot be precluded from approaching the court to enforce compliance with statutory duties, as such matters implicate legal rights beyond mere intra-party disagreements. The Apex Court held that this was the crux of the 1st Respondent’s claim, and the Court of Appeal was right when it held that trial court had the jurisdiction to hear and determine the claim in the circumstance.
The Supreme Court thereafter, proceeded to decide on the status of the National Convention held by the Appellant in the face of the subsisting order of the trial court directing the Appellant to suspend its scheduled National Convention pending compliance with trial directive to the Appellant, to make the nomination form available to the 1st Respondent to enable him participate in the election scheduled to take place during the said Convention, which the Court raised suo motu.
The Apex Court held that court orders, whether rightly or wrongly made, must be obeyed until set aside by due process and once a party knows of an order or court, whether it be valid or not, he is obliged to obey. The Court held that the Appellant’s action by not appealing the order directing it to suspend the National Convention, but rather approaching a court of co-ordinate jurisdiction to override the trial court’s order and thereafter, proceeding to hold the National Convention, amounted to engaging in multiplicity of actions over the same subject-matter and clearly abused the court process, ridiculing the administration of justice in Nigeria. The Supreme Court held that it is settled law that once an abuse of court process is established, the court is not only entitled, but duty-bound to invoke its inherent jurisdiction to prevent the misuse of its process, and this includes the power to dismiss or strike out the offending action, as the justice of the case may demand. The Apex Court referred to MAIN STREET BAN REGISTRARS LTD v TEMITOPE O. OSHINUGO & ORS (2024) LPELR-62980(SC).
The Supreme Court found that the Appellant abused the process of the court to conduct the National Convention, in defiance of the subsisting order of the trial court forbidding it from conducting the same, pending compliance with the directive to make the nomination form available to the 1st Respondent. Consequently, the Court declared the Appellant’s Convention conducted on 15th and 16th November, 2025, null, void and of no effect.
The Court held further that the cross-appeal filed in the appeal, in the circumstance of the decision in the main appeal, was dismissed.
Dissenting Opinion
Dissenting, Hon. Haruna Simon Tsammanni, JSC opined that the appeal was meritorious because the issues before the trial court regarding the Appellant’s desire to contest for a leadership position in the Appellant do not affect the administrative actions of INEC, but were directed against the internal and domestic party affairs of the Appellant, which the Courts have held over time to be political dispute and non-justiciable. His Lordship also opined that although the Appellant’s disobedience of the trial court’s order was despicable, it was not raised by any of the Respondents to the appeal, either in the cross-appeal or notice of contention, or argued; hence, there was no basis for the appeal to be dismissed on that ground.
Appeal Dismissed by the Majority Decision of the Supreme Court.
Representation
Paul Erokoro, SAN with others for the Appellant.
Jeph Njikonye, SAN with others for the 1st Respondent.
O. A. Adeyemi, Esq. with another for the 2nd Respondent.
J. B. Daudu, SAN with others for the 3rd – 5th Respondent.
Reported by Optimum Publishers Limited, Publishers of the Nigerian Monthly Law Reports (NMLR)(An affiliate of Babalakin & Co.)
