SYLVA V. I.N.E.C. (2025) 14 NWLR (PT. 2004) 63
ON HOW COURT OR TRIBUNAL MAY DISPENSE WITH ISSUE OF JURISDICTION IN ELECTION MATTER
By virtue of section 285 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), where a preliminary objection or any other interlocutory issue touching on the jurisdiction of the tribunal or court in any pre-election matter, or on the competence of the petition itself, is raised by a party, the tribunal or court shall suspend its ruling and deliver it at the stage of final judgment.
(Pp. 99-100, paras. H-A)
SYLVA V. I.N.E.C. (2025) 14 NWLR (PT. 2004) 63
ON WHEN COURT MAY DETERMINE PRELIMINARY OBJECTION OR ANY INTERLOCUTORY ISSUE RAISED IN ELECTION MATTER
By virtue of section 285 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), where a preliminary objection or any other interlocutory issue touching on the jurisdiction of the tribunal or court in any pre-election matter, or on the competence of the petition itself, is raised by a party, the tribunal or court shall suspend its ruling and deliver it at the stage of final judgment.
In other words, all preliminary objections or interlocutory issues raised during the hearing of a pre-election matter or an election petition shall be decided by the tribunal at the stage of final judgment in the matter along with the substantive matter.
The rationale for the provisions is to prevent situations in which a tribunal would be burdened in the course of a trial, hearing, or proceedings in a pre-election matter or an election petition, for which time has deliberately been made of very crucial essence by the Constitution itself, to rule on every and all preliminary issues, objections, or points raised and canvassed by parties at every stage they were raised as hitherto done prior to the alteration of the provisions of section 285 of the Constitution, which led to inordinate delays in the determination of the matters such that it resulted in the ridiculous and embarrassing situation of the expiration of the terms of offices in respect of which the matters were taken before they were eventually disposed of.
Section 285 is to remedy the situation and give the sui generis nature of pre-election matters and election petitions their due position in Nigerian judicial proceedings and jurisprudence. Under the provision, an Election Tribunal is commanded, by the use of the word “shall”, to suspend all rulings on all preliminary objections or interlocutory issues raised in the course of the trial or hearing in order to keep to the timelines prescribed, and deliver same at the stage of final judgment.
A tribunal is mandated to deliver a composite final judgment at the end or conclusion of the proceedings or hearing of the matter, comprising all the rulings on the preliminary or interlocutory issues or points raised by the parties as well as the merit of the substantive matter. This ensures that all issues or points or complaints, dissatisfaction or grievances, whether preliminary or interlocutory and on the merit of the substantive matter, are all fully, effectually, conclusively, and finally determined by the tribunal at the stage and in the final judgment to be delivered in the matter.
There is no and there cannot be any reasonable dispute about this position of the provision in section 285(8). Because of the acknowledged peculiar nature of the provisions in section 285 of the Constitution, their prescriptions are interpreted and applied strictly such that any non-compliance therewith, no matter how slight, might result in fatal consequences.
[Buhari v. Obasanjo (2003) 17 NWLR (Pt. 850) 423; Magaji v. Bala (2004) 8 NWLR (Pt. 876) 449; ANPP v. R.E.C., Akwa Ibom State (2008) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1090) 453; A.P.P. v. Obaseki (2022) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1846) 1 referred to.] (Pp. 103-105, paras. E-E; 125-126, paras. G-E)
SYLVA V. I.N.E.C. (2025) 14 NWLR (PT. 2004) 63
ON DUTY ON RESPONDENT WHO HAS OBJECTION TO ELECTION PETITION
By virtue of the provision of Paragraph 12 of the 1st Schedule to the Electoral Act, 2022, a respondent who has an objection to the hearing of the petition shall file his reply and state the objection in it, and the objection shall be heard along with the substantive petition.
The provisions complement and support the provisions of section 285 of the 1999 Constitution in exhorting an election tribunal to take, hear, consider, and determine a preliminary objection to the hearing of the petition by the respondent along with the substantive petition in order to avoid delays in the determination of the petition due to its sui generis nature.
[Ezenwo v. Festus (No.2) (2020) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1750) 276 referred to.] (Pp. 105-106, paras. E-A; 126, paras. A-E)
NASKO V. BELLO (2024) 4 NWLR (PT. 1928) 239
ON TREATMENT OF PRELIMINARY OBJECTION TO AN APPEAL WHERE RAISED
A preliminary objection, if upheld, would render further proceedings before the court impossible or unnecessary. Generally, the Rules of the Supreme Court allow a respondent to rely on a preliminary objection to the hearing of an appeal. The purpose is to bring the appeal to an end having been discovered to be incompetent and or fundamentally defective. Therefore, it will be unnecessary to continue with an appeal once an objection is raised without disposing of same. In other words, the court is expected to deal with and dispose of a preliminary objection once raised by a respondent before taking any further step in the appeal.
MAGAJI V. A.P.C. (2024) 1 NWLR (PT. 1918) 1
ON PRINCIPLES GUIDING HEARING AND DETERMINATION OF PRELIMINARY OBJECTION IN PRE-ELECTION MATTER
Section 285(8) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) has not changed the position of the law that a preliminary objection challenging the jurisdiction of the Court must be heard first. The import of the section is that the preliminary objection can be heard first, but the ruling on it should be suspended till the delivery of judgment. (P. 31, paras. F-G).
OBI V. I.N.E.C. (NO.2) (2023) 19 NWLR (PT 1917) 711
ON PURPORT OF PRELIMINARY OBJECTION TO APPEAL AND WHEN INAPPROPRIATE
The purport of a preliminary objection to an appeal is the termination or truncation of the appeal in limine. A preliminary objection should only be filed against the hearing of an appeal and not against one or more grounds of appeal when there are other grounds to sustain the appeal; which purported preliminary objection is, therefore, not capable of truncating the hearing of the appeal. Thus, a preliminary objection to an appeal is only raised to the hearing of the appeal, and not to a few grounds of appeal. In such a situation, a preliminary objection is not the appropriate procedure to deploy against defective grounds of appeal when there are other grounds, not defective, which can sustain the hearing of the appeal, but a motion on notice.
REGD. TRUSTEES, MISSION HOUSE V. A.S.T.B. PLC [2024]10 NWLR (PT. 1947) 565
ON RAISING PRELIMINARY OBJECTION TO AN APPEAL
A preliminary objection may be incorporated and argued in the respondent’s brief by a formal, separate notice or written objection or both. However, it is imperative for the respondent or his counsel to, with leave of court, allude to the objection prior to the hearing of the substantive appeal. The implication of the respondent’s failure to raise the objection prior to the hearing or at any other stage of the appeal is ominous in that the court may ignore and accordingly discountenance it. [Tizav. Begha (2005) 15 NWLR (Pt. 949) 616; Nsirim v. Nsirim (1990) 3 NWLR (Pt. 138) 285; Okolo v. U.B.N. Ltd. (1998) 2 NWLR (Pt. 539) 618; Arewa Textile Plc v. Abdullahi (1998) 6 NWLR (Pt. 554) 508; Ajide v. Kelani (1985) 3 NWLR (Pt. 12) 248; Fawehinmi v. N.B.A. (No.1) (1998) 2 NWLR (Pt. 105) 494; Salami v. Mohammed (2000) 9 NWLR (Pt. 673) 469; Oforkire v. Maduike (2003) 5 NWLR (Pt. 812) 166; Ben v. State (2006) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1006) 582.referred to.](Pp. 587-588, paras. G-D).
MAINSTREET BANK REG. LTD. V. OSHINUGA (2025) 5 NWLR (PT. 1984) 727
ON PURPOSE OF PRELIMINARY OBJECTION ON GROUND OF JURISDICTION AND WHETHER SUPPORTING AFFIDAVIT REQUIRED TO RAISE SUCH PRELIMINARY OBJECTION
A preliminary objection on ground of jurisdiction is aimed at the disposal of an action or appeal in limine at the stage it is raised and predicated entirely on points of pure law, strictly. For that reason, a supporting affidavit consisting of facts which go to the substance of the case as contained in the pleadings are unnecessary and irrelevant in the determination of the objection. [A.-G., Fed. v. ANPP (2003) 18 NWLR (Pt. 851) 182; Abba v. S.P.D.C.N. Ltd. (2013) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1364) 86referred to.] (Pp. 767-768, paras. G-A).
AKINGBOLA V. INTERCONTINENTAL BANK PLC (2025) 5 NWLR (PT. 1984) 343
ON WHAT IS ISSUE FOR DETERMINATION IN APPEAL
An issue for determination in an appeal is a combination of facts and circumstances including the law applicable thereto which is so crucial that if it is decided one way or the other will affect the fate of the appeal. It is a point which is so critical that if it is decided in favour of a party, such a party is entitled to win the appeal. [Okoye v. N.C. & F. Co.Ltd. (1991) 6 NWLR (Pt. 199) 501; G. Chitex Ind. Ltd.v. Oceanic Bank Int. (Nig.) Ltd. (2005) 14 NWLR (Pt.945) 392; Ali v. Osakwe (2011) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1245)68; Nadabo v. Dabai (2011) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1245) 155referred to.] (P. 403, paras. A-C).
AKINGBOLA V. INTERCONTINENTAL BANK PLC (2025) 5 NWLR (PT. 1984) 343
ON EFFECT WHERE PRELIMINARY OBJECTION TO AN APPEAL IS UPHELD
It is the practice by the Supreme Court after upholding the preliminary objection of a respondent to automatically terminate the appeal. With the resolution of the preliminary objection, the need for the court to proceed further in the appeal to consider the merits of the appeal of the appellant becomes obviated. [Aliyu v. A.P.C. (2023) 6NWLR (Pt. 1879) 151; Polaris Bank Ltd. v. Forte Oil Plc (2023) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1876) 17; Regd. Trustees, Mission House v. A.S.T.B. Plc (2024) 10 NWLR (Pt.1947) 565; Ugba v. Suswan (2014) 14 NWLR (Pt.1427) 264 referred to.] (P. 423, paras. B-D).