09/08/2026
The Supreme Court of Nigeria has never found itself in a very tight corner until it sat to decide the case of Akeredolu and Jegede.
Let me tell you the interesting story.
So INEC conducted the Ondo State governorship election on October 10, 2020.
Oluwarotimi Akeredolu (SAN) of the All Progressives Congress (APC) was declared the winner, defeating Eyitayo Jegede (SAN) of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP).
Eyitayo Jegede didn't like the outcome of the election, so he approached the Election Petition Tribunal.
But interestingly, rather than focusing entirely on election irregularities, Jegede launched a fundamental constitutional challenge against Akeredolu's nomination.
Jegede argued that at the time of Akeredolu's nomination, Adams Oshiomhole had been removed as the National Chairman of the APC.
He argued that the APC was then being managed by a National Caretaker Committee chaired by Governor Mai Mala Buni, who was the sitting Executive Governor of Yobe State.
Jegede convinced the court that Governor Mai Mala Buni's position as the National Caretaker Chairman of the APC violated Section 183 of the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria, thereby making Akeredolu's nomination invalid.
Now, you will ask, what does Section 183 of the Constitution say?
It says that:
A Governor shall not, during the period when he holds office, hold any other executive office or paid employment in any capacity whatsoever."
Jegede rounded up his argument by saying that because Governor Buni occupied the party office unlawfully, all official actions he performed, including signing Akeredolu's nomination and sponsorship papers, were null and void.
On the other hand, Akeredolu argued that since the petition heavily attacked Buni's office, conduct and legal status, Buni was a necessary party.
And failing to join him, according to Akeredolu, violated the principle of fair hearing.
They also argued that the selection and nomination of candidates, as well as the appointment of internal committee leadership, are strictly domestic, non-justiciable matters of a political party.
When the matter got to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court was divided against itself.
Three Justices, led by Justice Mary Peter-Odili, out of the seven Justices that sat on the case, saw reasons with the argument of Jegede.
They strongly agreed with Jegede that Governor Buni's role as APC Caretaker Chairman flatly contravened Section 183 of the 1999 Constitution.
But unfortunately for Jegede, four Justices, led by Justice Emmanuel Agim, agreed with Akeredolu's argument.
The majority held that Governor Buni was the central figure in the dispute.
And that you cannot unseat a beneficiary of an action, Akeredolu, by finding a third party, Buni, guilty of a constitutional breach without giving that third party a fair hearing.
In simple terms, the majority said: if you want the court to make a finding against Buni that could ultimately destroy Akeredolu's nomination, then Buni must first be brought before the court and given an opportunity to defend himself.
And because Jegede failed to join Buni as a party, the Supreme Court held that the petition was incompetent.
That was how Akeredolu won his second-term election by a 4–3 judgment at the Supreme Court.
Four Justices against three.
Just one vote separated victory from defeat.
The case is cited as Jegede & Anor v. Akeredolu & Ors (2021) LPELR-55481(SC).
I am Ekene Aninze, Esq.
The Supreme Court of Nigeria has never found itself in a very tight corner until it sat to decide the case of Akeredolu and Jegede.
My comment:
The famous Supreme Court decision in Green v. Green (1987) 3 NWLR (Pt. 61) 480 (SC), a case involving two citizens of Bonny, remains one of the leading authorities on the law of joinder of parties in Nigeria. And was followed by the Supreme court in upholding the legal arguments of Akeredolu.
In that landmark decision, the Supreme Court, per Oputa, JSC, drew the now well-established distinction between proper parties, desirable parties and necessary parties. A necessary party is one who is not only interested in the subject matter of the proceedings, but whose absence makes it impossible for the Court to fairly, effectually and completely determine the questions in controversy.
The importance of the decision lies in the principle that where a person is a necessary party, his presence may be indispensable to a proper and binding adjudication of the dispute. The Court must therefore consider whether the matter can be effectually and completely determined in his absence and whether the absent party ought to be bound by the outcome of the litigation.
It is, however, important to state the principle accurately: Green v. Green did not lay down an absolute rule that every non-joinder of a necessary party automatically renders a suit incompetent or fatal. Rather, the Court emphasised that non-joinder does not ordinarily defeat an action; the crucial consideration is whether the absence of the party prevents the Court from effectually and completely adjudicating upon the questions raised in the proceedings.
Thus, more than three decades after it was decided, Green v. Green remains a locus classicus on the law relating to parties to an action and the consequences of non-joinder in Nigerian civil procedure.@
