Mailantarki v. Tongo [2018] 6 NWLR (Pt. 1614) 69 at 89-90 paras. H-B, per Kekere-Ekun, JSC:

“…It is settled law that a court in one state does not have jurisdiction to hear and determine a matter which is within the exclusive jurisdiction of another state. See Rivers State Government and Specialist Konsult (2005) 7 NWLR (Pt. 923) 145. There cannot be any doubt that the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court of the FCT is restricted and confined to causes and matters that arise within the Federal Capital Territory. In the instant case, the cause of action, which is the primary election of the 2^nd Respondent, took place in Gombe State. The appeal committee also sat in Gombe State. There is therefore no justification for the institution of the suit before the High Court of the FCT in Abuja. The filing of the suit before that court is a clear example of “forum shopping” in the hope of securing a favourable outcome. This practice has been seriously deprecated in numerous decisions of this Court. The practice does not augur well for the administration of justice. It is also unethical practice on the part of the legal practitioner who filed the suit…”

Eko, JSC (p. 87, paras. E-G):

“The decision to file this suit in the FCT High Court far away from Gombe State where the cause of action arose cannot be anything but a sheer decision to abuse the judicial process. It was a decision to actuate forum shopping. It is a specie of abuse of judicial process. Forum shopping denotes a rather reprehensible practice of choosing the most favourable territorial jurisdiction or court in which a matter or cause may be entertained and adjudicated upon. A typical example of forum shopping, according to Black’s Law Dictionary, is where the plaintiff institutes a suit in the jurisdiction with a reputation for awarding high damages, disdain for political gimmicks or filing several similar suits and keeping the one with the preferred Judge. See also Idemudia v. Igbinedion University, Okada & Ors (2015) LPELR-24514 (CA). The instant Appellant, as the plaintiff, had artfully avoided High Court of Gombe State, in preference to the FCT High Court, because the former, as it appears may be a forum inconvenience. I say no more. The dictum of Ogundare, JSC which I had earlier reproduced, should be sufficient to put their lordships of the FCT High Court on the watch out or guard so that their courts will not be tuned into axis of forum shopping.”

Notes:

The facts of this case are quite interesting owing to the fact that it further exposed some of the ‘dirty’ practices of our political parties which are ordinarily supposed to promote our democracy. The Appellant and the 1^st Respondent contested a primary election for the nomination of the candidate to be sponsored by the 2^nd Respondent (All Progressive Congress – APC) to contest for the House of Representatives seat. The Appellant lost the primary election to the 1^st Respondent. Dissatisfied with the outcome, the Appellant filed a petition to the National Assembly Election Appeal Committee of the APC (Appeal Committee) contending that the 1^st Respondent, as at the date of the primary election, was still a card-carrying member of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and as such was not qualified to contest the primaries not being a genuine member of the APC. The Appeal Committee investigated the allegation and found that the 1^st Respondent was still a PDP member at the material time and therefore recommended that the Party should withdraw the ticket from him. These recommendations were made to the National Working Committee (NWC) of the APC (which is the organ that acts for the National Executive Committee of the Party and which appears to be the final ‘court’ or ‘tribunal’ in the APC organisation). The APC, notwithstanding the recommendations of the Appeal Committee, submitted the name of the 1^st Respondent to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC). The 1^st Respondent later won the election.

Aggrieved, the Appellant filed an action at the High Court of the FCT, Abuja. A preliminary objection was filed by the 1^st Respondent challenging amongst others, the jurisdiction of the High Court of the FCT to entertain the matter. The Appellant filed a response submitting that the suit was filed to enforce the decision of the Appeal Committee which was to be implemented at Abuja and that the conduct of the APC being challenged took place in Abuja which is also the Party headquarters. The trial Judge of the FCT High Court dismissed the objections and found for the Appellant. The 1^st Respondent’s appeal to the Court of Appeal was allowed. The Appellant’s appeal to the Supreme Court was dismissed on the ground that the FCT High Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the suit, relying on Dalhatu v. Turaki [2003] 15 NWLR (Pt. 843) 310. The apex Court restated the position that State High Courts and FCT High Court lacks extra territorial jurisdiction. Thus, a court in one state does not have jurisdiction to hear and determine a matter which is within the exclusive jurisdiction of another state.

Three things weigh on my mind regarding the above case. Firstly, as earlier observed, the alleged conduct of the National Working Committee of the APC whereby the Party moved against the recommendations of the Appeal Committee does not mean well for our democracy. Political parties must ensure internal democracy and avoid acts of impunity notwithstanding the fact that they enjoy ‘judicial immunity’ in that the courts are not to enquire into the internal affairs of a political party including the sponsorship of a candidate for election.

Secondly, we have noted the call on Judges of the FCT High Court to be circumspect in deciding whether it is wise and correct to exercise jurisdiction over matters outside the FCT. (Ogundare, JSC in Dalhatu v. Turaki supra).

Thirdly, we noted the dictum of Kekere-Ekun, JSC to the effect that it was unethical practice on the part of the Appellant’s Counsel who filed the instant suit. It may be further suggested here that if the Supreme Court was convinced that the Appellant’s Counsel’s conduct for filing the instant suit was unethical, an order of cost payable by the Counsel ought to have accompanied the finding.