ALL PROGRESSIVES CONGRESS v. HON. ABUBAKAR ABDULLAHI LADO SULEJA & ORS
(2019)LCN/13155(CA)
In The Court docket of Enchantment of Nigeria
On Thursday, the 25th day of April, 2019
CA/A/195/2019
RATIO
JURISDICTION: IMPORTANCE
There isn’t any doubt that jurisdiction is prime and indispensable within the administration of justice. It’s the hub of all judicial processes a lot that the validity or in any other case of any continuing activates its existence or non-existence. It can’t due to this fact be toyed with by any celebration or the Court docket else the motion will inescapably be mired within the caustic penalties of lack of jurisdiction, a nullity. See usually UTI VS. ONOYIVWE (1991) 1 SCNJ 25; OKORO VS. EGBUOH (2006) 15 NWLR (PT. 1001) 1; DAPIALONG VS. DARIYE (2007) Eight NWLR (PT. 1036) 332; ANPP VS. REC (2008) 18 NWLR (PT. 1090) 453; INAKOJU VS. ADELEKE (2007) Four NWLR (PT. 1025) 427; NATIONAL ASSEMBLY VS. C. C. I. CO. LTD (2008) 5 NWLR (PT. 1081) 519; A. G. BENUE STATE VS. UMAR (2008) 1 NWLR (PT. 1068) 311.PER MOHAMMED BABA IDRIS, J.C.A.
JURISDICTION: TO DETERMINE JURISDICTION IN A MATTER STARTED BY ORIGINATING SUMMONS, THE AFFIDAVIT IS LOOKED INTO
In figuring out jurisdiction, for issues akin to this, begun by originating summons, the affidavit in assist of the originating software is used to find out jurisdiction. A defendant’s counter affidavit serves no helpful function within the arduous process of ascertaining if a Court docket has the jurisdiction to adjudicate over a matter. See PDP VS. ABUBAKAR (2007) Three NWLR (PT. 1022) 515; INAKOJU VS. ADELEKE (2007) Four NWLR (PT. 1025) 427; MIMR VS. AKIN-OLUGBADE (2008) 5 NWLR (PT. 1079) 68; ACTION CONGRESS VS. INEC (2007) 18 NWLR (PT. 1065) 50; VEEPEE IND. LTD VS. COCOA IND. LTD (2008) 13 NWLR (PT. 1105) 486.PERMOHAMMED BABA IDRIS, J.C.A.
CAUSE OF ACTION: HOW TO DETERMINE WHEN CAUSE OF ACTION AROSE UNDER SECTION 289(9) OF THE 1999 CONSITUTION OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA
It’s clear that by Part 285 (9) of the 1999 Structure, the date of the occasion, choice or motion complained of within the swimsuit is the determinant consider calculating when the reason for motion arose and similar turned statute barred. See usually AMUSAN VS. OBIDEYI (2005) 14 NWLR (PT. 945) 322; ASABORO VS. PAN OCEAN OIL (NIG.) LTD (2006) Four NWLR (PT. 971) 595; ADEKOYA VS. FHA (2008) 11 NWLR (PT. 1099) 539; AGBAI VS. INEC (2008) 14 NWLR (PT. 1108) 417. If a wronged celebration fails to institute an motion on schedule as permitted by regulation, the swimsuit turns into stale and statute barred. His proper to sue has been taken away with out essentially figuring out it. See usually CHIGBU VS. TONIMAS (NIG.) LTD (2006) 9 NWLR (PT. 984) 189.PER MOHAMMED BABA IDRIS, J.C.A.
CAUSE OF ACTION: NATURE AND DEFINITION
It’s pertinent to understand reason for motion earlier than figuring out when the reason for motion on this case accrued. Right here, the definition supplied by Fatayi-Williams, JSC (as he then was) inSAVAGE VS. UWECHIA(1972) Three SC 214 AT 221 is useful:
“Reason behind motion is outlined within the Strouds Judicial Dictionary because the set of circumstances giving rise to an enforceable declare. To our thoughts it’s, in impact the actual fact or mixture of details which give rise to a proper to sue and it consists of two parts ? the wrongful act of the defendant which provides the plaintiff his reason for grievance and consequent injury.”
See additionally DUNU VS. OLADEJO (2004) 17 NWLR (PT. 903) 621; ODUKO VS. GOVT, EBONYI STATE (2004) 13 NWLR (PT. 891) 487; ONADEKO VS. UBN PLC (2005) Four NWLR (PT. 916) 440; UBN PLC VS. UMEODUAGU (2004) 13 NWLR (PT. 390) 352; DAIRO VS. UBN PLC (2007) 16 NWLR (PT. 1059) 99; CHEVRON (NIG.) LTD VS. L. D. (NIG.) LTD (2007) 16 NWLR (PT. 1059) 168; BAKARE VS. N. R. C. (2007) 17 NWLR (PT. 1064) 606; IBETO CEMENT CO. LTD VS. A ? G, FED. (2008) 1 NWLR (PT. 1069) 470; ABUBAKAR VS. B. O. & A. P. LTD (2007) 18 NWLR (PT. 1066) 319; SPDC, NIG VS. OKONEDO (2008) 9 NWLR (PT. 1091) 85; WILLIAMS VS. WILLIAMS (SUPRA); OMOMEJI VS. KOLAWOLE (2008) 14 NWLR (PT. 1106) 180.PER MOHAMMED BABA IDRIS, J.C.A.
CAUSE OF ACTION: WHEN DOES IT ACCRUE
A reason for motion accrues to a celebration from the time or date when an obligation is breached or an act happens which warrants the celebration injured thereby to take motion in regulation to claim or defend his violated authorized proper. See WOHEREM VS. EMERUWA (2004) 13 NWLR (PT. 890) 398; MATANMI VS. GOV. OGUN STATE (2004) 5 NWLR (PT. 866) 255; OWIE VS. IGHIWI (2005) 5 NWLR (PT. 917) 184; UBN PLC VS. UMEODUAGU (SUPRA); ONADEKO VS. UBN (2005) Four NWLR (PT. 916) 440; AMEDE VS. UBA (2008) Eight NWLR (PT. 1090) 623; ADEKOYA VS. FHA (2008) 11 NWLR (PT. 1099) 539.PER MOHAMMED BABA IDRIS, J.C.A.
CAUSE OF ACTION: DOCUMENTS THAT COURTS LOOK INTO WHEN DETERMINING WHETHER A CAUSE OF ACTION EXISTS
And in figuring out the existence or in any other case of a reason for motion, a Court docket leaves by the writ of summons or assertion of declare, not the assertion of defence. See UBN PLC VS. UMEODUAGU (2004) 13 NWLR (PT. 890) 352; DADA VS. AINA (2008) 6 NWLR (PT. 1084) 549.PER MOHAMMED BABA IDRIS, J.C.A.
JUSTICES
ADAMU JAURO Justice of The Court docket of Enchantment of Nigeria
STEPHEN JONAH ADAH Justice of The Court docket of Enchantment of Nigeria
MOHAMMED BABA IDRIS Justice of The Court docket of Enchantment of Nigeria
Between
ALL PROGRESSIVES CONGRESS (APC) Appellant(s)
AND
1. HON. ABUBAKAR ABDULLAHI LADO SULEJA
2. INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION (INEC)
3. HON. ADO Ok. ABUBAKAR Respondent(s)
MOHAMMED BABA IDRIS, J.C.A. (Delivering the Main Judgment): That is an enchantment in opposition to the Judgment of the Federal Excessive Court docket, Minna Judicial Division (Coram A. B. Aliyu J) delivered on 1st March, 2019. By the stated Judgment, the Federal Excessive Court docket after an examination of the instances introduced by the Events upheld the claims of the third Respondent who was the Plaintiff within the Swimsuit and granted the reliefs sought by the third Respondent within the Originating Summons.
The Appellant (APC) who was the first Defendant within the swimsuit earlier than the trial Court docket has appealed in opposition to the judgment of the realized trial Court docket vide Discover of Enchantment filed on 13th March 2019. (See pages 1106 ? 1114 of the Document)
The third Respondent vide an Originating Summons filed on the 31st of October, 2018 challenged the sponsorship of the first Respondent because the Appellant’s candidate for election into the workplace of member of Home of Representatives representing Suleja/Tafa/Gurara Federal Constituency of Niger State for the February 2019 Basic Election.
?On the listening to of the enchantment, the Appellant adopted its transient filed on the sixth of April, 2019 and the reply
1
transient filed on the 19th of April, 2019. The third Respondent adopted his transient filed on the 10th of April 2019. The first and 2nd Respondents didn’t file any transient in any respect.
Within the transient of argument filed by the Appellant, the next points have been distilled for the dedication of the Court docket:
1. Whether or not the trial Choose, having regard to the provisions of Part 285(9) of the Structure of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999, as amended by the Fourth Alteration Act (No. 21) of 2017, was not mistaken in holding that the motion of the first Respondent, filed greater than 14 days after the holding and declaration of the results of the first election in competition, was filed inside time? (Distilled from Grounds 1 and three of the Discover of Enchantment).
2. Whether or not the trial Court docket was proper in granting the reliefs sought by the third Respondent which have been declaratory, upon contradictory and conflicting Affidavit proof adduced by the third Respondent. (Distilled from Grounds Four and 6 of the Discover of Enchantment).
3. Whether or not the trial Choose was proper when he failed to guage Reveals D, D1 – D10, E, E1 – 10, F, F1 -F10 and G hooked up to the Appellant’s Counter
2
Affidavit to the Originating Summons. (Distilled from Floor 7 of the Discover of Enchantment).
4. Whether or not on a preponderance of proof, the trial Court docket was proper when he granted the reliefs sought by the third Respondent. (Distilled from Floor 9 of the Discover of Enchantment).
5. Whether or not the trial Choose was proper when he relied on the Provisions of Part 87(9) of the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended) to grant all of the reliefs sought by the third Respondent. (Distilled from Floor Eight of the Discover of Enchantment).
6. Whether or not the trial Choose was proper when he relied on the Affidavit of Info deposed to by Abdullahi N. Bardi to discountenance Exhibit G hooked up to the Appellant’s Counter Affidavit to the Originating Summons and positioned the burden of proving allegation of crime contained within the stated Affidavit of Info on the Appellant. (Distilled from Floor 5 of the Discover of Enchantment).
?The third Respondent formulated the next points for the dedication of this enchantment as follows:
i. Is the moment Swimsuit caught up by the limitation interval of fourteen (14) days prescribed by Part 285(9) of the Structure of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (Fourth Alteration, No. 21) Act, 2017 (henceforth, “the Fourth Alteration Act”)? ?
3
(Distilled from Grounds 1 and three of the Discover of Enchantment).
ii. Did the realized trial Court docket correctly consider and accord probative worth to the proof adduced by the events earlier than granting the reliefs sought within the Originating Summons? (Grounds 4, 5, 6, 7 and eight of the Discover of Enchantment).
Having rigorously learn the Discover of Enchantment and the arguments canvassed within the briefs of argument filed by the events, I’m of the view that the 6 (six) points formulated for dedication within the briefs filed by the Appellant are proliferated.
I shall due to this fact undertake the problems formulated by the third Respondent which seem to me easy and simple. I cannot repeat the problems hereunder however will proceed to take care of them beginning first with the problem of jurisdiction in keeping with the choice in numerous instances together with OFIA VS. EJEM (2006) 11 NWLR (PT. 992) 652; AMAECHI VS. INEC (2007) 9 NWLR (PT. 1040) 504; SENATE PRESIDENT VS. NZERIBE (2004) 9 NWLR (PT. 878) 251; INAKOJU VS. ADELEKE (2007) Four NWLR (PT. 1025) 427; GAFAR VS. KWARA STATE (2007) Four NWLR (PT. 1024) 315;
4
RIRUWAI VS. SHEKARAU (2008) 12 NWLR (PT. 1100) 142.
ISSUE ONE
Is the moment swimsuit caught up by the limitation interval of fourteen 14 days permitted by Part 285(9) of the Structure of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (Fourth Alteration No 21) Act 2017 (henceforth “The Fourth Alteration Act’? (Distilled from Grounds 1 and three of the Discover of Enchantment).
The Appellant submitted that the third Respondent’s swimsuit on the trial Court docket was not filed throughout the time stipulated by the Structure. That the subject material of the third Respondent’s swimsuit passed off on the 4th of October 2018 whereas the swimsuit was filed on the 31st of October, 2018, a interval of about 27 days from the date of the election. It was argued that the swimsuit was filed out of time and needs to be struck out.
It was additional argued that assuming the date would begin to run from when the third Respondent turned conscious of the substitution of his title with that of the first Respondent, then the swimsuit was nonetheless filed out of the statutory time supplied by the Structure. Reference was made to Exhibit M dated 15th October, 2018.
The Court docket was urged to dismiss the swimsuit of the third Defendant.
5
These authorities have been cited within the transient:
LIST OF AUTHORITIES
1. ASABORO VS. PAN OCEAN OIL CORD. (NIG) LTD (2017) 7 NWLR (PT. 1563) PAGE 42 AT 67 ? 68
2. ALHAJI LAWAL M. LIMAN & Four ORS VS. ALL PROGRESSIVES CONGRESS (APC) & 2 ORS (UNREPORTED JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEAL IN APPEAL NO. CA/A/95/2019)
3. TIMIPRE SYLVA VS. INEC & ORS (2015) Three SCM 263 AT 289
4. CHIEF IKECHI EMENIKE VS.PEOPLES DEMOCRATIC PARTY & Three ORS (2012) 5 SC (PT. 1) 113
5. OMISORE & ANOR VS. AREGBESOLA & 2 ORS (2015) 5 ? 6 SC (PT. 111) PG 1 @ PAGE 96
6. ANUONYE WACHUKWU & ANOR VS. AMADIKE OWUNWANNE & ANOR (2011) 5 SC (PT. 1) PAGE 168
7. ONYEMELUKWE VS. WEST AFRICAN CHEMICAL COMPANY LIMITED (1995) Four NWLR (PT. 387) PAGE 24 AT 55
8. ATOSHI & ORS VS. AGBU & ORS (2018) LPELR 44477 (CA) PAGE 24 PARA B – E
9. ODOM & 2 ORS VS. PDP & 2 ORS (2015) 2 SC (PT. 1) AT PAGE 24
10. ENG. GOODNESS AGBI & ANOR VS. CHIEF AUDU OGBEH & ORS (2006) 5 SCNJ 314
11. ATUYEYE & ORS VS. ASHAMU (1987) LPELR ? 638 (SC) PAGE 29
12. OLOJA VS. GOV. BENUE STATEpercentC
