HON. OBI UGOCHUKWU ROMANUS v. ALL PROGRESSIVES GRAND ALLIANCE & ORS
(2019)LCN/13219(CA)
(2019) LPELR-47669(CA)
In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
On Tuesday, the 7th day of May, 2019
CA/E/215/2019
RATIO
CAUSE OF ACTION AND STATUTE BAR: THE COURT HAS TO REFER TO THE ORIGINATING PROCESSES WHEN CONSIDERING THESE TWO ISSUES
It is settled law that in determining a cause of action and whether a claim or suit is statute barred, the Court will have recourse to the originating processes filed by the plaintiff. In IBRAHIM V OSIM (1988) 5 NWLR (PT. 82)251-257, (1988) LPELR-1403(SC) the Supreme Court per UWAIS, JSC at pages 14-15, paras. F-D defined cause of action as follows:
“The words “cause of action” without the adjective “reasonable” had been defined by this Court in Savage & Ors. v. Uwechia (1972) 1 All N.L.R. (Part 1) 251 at p.257; (1972) 3 S.C. 214 at p.221, where Fatayi-Williams, J.S.C. (as he then was) said- A cause of action is defined in Stroud’s Judicial Dictionary as the entire set of circumstances giving rise to an enforceable claim. To our mind, it is, in effect, the fact or combination of facts, which give rise to a right to sue and it consists of two elements – the wrongful act of the defendant which gives the plaintiff his cause of complaint and the consequent damage. As Lord Esher said in Cooke v Gill, (1873) L.R. 8 C.P. 107 and later in Read v Brown, (1888) 22 Q.B.D. 128 (C.A.), it is every fact that it would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove, if traversed, in order to support his right to the judgment of the Court. (See Kusada v Sokoto Native Authority, (1968) 1 All N.L.R. 377 where the definition in Read v Brown, (supra) was referred to with approval.”
See also A.G. ADAMAWA STATE V. A.G. FEDERATION (2014) 14 NWLR (PT.1428) AT 550 (B-E),(2014) LPELR-23221(SC) where the Supreme Court Per OLUKAYODE ARIWOOLA, J.S.C. at pages 52-53(G-C) held that:
“In the computation of the period of limitation, what materials are to be considered, the law is already settled, that the period of limitation is to be determined by looking at the Writ of Summons and the Statement of Claim only, to ascertain the alleged date the wrong in question which has given rise to the plaintiff’s cause of action was committed and by comparing that date to the date on which the action was commenced with the filing of the Writ of Summons. In which case, if the time contained in the Writ of Summons or Statement of Claim as the time the cause of action arose is beyond the period allowed by the Limitation Law, then the action is definitely statute barred. See: Egbe Vs. Adefarasin (1987) 1 NWLR (Pt. 47) 1; (1987) 1 SCNJ; (1987) 1 All NLR 1.”PER MISITURA OMODERE BOLAJI-YUSUFF, J.C.A
PRE-ELECTION MATTERS: PERIOD WITHIN WHICH THEY ARE TO BE BROUGHT BEFORE THE COURT
The suit filed on 2/11/2018 was clearly filed outside the 14 days stipulated by Section 285(9) and (14) (a) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) by the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (Fourth Alteration, No. 21) Act, 2017 which provides that:
285(9) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Constitution, every pre-election matter shall be filed not later than 14 days from the date of the occurrence of the event, decision or action complained of in the suit.PER MISITURA OMODERE BOLAJI-YUSUFF, J.C.A
PRE-ELECTION MATTERS: THE ISSUES THAT COME UNDER THIS HEADING
For the purpose of this section, pre-election matter means any suit by-
(14) (a) an aspirant who complains that any of the provisions of the Electoral Act or any Act of the National Assembly regulating the conduct of primaries of political parties and the provisions of the guidelines of a political party for conduct of party primaries has not been complied with by a political party in respect of the selection or nomination of candidates for an election.PER MISITURA OMODERE BOLAJI-YUSUFF, J.C.A
Between
HON. OBI UGOCHUKWU ROMANUS – Appellant(s)
AND
1. ALL PROGRESSIVES GRAND ALLIANCE (APGA)
2. CHIEF VICTOR OYE
(Sued for himself as the National Chairman of National Working Committee and National Executive Committee of the 1st Defendant)
3. MR. RAPHEAL NWIKE
(The Returning Officer of Federal House of Representative Special Congress/Primary Election of 1st Defendant for Orumba North/South Federal Constituency)
4. OKWUDILI EZENWANKWO
5. INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION – Respondent(s)
MISITURA OMODERE BOLAJI-YUSUFF, J.C.A.(Delivering the Leading Judgment): This is an appeal against the ruling of the Federal High Court of Nigeria, Awka Judicial Division delivered by Honourable Justice I.B Gafai in suit number FHC/AWK/CS/147/18 on 28/2/2019. The appellant is a member of APGA, the 1st respondent in this appeal. He was one of the aspirants screened and cleared to contest the 1st respondents primary election for the nomination of the 1st respondents candidate in the general election for the Orumba North/South Federal Constituency. The election was scheduled to hold at the Local Government Secretariat, Ajali on 2/10/2019. The appellant, other aspirants, delegates, security agents, the 5th respondents officials and the 2nd respondent gathered at the venue of the primary election where the electoral process commenced. However, the election could not be concluded at the Local Government Secretariat due to disagreement on the delegate list. The venue of the election was changed to Triple Three Hotel where the process continued and the election was concluded. The appellant was aggrieved by the conduct of the
1
primary election and the change of venue commenced the suit at the Court below by an originating summons wherein he presented the following questions for determination by the Court:
1. Whether having regards to Section 87(1), (2) of Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended) offered (sic)an option to the registered political parties in Nigeria to choose either direct or indirect primary in the nomination or selection of candidates to fly its flag in the general elections in Nigeria, was the 1st Defendant right to have adopted the indirect primary election mode for its candidates for Orumba North/South Federal Constituency.
2. Whether having regards to Section 87(4) & (9) of the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended), can the 1st Defendant be rightly said to have followed its Constitution and Electoral Guidelines for Primary Elections, 2018 in the instant case.
3. Whether having regards to Section 85 (2) (b) of Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended); Part V. Paragraph 37 of the All Progressive Grand Alliance Electoral Guidelines for Primary Elections, 2018; Exhibit P9 (Independent National Electoral Commission report on the conduct of Primary Election for
2
the 1st Defendants Orumba North/South Federal Constituency) and Exhibit 8 (Police Report on conduct of Primary Election for the 1st Defendants Orumba North/South Federal Constituency),can it be said that the 1st Defendant have (sic) conducted a valid and proper Primary Election on the 2nd of October 2018 in the Orumba North/South Federal Constituency.
4. Whether having regard to the 1st defendants non-compliance to the provisions of Section 87(4) & (9) of the Electoral Act 2010; Part V. Paragraph 37 of All Progressive Grand Alliance Electoral Guidelines for Primary Election 2018, was the 1st Defendant right to present the 4th Defendant to the Independent National Electoral Commission as its candidate for Orumba North/South Federal Constituency for the 2019 general elections.?
5. Whether the 5th Defendant based on its report Exhibit P9 can properly receive the name of the 4th Defendant for Orumba North/South Federal Constituency for 2018 general election.
6. Whether the sudden change of venue for the primary election form Local Government Secretariat Ajali to Triple Three Hotel, Oko does not amount to non-compliance and
3
breach of the Electoral Act and the Guidelines for the 1st Defendant Constitution (sic).
7. In the alternative and only in the alternative, whether the plaintiff is not entitled to recover the expenses incurred in presenting himself for the primary election that was not conducted in Orumba North/South Federal Constituency in Anambra State.
He sought the following reliefs:
1. A declaration that by the virtue of Exhibit P9 (INEC Report) and Exhibit P8 (Police Report) that the 1st Defendants (APGA) Primary Election for the Orumba North/South Federal Constituency scheduled to hold on the 2nd October 2018 did not hold and therefore invalid, null and void and of no effect.
2. A declaration that by the virtue of non-compliance by the 1st Defendant to Section 87(4) & (9) of the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended); Part V. Paragraph 37 of All Progressive Grand Alliance Electoral Guidelines for Primary Election 2018 the 1st Defendant was wrong to have submitted the name of the 4th Defendant to the 5th Defendant as the winner of the primary election.
3. An order of Court mandating the 5th Defendant (INEC) to remove the name of
4
the 4th Defendant as APGA candidate for Orumba North/South Federal Constituency 2019 general election.
4. Perpetual Injunction restraining the 4th Defendant from parading himself as the 1st Defendants flag bearer for the 2019 general election into Orumba North/South Federal Constituency.
5. Alternatively and only in the alternative an order of Court for payment/refund of all expenses incurred by the plaintiff in presenting himself to the 1st -3rd defendants in a purported primary election of the 1st Defendant for Orumba North/South Federal Constituency for the 2019 general election which includes:
(a) Expression of interest Form
(b) Nomination Form
(c) Running expenses for consultation, etc
6. Order of Court nullifying the said primary election for Orumba North/South Federal Constituency for sudden change of venue from Local Government Secretariat Ajali to Triple Three Hotel Oko.
The 3rd defendant raised a preliminary objection to the suit on the grounds that:
a. This suit which was commenced more than fourteen (14) days after the primary election or non-holding of primary election, is statute barred
5
vide Section 285(9) of the 1999 Constitution(as amended).
b. This suit is incompetent for non-joinder of necessary parties.
c. To the extent that the plaintiff contends that no primary election has been conducted, this suit is a pre-primary election dispute which is ultra vires the jurisdictional competence of the Federal High Court.
d. Owing to hostile nature of the suit, originating summons is not the appropriate mode for commencing this suit.
Parties filed and exchanged all necessary processes including affidavits and written addresses in support of their contentions. The Court in its considered ruling found that the action is statute barred and dismissed it. The appellant was aggrieved by the ruling and filed a notice of appeal dated 12/3/2019. The grounds of appeal contained in the said notice are:
GROUND ONE
The learned trial judge with the greatest respect erred in law when he held thus I think that it may not be necessary to go into them because the suit as it is now constituted is liable to be and is hereby dismissed.
PARTICULARS
A. The suit was not heard on its merit.
B. The
6
B. The originating process was not heard or adopted by counsel to the parties and no judgment was delivered on it.
C. The learned trial judge ought to strike out the suit and not dismissing same.
GROUND TWO
The learned trial judge with due respect and humility did not consider that publication was made by INEC on 25/10/2018 and the suit was commenced on 2/11/2018.
PARTICULARS
A. The suit was commenced on 2/11/2018 while the cause of action arose on 25/10/2018.
B. The suit was filed eight (8) days within the time the cause of action arose.
GROUND THREE
The learned trial judge with the greatest respect was not right when he held as follows:
It was very clear that his cause of action arose on 2nd of October 2018 because according to his facts in paragraph 30 (Supra) it was on the following day i.e the 3rd of October 2018 that the aggrieved aspirants, himself inclusive, wrote a protest letter to Governor of Anambra State complaining bitterly about the conduct of the primary election in issue. Those are his own facts, by his own mouth, in his own affidavit before me
PARTICULARS
A. Cause of action is cumulative event.
7
B. The occurrence of the event, decision or action complained of ended on the publication of the event which is 25/10/2018 and the action was filed on 2/11/2018.
The appellants brief of argument was filed on 2/4/2019. 1st respondents brief was filed on 23/4/2019. 2nd respondents brief was filed on 12/4/2019. 3rd respondents brief was filed on 15/4/2019. 4th respondents brief was filed on 23/4/2019. The appellant filed a joint reply brief on 26/4/2019. All the briefs were adopted on 29/4/2019.
The 2nd respondent filed a notice of preliminary objection to challenge the competence of the appeal. According to him there is no ground of appeal challenging the decision of the Court that the suit filed by the appellant was statute barred.
The 2nd respondents counsel in his argument in support of the objection incorporated in the 2nd respondents brief submitted that it is trite law that an appeal should be founded on the ratio decidendi of a case as it is not every statement made by a judge that ought to ground an appeal. He referred to ONI V. FAYEMI (2008) 8 NWLR (PT. 1089)
8
400 AT 427. He submitted that there is no ground of appeal against the holding of the Court below that the suit is statute barred which is the ratio decidendi of the Courts decision and failure to challenge same renders the appeal incompetent and academic.
In his reaction to the above submissions, the appellants counsel submitted that the cumulative effect of the decision of the Court below is that the suit is statute barred and the three grounds of appeal with the particulars of grounds 2 and 3 are challenging the issue of statute of limitation.
RESOLUTION:
The law is trite that grounds of appeal must relate to the ratio decidendi of the judgment or decision appealed against. See K.R.K. HOLDINGS (NIG.) LTD. V. FBN & ANOR. (2016) LPELR-41463 (SC) AT 19-20 (F-B). Ratio decidendi of a case is the principle of law and the reasoning or the reasons upon which the Court predicated its decision. See AMOBI V. NZEGU & ORS. (2013) LPELR-21863 (SC) AT 40-41 (F-B). PDP V. SYLVA & ORS (2016) LPELR-42559 AT 31-32 (F-D). WAGBATSOMA V. F.R.N.(2018) LPELR-43722 (SC) 17-21 (B-D).
The reason for the decision of the Court that the suit
9
was statute barred is clearly stated on pages 365 of the record of appeal as follows:
It is instructive to note that the plaintiff is for reasons best known to him and his learned counsel unwilling to state the date he said he heard that the 3rd defendant submitted a result to the 1st defendant of the holding of an election which according to him never held. Be that as it may, from the facts of the plaintiff himself, it is very clear that his cause of action arose on the 2nd of October 2018 because according to his facts in paragraph 30 (Supra) it was on the following day i.e the 3rd of October 2018 that the aggrieved aspirants, himself inclusive wrote a letter to the Governor of Anambra State complaining bitterly about the conduct of the primary election in issue. Those are his own facts, by his own mouth, in his own affidavit before me.
As stated earlier, the plaintiff filed this suit on the 2nd of November 2018; that is, after 32 days from the date of the accrual of his cause of action in clear breach of the provision of Section 2(9) of the 1999 Constitution (Fourth Alteration) Act 2017 which limits the period within which the suit be commenced to
10
fourteen days. Consequently, this suit is statute barred.
Ground 3 of the appeal is clearly against the above pronouncement and reasoning of the Court. Having appealed against the reason(s) given by the Court for its decision that the plaintiff filed this suit on the 2nd November, 2018, that is after 32 days from the date of the accrual of his cause of action in clear breach of the Provision of Section 2(9) of the Fourth Alteration Act, 2017 which limits the period within which the suit be commenced to fourteen days. Consequently, this suit is statute barred. The authorities are clear that the reason(s) for the decision of the Court forms part of the ratio decidendi of the decision and is appealable. See WAGBATSOMA The contention that there is no appeal against the ratio decidendi of the ruling of the court below is misconceived. The objection is hereby dismissed.
The appellant formulated the following two issues for the determination of this appeal:
i. Whether the learned trial judge with all due respect was right to have dismissed the suit instead of striking out the same at this stage (Ground one).
11
ii. Whether the learned trial judge was right to hold that INEC made publication and the suit was filed on 2/11/2018 and it is very clear that the cause of action arose on 2nd day of October 2018.
The 1st respondent formulated the following two issues:
i Whether the learned trial judge was not right when he held that the appellants cause of action accrued on 2/10/2018 and that the suit had thus become statute barred (distilled from Grounds 2 and 3 of the Notice of Appeal).
ii Whether the learned trial judge was not right when he dismissed the appellants suit for being statute barred. (Distilled from Ground one of Notice of Appeal).
The issues formulated by the 2nd and 3rd respondents counsel are the same with the issues formulated by the appellant and 1st respondents counsel. The 4th respondent formulated the following issue for the determination of this appeal:
Whether the learned trial judge was right when he held that this suit is statute barred and dismissed same.
I have considered the issues formulated by counsel to all the parties along with grounds of appeal. I find the issue
12
formulated by the 4th respondents counsel to be succinct and apt for the determination of this appeal.
The appellants counsel submitted that the action complained of by the appellant is the publication of the 4th respondents name by the 5th respondent (INEC) on 25/10/2018,therefore the suit was commenced within fourteen (14) days as stipulated by Section 285 (9) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended). He further submitted that the Court below was wrong in refusing to consider the fact that the action of the 5th respondent led to the commencement of the suit and not the primary election which did not hold on 2/10/2018.
It is also the contention of the appellant that the court below erred in dismissing the suit when the action has not been heard on merit. He referred to OGAR V. JAMES (2001) FWLR (PT.67) 930.
The 1st respondents counsel submitted that whenever an issue arises on the date of the accrual of a cause of action for the purpose of determining the period of limitation, it is the plaintiffs originating process that the Court ought to take into consideration. He referred
13
to AGI V. ENO (2010) 5 NWLR (PT.1188) 626 AT 641 (B-C). A.G. ADAMAWA STATE V. A.G. FEDERATION (2014) 14 NWLR (PT.1428) 515 AT 550 (B-E). He further submitted that by the facts contained in paragraphs 23-33 of the affidavit in support of the amended originating summons on pages 84-85 of the record of appeal, the appellants cause of action is the non-holding of the 1st respondents primary election on 2/10/2018 and the submission of the result of the election by the 2nd respondent to the 1st respondent. He submitted that the attempt by the appellant to argue that his cause of action accrued on 25/10/2018 when the 5th respondent published the name of the 4th respondent is misconceived as the appellant made no averment relating to the purported publication anywhere in his affidavit in support of the summons.
Counsel submitted that the court below was right in holding that the appellants suit was statute barred and rightly dismissed same as the law is settled that where an action is statute barred, the proper order the court will make is an order dismissing the suit. He referred to N.P.A. PLC V. LOTUS PLASTICS LTD (2005) 19 NWLR (PT.595)
14
158 AT 189 (F-G). NDUKA V. OGBONNA (2011) 1 NWLR (PT.1227) 153 AT 176.
The 2nd respondents counsel submitted that the complaint of the appellant is the alleged failure to hold primary election on 2/10/2018 and which the appellant wanted the court below to declare as null and void. He further submitted that the appellant having failed to file his suit within fourteen (14) days as mandatorily stipulated by the Constitution, the court below was right in dismissing the suit for being statute barred as dismissal of a suit which is statute barred is an exception to the general rule that where a court finds that it has no jurisdiction to adjudicate on a matter, the proper order that the court should make is one striking out the suit.
The submissions and arguments of the 3rd and 4th respondents counsel are the same as those of the 1st and 2nd respondents counsel. I need not repeat them.
In his reply to the above submissions, the appellants counsel submitted that the complaint of the appellant did not only arise on 2/10/2018, it proceeded to 25/10/2018 when the 4th respondents name was published. He argued that if there
15
was no publication of the list of candidates by the 5th respondent, the appellants action would have ended on 2/10/2018.
RESOLUTION:
It is settled law that in determining a cause of action and whether a claim or suit is statute barred, the Court will have recourse to the originating processes filed by the plaintiff. In IBRAHIM V OSIM (1988) 5 NWLR (PT. 82)251-257, (1988) LPELR-1403(SC) the Supreme Court per UWAIS, JSC at pages 14-15, paras. F-D defined cause of action as follows:
“The words “cause of action” without the adjective “reasonable” had been defined by this Court in Savage & Ors. v. Uwechia (1972) 1 All N.L.R. (Part 1) 251 at p.257; (1972) 3 S.C. 214 at p.221, where Fatayi-Williams, J.S.C. (as he then was) said- A cause of action is defined in Stroud’s Judicial Dictionary as the entire set of circumstances giving rise to an enforceable claim. To our mind, it is, in effect, the fact or combination of facts, which give rise to a right to sue and it consists of two elements – the wrongful act of the defendant which gives the plaintiff his cause of complaint and the consequent damage. As Lord Esher said in Cooke v Gill, (1873)
16
L.R. 8 C.P. 107 and later in Read v Brown, (1888) 22 Q.B.D. 128 (C.A.), it is every fact that it would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove, if traversed, in order to support his right to the judgment of the Court. (See Kusada v Sokoto Native Authority, (1968) 1 All N.L.R. 377 where the definition in Read v Brown, (supra) was referred to with approval.”
See also A.G. ADAMAWA STATE V. A.G. FEDERATION (2014) 14 NWLR (PT.1428) AT 550 (B-E),(2014) LPELR-23221(SC) where the Supreme Court Per OLUKAYODE ARIWOOLA, J.S.C. at pages 52-53(G-C) held that:
“In the computation of the period of limitation, what materials are to be considered, the law is already settled, that the period of limitation is to be determined by looking at the Writ of Summons and the Statement of Claim only, to ascertain the alleged date the wrong in question which has given rise to the plaintiff’s cause of action was committed and by comparing that date to the date on which the action was commenced with the filing of the Writ of Summons. In which case, if the time contained in the Writ of Summons or Statement of Claim as the time the cause of action arose is beyond the period allowed
17
by the Limitation Law, then the action is definitely statute barred. See: Egbe Vs. Adefarasin (1987) 1 NWLR (Pt. 47) 1; (1987) 1 SCNJ; (1987) 1 All NLR 1.”
In the determination of the cause of the appellants action and whether the suit was statute barred, the Court below in compliance with the settled principles of law stated above referred to and considered paragraphs 25-31 of the affidavit in support of the originating summons where the appellant deposed to the following facts:
25. That I was surprised to hear that the 3rd defendant submitted a result to the 1st defendant purporting to be the result of alleged special delegates/primary election for Orumba North/South Federal Constituency of the 1st defendant which they claimed was held at Triple Three Hotel, Oko.
26. That I know as a fact that the men of Nigeria Police wrote a report on the outcome of what transpired on the 2nd day of October 2018 at Ajali during the conduct of the Orumba North/South Federal Constituency. The said police report is hereby annexed and marked Exhibit P8.
27. That I also know as a fact that Independent National Electoral Commission Electoral
18
observers during the election wrote a report on what transpired on the 2nd day of October 2018. The said Independent National Electoral commission report is hereby annexed and marked Exhibit P9.
28. That the 1st, 2nd,3rd, 4th defendants are now claiming that they changed the venue of 1st defendants primary election on the 2nd day of October 2018 around 11:45pm from Ajali Local Government Secretariat to Triple Three Hotel Oko which is still a contravention of the Electoral Act and the Electoral Guidelines for the 1st defendants primary election.
29. That I know as a fact that the 1st defendant does not have the power to change the venue already designated for its primary election. The All Progressive Grand Alliance Electoral Guideline for Primary Election, 2018 is hereby annexed and marked exhibit P10.
30. That the next day, all the aspirants in the abandoned/botched election wrote a protest letter to the Executive Governor of Anambra State and the 2nd defendant complaining bitterly of the conduct of the 4th defendant on the 2nd day of October, 2018.
31. That it is apparent form the electoral guidelines of the party that there
19
was no primary election conducted by the 1st defendant.
The Court held that the cause of action is the conduct of the primary election scheduled for 2/10/2018 and that the suit instituted on 2/11/2018, 32 days after the alleged failure to conduct the primary election on 2/10/2018 is statute barred by virtue of Section 285 (9) of the Constitution (as amended). The contention of the appellant is that the cause of his action is the publication of the 4th respondents name by the 5th respondent. A thorough perusal of the questions presented for determination by the appellant and the reliefs sought clearly show that none of questions relate to the publication of the 4th respondents name. No relief was sought in respect of the publication of the 4th respondents name. In other words, the complaint of the appellant is not about the publication of the 4th respondents name. The entire complaint of the appellant is about the alleged failure to conduct the primary election scheduled for 2/10/2018 in accordance with the 1st respondents guidelines and the shifting of the venue of the primary election. Exhibit P9 referred to in
20
paragraph 27 of the affidavit in support of the amended originating summons clearly confirmed the fact that the venue of the primary election was changed from the Local Government Secretariat Office to Triple Three Hotel, Oko and that the election was concluded around 2:00am. Questions 1-4 relate to the validity of the conduct of the primary election. Question 5 relates to the receipt of the 4th defendants name by the 5th respondent. Question 6 relates to the change of venue. Reliefs 1 and 6 are for the annulment of the primary election. reliefs 2,3, 4 and 5 are ancillary to reliefs 1 and 6.
It is clear from the questions presented for determination, the reliefs sought and the facts deposed to in the affidavit in support of the originating summons that Court below was correct in holding that the wrongful act of the respondents which gave rise to the complaint of the appellant is the conduct of the primary election. The decision of the Court below that the cause of action accrued on 2/10/2018 is unassailable.
The suit filed on 2/11/2018 was clearly filed outside the 14 days stipulated by Section 285(9) and (14) (a) of the Constitution of the
21
Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) by the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (Fourth Alteration, No. 21) Act, 2017 which provides that:
285(9) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Constitution, every pre-election matter shall be filed not later than 14 days from the date of the occurrence of the event, decision or action complained of in the suit.
For the purpose of this section, pre-election matter means any suit by-
(14) (a) an aspirant who complains that any of the provisions of the Electoral Act or any Act of the National Assembly regulating the conduct of primaries of political parties and the provisions of the guidelines of a political party for conduct of party primaries has not been complied with by a political party in respect of the selection or nomination of candidates for an election.
The words used in Section 285(9) and (14) (a) of the Constitution (as amended) are very clear and unambiguous. Every pre-election matter must be filed in Court within 14 days from the date of the occurrence of the event, decision or action complained of.
22
It is settled by a plethora of authorities that where a suit is not instituted within the period stipulated by law, the action is statute barred and the claimant loses the right to seek redress for his grievance(s) by judicial process. See SYLVA V. INEC (2015) 16 NWLR (PT.1486) 576 AT 630.
Though, the issue of statute of limitation relates to the jurisdiction of the Court, it is settled that where the Court finds that a suit is statute barred the proper order that should be made is one dismissing the suit because the right of the aggrieved party to approach the Court to seek redress has been extinguished. See BORNO STATE V. GADANGARI (2016) 1 NWLR (PT.1493) 396 AT 425 (B-C). The Court below was right in dismissing the appellants suit.
The inevitable conclusion is that this appeal lacks merit, it is hereby dismissed. Parties shall bear their own costs.
IGNATIUS IGWE AGUBE, J.C.A.: I was privileged to have read the draft of the Lead Judgment of my Learned Brother M. O. BOLAJI-YUSUFF, JCA, and I am in complete agreement with his reasoning and conclusion that the Appellant’s Claim from the depositions in the Affidavit in Support of his
23
Originating Summons was caught up by the limitation period stipulated in Sections 285(9) and (14) (a) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) by the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (Fourth Alteration Act, NO. 21 2017). Accordingly, the Appellant’s cause of action and his right to challenge the conduct of the Primary Election of the 1st Respondent for the Oruba North/South Federal Constituency Seat on the 2nd day of October, 2018 were stale and moribund uno flatu.
I also on the above ground dismiss the Appeal for lacking in merit and abide by the order as to costs.
JOSEPH OLUBUNMI KAYODE OYEWOLE, J.C.A.: I have had the privilege of reading the draft of the lead judgment just delivered herein by my learned brother MISITURA OMODERE BOLAJI- YUSSUF, JCA and I totally endorse the reasoning and conclusion therein. The action here is statute barred thereby depriving the Court of the necessary jurisdiction to adjudicate on whatever cause of action the Appellant had.
Jurisdiction is the life essence of adjudication, without it any exercise of judicial power is devoid of any
24
legal validity. For the more detailed reasoning in the lead judgment, I shall equally dismiss this appeal.
25
Appearances:
Clement Ezika with him, I.A. OnwubunyaFor Appellant(s)
S.I. Ezeokenwa for the 1st Respondent.
Onyinye Anumonye with him, A.U Uzoechi for the 2nd Respondent.
C.B. Anyigbo for the 3rd Respondent.
Chief Ikenna Egbuna, SAN with him, O.V Ezuo, Onyebuchi Agbu, Ngozi Chikwunedu and V.I Ubaeke for the 4th Respondent.
C.C. Okwukakalazu holding the brief of E.E Udeh for the 5th RespondentFor Respondent(s)
>
Appearances
Clement Ezika with him, I.A. OnwubunyaFor Appellant
AND
S.I. Ezeokenwa for the 1st Respondent.
Onyinye Anumonye with him, A.U Uzoechi for the 2nd Respondent.
C.B. Anyigbo for the 3rd Respondent.
Chief Ikenna Egbuna, SAN with him, O.V Ezuo, Onyebuchi Agbu, Ngozi Chikwunedu and V.I Ubaeke for the 4th Respondent.
C.C. Okwukakalazu holding the brief of E.E Udeh for the 5th RespondentFor Respondent
