LawCare Nigeria

Nigeria Legal Information & Law Reports

LUKMAN & ANOR v. INEC & ORS (2022)

LUKMAN & ANOR v. INEC & ORS

(2022)LCN/17035(CA)

In The Court Of Appeal

(ABUJA JUDICIAL DIVISION)

On Friday, October 21, 2022

CA/ABJ/CV/953/2022

Before Our Lordships:

Peter Olabisi Ige Justice of the Court of Appeal

Ugochukwu Anthony Ogakwu Justice of the Court of Appeal

Mohammed Mustapha Justice of the Court of Appeal

Between

1. AWOYEMI OLUWATAYO LUKMAN 2. ALLIED PEOPLES MOVEMENT (APM) APPELANT(S)

And

1. INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION (INEC) 2. PEOPLES DEMOCRATIC PARTY (PDP) 3. SENATOR ADEMOLA JACKSON NURUDEEN ADELEKE RESPONDENT(S)

 

RATIO

THE PRINCIPLE OF LOCUS STANDI

Now an objection by a Defendant or a Respondent to an action to the effect that the Plaintiff or the Claimant lacks locus standi to initiate or institute an action is intertwined or is interwoven with jurisdiction of the Court. In other words where it is established that a Plaintiff is devoid of standing to sue it robs the Court of the jurisdiction to embark upon adjudication over the matter and the reliefs being claimed by the Plaintiff or Claimant.
A person or litigant will only have access to Court or standing to sue if he is able to show that his rights and obligations have been violated or endangered. The locus standi principle is designed to ward off from the hallowed precincts of our Courts and Tribunals, interlopers or jesters who have no justifiable or congnizable complaints affecting their rights or obligations from presenting frivolous suits for adjudication before a Court of law. See:
1. Section 6(6)(b) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended).
2. SUNDAY ADEGBITE TAIWO VS. SERAH ADEGBORO & ANOR (2011) 11 NWLR (PT. 1259) 562 AT 572 F-H where RHODES-VIVOUR, JSC said:-
“Locus Standi means standing to sue or competence of a party to sue. An objection to a plaintiff’s locus standi attacks his competence to sue as to whether he has any legal or equitable interest to protect. The rule about locus standi developed primarily to protect the Courts from being used as playground by professional litigants, or and meddlesome interlopers, busy bodies who really have no real stake or interest in the subject matter or the litigation.”  PER IGE, J.CA.

THE POSITION OF LAW ON WHERE A PERSON HAS LOCUS STANDI TO SUE IN AN ACTION

3. RT. HONOURABLE IGO AGUMA VS APC & ORS (2021) 14 NWLR (PART 1796) 351 AT 401 F – H per JAURO, JSC who said:-
“The law is trite that a person has locus standi to sue in an action if he is able to show to the satisfaction of the Court that his civil rights and obligations have been or are in danger of being infringed. – See Nworika v. Ononeze- Madu & Ors. (2019) LPELR – 46521 (SC), (2019) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1672) 422; Disu & Ors. v. Ajilowura (2006) LPELR – 955 (SC), (2006) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1000) 783; Thomas & Ors. v. Olufosoye (1986) LPELR – 3237 (SC), (1986) 1 NWLR (Pt.18) 669.
​For a person to have the legal capacity to sue over a matter, he must show sufficient interest in the subject matter of litigation and that will give him the access to institute proceedings in a Court of law. As was the case in relation to ascertaining reasonable cause of action, the pleadings of the party seeking to sue must disclose a cause of action vested in the plaintiff and the rights and obligations or interest of the plaintiff which have been violated before he can be vested with locus standi to sue. See Barbus & Company Nigeria Limited & Anor v. Mrs. Gladys Oyiboka Okafor-UdeJi, (2018) LPELR – 44501 (SC), (2018) 11 NWLR (Pt.1630) 298.”
4. CHIEF MAXI OKWU & ANOR VS CHIEF VICTOR UMEH & ORS (2016) 4 NWLR (PART 1501) 120 AT 144H C- G per OKORO, JSC who said:-
“The other issue has to do with the locus standi of the 1st appellant herein to institute the action either for himself or no behalf of others. In Attorney-General of Kaduna State v. Mallam Umaru Hassan (1985) 2 NWLR (Pt. 8) 483, this Court held that the legal concept of standing or locus standi is predicated on the assumption that no Court is obliged to provide a remedy for a claim in which the applicant has a remote, hypothetical or no interest. Thus, where a plaintiff by his pleading, fails to show that he has a locus to institute an action, no issue in the case can be gone into, not even the question whether or not the statement of claim discloses a cause of action. As was held in Nigeria Airways Ltd v. F.A. Lapite (1990) LPELR- 1988 (SC), (1990) 11 – 12 SC 60; (1990) 7 NWLR (Pt. 163) 392, the only and proper order to make in such circumstance is that striking out the Suit. See also Iwuaba v. Nwaosigwelem (1989) 5 NWL2 (Pt. 123) 623.”  PER IGE, J.CA.

THE POSITION OF LAW ON THE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE OF JURISDICTION

The law is firmly settled that in situation such as this touching and concerning the competence of the action on the allegation that the Appellants lacked the locus standi to institute this action which also questioned the jurisdiction of the lower Court to entertain the suit herein, the Court is enjoined to confine itself scrupulously to the examination of the writ of summons and the statement of claim or the Originating Summons and Affidavit in Support in order to determine whether or not the Court has jurisdiction to entertain the Claimants claims or reliefs. This is because a Court does not begin to look into or examine statement of defence in order to decipher if it possesses the jurisdiction to adjudicate upon a matter brought before it. See:
1. THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF THE FEDERATION V THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF LAGOS STATE (2017) 8 NWLR (PART 1566) 20 AT 46 E – C per PETER-ODILI, JSC who said:-
“To determine whether or not a Court has jurisdiction, this Court in the case of Olofu v. Itodo (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1225) 545 at page 573 paras. D-F held that:
“Also settled is the principle of law that in order to determine whether a Court before which a matter pends has the jurisdiction to entertain same, the Court has to look at the plaintiff’s statement of claim before it and not the defence put forward by the defendant to the action. The claim of the plaintiff in an action includes the originating summons and the affidavit(s) in support of same. Where the action is instituted any originating summons as was decided by this Court in the case of Inakoju v. Adeleke (2007) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1020) 427 at 588 – 589.”
2. MR. SUNDAY ADEGBITE TAIWO VS. SERAH ADEGBORO & ANOR 11 NWLR (PART 1259) 562 AT 599 H TO 580 A – B per RHODES-VIVOUR, JSC who held:
“A Plaintiff satisfies the Court that he has locus standi if he is able to show that his civil right and obligations have been or are in danger of being infringed. There must be a nexus between the claimant and the disclosed cause of action concerning his rights, or obligations and locus standi is determined by examining only the Statement of Claim. Furthermore, in determining whether a party has locus standi the chances that the action may not succeed is an irrelevant consideration.” 
3. PEOPLES DEMOCRATIC PARTY VS TIMIPRE SYLVA (2012) 13 NWLR (PART 1316) 85 AT 127 D-E per RHODES-VIVOUR, JSC who held:
“Jurisdiction to entertain a Suit is resolved by scrupulous examination of the writ of summons, the Statement of Claim and the reliefs claimed. No other document should be examined. Where the Originating process is an Originating Summons, the affidavit filed in support of the Originating Summons serves as the plaintiff’s pleadings (Statement of Claim). Jurisdiction would be resolved by examining only the Originating Summons, the reliefs contained therein and the affidavit filed in support.”
PER IGE, J.CA.

FACTOR TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT A CLAIM IS JUSTICIABLE

In deciding whether a claim is justiciable, a Court must determine whether the duty asserted can be judicially identified and its breach judicially determined and whether protection for the right asserted can be judicially moulded. Powel v. Inkcormack 395 US 486. 89 Set 1944 L. Ed. 2nd 491)”
3. Uwazuruonye v. The Governor of Imo State & Ors (2012) LPELR – 20604 E – A; (2013) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1355) 28 per My Lord Rhodes-Vivour, JSC.
Thus a plaintiff must have a cause of action which encapsulates the entire set of circumstances giving rise to a gaily enforceable claim. The action or suit of the plaintiff must stem out of an act or conduct of a defendant culminating into a justiciable claim. All these  must be discernible or made clear on the statement of claim in an action initiated vide, writ of summons or in an affidavit of the claimant where the action is commenced by originating summons, or originating motion. Relevant facts must be exposed to the Court to show that the rights and obligations of the claimant have been Jeopardized or in imminent danger of being seriously determined by the defendant as the Court can only invoke its judicial powers under Section 6 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria to adjudicate on a matter that is justiciable. See Nigercare Development Company Ltd v. Adamawa State Water Board & Ors (2008) … NWLR (Pt. 1093) 498; 2008 LPELR – 1997 (SC) 1 at 27 per Ogbuagu, JSC who said:-
“In the case of Attorney-General of the Federation & Ors v. Sode & 2 Ors. (1990) 9 NWLR (Pt. 128) 500 at 538; (1990) SCNJ Karibi- Whyte, JSC (Rtd.) in his concurring judgment, stated inter alia as follows:-
“But it is also well settled that the exercise of a right of action is derived from the fundamental law of the land; or any statute specifically conferring such right. The Court can only exercise jurisdiction with respect to a right of action and cannot assume jurisdiction unless the plaintiff who has brought the action, before it has a right of action. See Bello & Ors v. A.G., Oyo State (1986) 5 NWLR (Pt. 45) 828. This Court has in many recent decisions defined what a right of action is.”
2. CHIEF MAXI OKWU & ANOR VS CHIEF VICTOR UMEH & ORS (2016) 4 NWLR (PART 1501) 120 AT 143k TO 144E – H per OKORO, JSC who said:-
“The other issue has to do with the locus standi of the 1st appellant herein to institute the action either for himself or on behalf of others. In Attorney-General of Kaduna State v. Mallam Umaru Hassan (1985) 2 NWLR (Pt. 8) 483, this Court held that the legal concept of standing or locus standi is predicated on the assumption that no Court is obliged to provide a remedy for a claim in which the applicant has a remote, hypothetical or no interest. Thus, where a plaintiff by his pleading, fails to show that he has a locus to institute an action, no issue in the case can be gone into, not even the question whether or not the statement of claim discloses a cause of action. As was held in Nigeria Airways Ltd. v. F.A. Lapite (1990) LPELR – 1988 (SC), (1990) 11 – 12 SC 60; (1990) 7 NWLR (Pt. 163) 392, the only and proper order to make in such circumstance is that striking out the Suit. See also Iwuaba v. Nwaosigwelem (1989) 5 NWLR (Pt. 123) 623. “
3. RT. HON. IGO AGUMA VS APC & ORS (2021) 14 NWLR (PART 1796) 351 AT 401 F – H where My LORD JAURO, JSC said:-
“The law is trite that a person has locus standi to sue in an action if he is able to show to the satisfaction of the Court that his civil rights and obligations have been or are in danger of being infringed. See Nworika v. Ononeze-Madu & Ors. (2019) LPELR – 46521 (SC), (2019) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1672) 422, Disu & Ors v. Ajilowura ​(2006) LPELR – 955 (SC), (2006) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1000) 783, Thomas & Ors. v. Olufosoye (1986) LPELR – 3237 (SC), (1986) 1 NWLR (Pt.18) 669.
For a person to have the legal capacity to sue over a matter, he must show sufficient interest in the subject matter of litigation and that will give him the access to institute proceedings in a Court of law. As was the case in relation to ascertaining reasonable cause of action, the pleadings of the party seeking to sue must disclose a cause of action vested in the plaintiff and the rights and obligations or interest of the plaintiff which have been violated before he can be vested with locus standi to sue. See Barbus & Company Nigeria Limited & Anor v, Mrs. Gladys Oyiboka Okafor-Udeji, (2018) LPELR – 44501 (SC), (2018) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1630) 298.”
Section 285(14)(a) (b) and (c) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 as amended cannot avail the Appellants in that they and the rights they sought to ventilate did not fall within the penumbra or precincts of the aforesaid Subsection 285(14)(a)(b)(c) of the Constitution. The subsection aforesaid and its paragraphs a, b and c do not admit a claim that a political party who submits the name of its candidate earlier in time before the time stipulated by 1st Respondent’s Guidelines or Directive for submission online is a justiciable pre-election matter in which a total stranger and interlopers like the Appellants can enjoy right of action for Court’s adjudication. There is no such right under Section 285(14) of the Constitution. See APC V DELE MOSES & ORS (2021) 14 NWLR (PART 1796) 278 AT 325 C – E per AGIM, JSC.
PER IGE, J.C.A.

PETER OLABISI IGE, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): By their Originating Summons dated 6th April, 2022 and filed on 7th April, 2022 the Appellants commenced this action against the Respondents. The Originating Summons was amended upon the joinder of the 3rd Respondent on 9th June, 2022. The Appellant filed Amended Originating Summons on 15th June, 2022 wherein the Appellant sought answers to the following questions viz;-
“1. WHETHER, having regard to the provisions of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (1999 CFRN) (as amended), the Electoral Act, 2022 and the state of decided judicial authorities applicable to the instant case, the 1st Defendant (INEC) possess the statutory power, duty, obligation and function to issue Guidelines or Regulations and/or Timetable & Schedule of Activities and dates in respect of relevant elections in Nigeria?
2. WHETHER, the Guidelines or Regulations and/or Timetable & Schedule of Activities and dates issued by the 1st Defendant (INEC) in respect of the Osun State 2022 Governorship election scheduled for 16th day of July, 2022 or on any other date thereafter, in exercise of its statutory powers, duties, obligations and functions have the force of law and must be obeyed by the 2nd Defendant (PDP) as a political party?
3. WHETHER, the 2nd Defendant (PDP) can in non-compliance with the Guidelines or Regulations and/or Timetable & Schedule of Activities and dates issued by the 1st Defendant (INEC) in respect of the Osun State 2022 Governorship election, on timeline for online submission of the nomination, name and Form EC9 of its Governorship candidate, that is 9:00AM 14th March, 2022 to 6:00PM 18th March, 2022, submit the nomination, name and Form EC9 of its Candidate to the 1st Defendant (INEC)’s Nomination Portal, outside the dates stipulated or approved for the online submission?
4. WHETHER. by reason of non-compliance with the Guidelines or Regulations and/or Timetable & Schedule of Activities and dates issued by the 1st Defendant (INEC) in respect of the Osun State 2022 Governorship election in exercise of its statutory powers, duties, obligations and functions, on the timeline for online submission of the nomination, name and Form EC9, the said 2nd Defendant’s online submission of the nomination, name and Form EC9 of its candidate to the 1st Defendant for the 2022 Osun State Governorship election outside the approved timeline is ‘invalid’, ‘null, void and of no effect’ and ought to be set aside?
5. If the answer to questions 1 and 2 above are in the affirmative, answer to question 3 above in the negative and answer to question 4 above is in the affirmative, whether this Honourable Court can invoke its judicial powers and make such order or orders or further consequential order or orders as this honourable Court may deem fit make in this case in the interest of Justice.”

In anticipation of favourable answers, the Appellants sought the following reliefs:-
1. DECLARATION that, by the provisions of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (1999 CFRN) (as amended). the Electoral Act, 2022 and the state of decided judicial authorities applicable to the instant case, the 1st Defendant (INEC) have the statutory powers, duties, obligations and functions to issue Guidelines or Regulations and/or Timetable & Schedule of Activities and dates in respect of relevant elections in Nigeria.
2. A DECLARATION that the Guidelines or Regulations and/or Timetable & Schedule of Activities and dates issued by the 1st Defendant (INEC) in respect of the Osun State 2022 Governorship election scheduled for 16th day of July, 2022 or on any other date Thereafter, in exercise of its statutory powers, duties, obligations and functions have the force of law and must be strictly obeyed by the 2nd Defendant (PDP) as a political party.
3. A DECLARATION that the 2nd Defendant (PDP) cannot in non-compliance with the Guidelines or Regulations and/or Timetable & Schedule of Activities and dates issued by the 1st Defendant (INEC) in respect of the Osun State 2022 Governorship election, on time line for online submission of the nomination, name and Form EC9 of its Governorship candidate, that is 9:00AM 14th March. 2022 to 6:00pm March, 2022, submit the nomination, name and Form EC9 of its Candidate to the 1st Defendant (INEC)’s Nomination Portal, outside the mandatory dates stipulated or approved for the online submission.
4. A DECLARATION that by reason of non-compliance with the Guidelines or Regulations and/or Timetable & Schedule of Activities and dates issued by the 1st Defendant (INEC) in respect of the Osun State 2022 Governorship election in exercise of its statutory powers, duties, obligations and functions, on the timeline for online submission of the nomination. name and Form EC9, the said 2nd Defendant’s online submission of the nomination, name and Form EC9 of its candidate to the 1st Defendant for the 2022 Osun State Governorship election, made outside the approved timeline for the online submission, is ‘invalid’, null, void and of no effect’ and ought to be set aside.
5. A DECLARATION that this Honourable Court can invoke its judicial powers and make such Order or Orders or further consequential Order or Orders as this Honourable Court may deem fit to make in this case in the interest of justice.
6. A DECLARATION that the 1st Defendant (INEC) is not entitled to feature or recognize any person as a candidate of the 2nd Defendant (PDP), whose name and Form EC9 was not submitted online within the stipulated timeline by the 1st Defendant pursuant to its statutory powers, for the Osun State Governorship election slated for July 16, 2022 or any other date thereafter.
7. A DECLARATION that the ‘the submission of the nomination, name and Form EC9 of a candidate for the Osun State Governorship election made by the 2nd Defendant (PDP) been “invalid”, ‘null, void, of no effect whatsoever’ and “meant to be set aside”, the 1st Defendant (INEC) should not accord recognition to any of such submission of name and Form EC9 of any candidate by the 2nd Defendant in respect of the July 16, 2022 Osun State Governorship election.
8. AN ORDER of this Honourable Court setting aside or annulling the purporting 2nd Defendant’s submission of any name and or Form EC9 of any person by the 2nd Defendant to INEC as its Governorship candidate for the Osun State Governorship election slated by the 1st Defendant (INEC) for 16th July, 2022 or any date thereafter which was not submitted online within the stipulated timeline issued by INEC in exercise of its statutory powers, duties and functions, that is, from 9:00AM 14th March, 2022 to 6:00PM 18th March, 2022.
9. AN ORDER OF MANDATORY INJUNCTION directing the Defendant (INEC) not to include in its list of candidates eligible to contest election in the July 16, 2022 Osun State Governorship election or any list, ballot paper or election records or materials any name and/or Form EC9 of any person purporting to have been submitted by the 2nd Defendant (PDP) or purporting to have been nominated or sponsored and submitted by the 2nd Defendant for the election, which was not submitted online within the stipulated timeline issued by INEC in exercise of its statutory powers, duties and functions, that is, from 9:00AM 14th March, 2022 To 6:00PM 18th March, 2022.
10. AND FOR SUCH OTHER OR FURTHER CONSEQUENTIAL ORDER OR ORDERS as this Honourable Court may deem fit to make in this case in the interest of justice.

The Respondents were duly served and issues were duly joined by the parties save the 1st Respondent which did not file any process in reaction to the Appellants’ case.

It must be stated that at the lower Court the 2nd Respondent filed Notice of Preliminary Objection contained on pages 539 – 540 of the Record of Appeal Vol. 2 wherein it prayed the lower Court thus:-
“TAKE NOTICE that at the hearing of the Plaintiff’s originating summons filed on the 7th April, 2022, the 2nd Defendant shall raise and argue preliminary objection to the competence of this suit which robs this honourable Court of its jurisdiction to hear and determine this suit.
GROUNDS OF OBJECTION:
1) The plaintiffs lack locus standi to institute this action;
2) The Plaintiffs’ suit does not disclose any reasonable cause of action against the Defendants.
3) The plaintiffs are not a member of the 2nd Defendant. They are mere meddlesome interloper.
4) The subject matter of the plaintiffs’ suit is within the prerogative of the 2nd Defendant to determine its members and candidate for election.
5) The plaintiffs are not aspirant who participated in the gubernatorial primary election conducted by the 2nd Defendant on the 8th March, 2022 at Osogbo township stadium which produced its gubernatorial candidate for the election scheduled for 16th July, 2022.
PRAYERS:
The 2nd Defendant prays this honourable Court to hold that: –
a) This Honourable Court lacks requisite jurisdiction to entertain this suit:
b) AN ORDER of this Honourable Court striking out and or dismissing this suit with substantial cost.
TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that the 2nd Defendant/Objector shall rely on the processes filed by the plaintiffs to wit the originating summons, affidavit in support, the documentary exhibits attached and the written address in support of the originating summons.”

On his part, the 3rd Defendant now 3rd Respondent also at the lower Court filed Notice of Preliminary Objection. It reads:-
“TAKE NOTICE that this Honourable Court will be moved on the …day of 2022 at the hour of 9 O’clock in the forenoon or so soon thereafter as counsel can be heard on behalf of the 3rd Defendant/Applicant (Applicant) praying for:
AN ORDER of this Honourable Court striking out/dismissing this suit for want of Jurisdiction.
FURTHER NOTICE that the grounds upon which this application is based are:
1. That this Honorable Court lacks the jurisdiction to take cognizance, countenance, and determine this suit.
2. The limited Jurisdiction conferred by Sections 29(5) and 84 (14) of the Electoral Act, 2022 does not in any way or manner imbue the Honourable Court with jurisdiction to entertain this matter.
3. The Plaintiffs lack the requisite locus standi to institute or maintain the instant suit.
4. The Plaintiffs suit is statute barred having been filed outside the 14 days period allowed by law.
5. The suit as presently constituted is grossly incompetent and hence, constitute an abuse of the process(es) of this Honourable Court.
6. The suit is frivolous, misconceived, vexatious, speculative and a gross abuse of Court process.”

The said objections were consolidated with the Originating Summons and they were heard together.

After the adoption of Written Addresses by learned Counsel, the trial Judge gave considered judgment on 18th August, 2022.

The learned trial Judge found on pages 757 – 758 of the Record of Appeal as follows:-
“The 3rd Defendant, save for generally saying that the instant suit constitutes a gross abuse of Court process as same is frivolous, vexatious and a deliberate attempt by the Plaintiffs to scuttle and distract the preparation of the 2nd and 3rd Defendants in the forthcoming Osun State Gubernatorial election has not referred this Court to any specifics to enable the Court come to such findings of abuse. It has not been alleged or shown by the 3rd Defendant that there are multiplicity of actions on the same subject matter against the same opponent

on the same issue by the Plaintiffs.
This point is bereft of any substance. It is resolved against the 3rd Defendant.
In totality, the preliminary of objections of the 2nd and 3rd Defendants succeeds. The sole issue nominated for determination is resolved in favour of the Defendants that is, this Court is not seized of Jurisdiction to entertain the Plaintiffs’ suit.
In Udo v. Akpabio Ors (2013) LPELR – 22119 CA. the Court of Appeal stated the position of the law when a Court finds that it has no jurisdiction to entertain a suit thus;
“The law is also settled that when in a case, the jurisdiction Court to adjudicate over or entertain the case is challenged on any recognized and established point of law and the Court makes a finding that it lacks the requisite jurisdiction by upholding the challenge, the only proper and appropriate order it had the authority to make, is one striking out the case for want of jurisdiction. This position of the law was affirmed by the Supreme Court in the recent case of Dangana v. Usman (2012) 2 MJSC (Pt. 111) 146 at 176 when it stated that:-
“It is trite that where a Court finds that it lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate on any matter, the proper order to make is an order of striking out…”
See also First Deep Water Discovery Ltd. v. Faiceck Petroleum Ltd (2020) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1 736) Pg. 535 AT Pp. 576-577. paras H-A.
This is because, according to the Supreme Court, where a Court has no jurisdiction, there is nothing to be said again. See B. L. Lizard Shipping Co. Ltd v. M. V. “Western Star” (2019) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1678) Pg. 489 AT 506 Para H. And also because it is trite that where a Court has no jurisdiction to entertain a matter any decision reached by it would be a nullity, no matter how brilliantly conducted the proceeding is. See Ojo v. Adesida (2020) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1732) Pg. 247 AT P. 386, paras D – F. In the light of the above, I decline to determine the Plaintiffs’ substantive suit. Accordingly, this suit is struck out for want of jurisdiction.”

The Appellants were aggrieved by the above decision of the lower Court and have by their Notice of Appeal dated 31st August 2022 filed on the same date appealed to this Court on nine (9) grounds as follows:-
“2. PART OF THE DECISION OF THE LOWER COURT COMPLAINED OF: The whole decision/judgment of the trial Court except the part of the judgment where the learned trial Judge dismissed the respective preliminary objections of the 2nd and 3rd Respondents predicated and founded on lack of Reasonable cause of Action and Abuse of Court Process.
3. GROUNDS OF APPEAL
GROUND ONE
Misdirection in Law
The learned trial Judge misdirected himself in law when after resolving against the Plaintiffs’/Appellants’ suit discloses cause of action but on a further breadth prevaricated to hold that the Plaintiffs/Appellants lack the locus standi to initiate this suit.
GROUND TWO
Error in Law
The learned trial Judge erred in law when he held that Appellants lack locus standi to institute this suit based on his misdirected decision at pages 36, 37 and 38 of the judgment where he held thus:
“The Plaintiff contended that this suit comes within the provisions of Section 285 (b) and (c) of the Constitution. No doubt the 1st Plaintiff in this suit is not challenging ‘the actions, decisions or activities of the Independent National Electoral Commission in respect of his participation in an election. His complaint is equally not that ‘the provisions of the Electoral Act or any Act of the National Assembly regulating elections in Nigeria has not been complied with by the Independent National Electoral Commission in respect of the selection or nomination of candidates and participation in an election’. His complaint is that ‘the online submission of the nomination and Form EC9 of the 2nd Defendant’s candidate for the Osun State 2022 Governorship election was made on Friday 11th March, 2022 at 14:38:12 GMT, and not within the 1st Defendant’s mandatory timeline for online submission of the nomination, name and Form EC9 of its Governorship candidate, that is between 9.00 AM 14th March, 2022 to 6:00PM 18th March, 2022 and ‘the said submission by the 2nd Defendant of its candidate’s name and his Form EC9 of the 11th March, 2022, was not done in compliance with and not within the mandatory timeline provided by the 1st Defendant for online submission of candidates’ nomination and Form EC9 which is, from 14th March, 2022 to 18th March, 2022 for the Osun State Governorship election.’ See paragraphs 24 and 25 of the Plaintiffs’ affidavit in support of the originating summons. It could therefore be seen that the complaint on submission of Form EC9 of the 3rd Defendant by the 2nd Defendant) is not the decision on of the 1st Defendant and thus does not come within Section 285(b) of the constitution. The said submission cannot also be challenged by the second Plaintiff under Subsection 14(c) of Section 285 of the Constitution, the act of submission also being a decision of the 1st Defendant. The complaint of the Plaintiffs is also not the disqualification of the 2nd Plaintiff’s candidate or a complaint that the provisions of the Electoral Act or any other applicable law has not been complied with. On the basis of the above reasoning, it is therefore my conclusion that the Plaintiffs lack the locus standi to institute this suit. This point is resolved against the Plaintiffs.”
GROUND THREE
Error in Law
The learned trial Judge erred in law when after he had at page 34 line 10 to 22, page 36 lines 11 to 22 of this judgment held thus:-
“Let me therefore examine the provisions of Section 285(9) and (14)(b) & (c) of the Constitution and Section 152 of the Electoral Act (supra). 

By Section 152 of the Electoral Act (supra), as ‘aspirant’ means a person who aspires or seeks or strives to contest an election to a political office,’ In paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Plaintiffs’ affidavit in support of the amended originating summons, the 1st Plaintiff described himself ‘as a member of the 2nd Plaintiff … and its Osun State Governorship election as Governor of Osun State in the forthcoming Osun State Governorship election slated by the 1st Defendant to hold on July 16, 2022 or any other date thereafter.’ It follows therefore that the 1st Plaintiff meets the definition of an aspirant as defined in Section 152 of the Electoral Act. Reading the above section ‘merely defines what “pre-election suit is and does not in any way confer Jurisdiction on this Honourable Court to entertain matters outside the ones listed in the provisions of Section 251 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) or Section 29(5) and 84(14) of the Electoral Act, 2022′ cannot be the correct interpretation of the section. This is because the section specifically provided that “pre-election matter” means any suit…’ It follows therefore that ‘any suit’ filed pursuant to Subsection 14(a – c) of Section 285 comes within the jurisdiction of this Court. The Plaintiff contended that this suit comes within the provisions of Section 285 (b) and (c) of the Constitution.”
But in a swift, the learned trial Judge at page 38 lines 5 to 6 of his judgment held thus:-
“Plaintiffs lack locus standi to institute this suit. This point is resolved against the Plaintiffs.”
GROUND FOUR
Error in Law
The learned trial Judge erred in law when at page 40 of the judgment he held that “the complaint of the Plaintiffs can be deduced from paragraphs 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28 and 29 of the Plaintiffs’ affidavit in support of the originating summons’ but discarded and disregarded every other averment in the rest of the paragraphs of said Plaintiffs’/Appellants’ averment in the paragraphs of their Further and Better Affidavit in opposition to 2nd and 3rd Defendants’ Counter Affidavits.
GROUND FIVE
Error in Law
The Honourable trial Court erred in law when after considering and reviewing the evidence presented by the Appellants and some of the Respondents who actually defended the suit, at page 47 of its judgment that it declined to determine the substantive suit.
GROUND SIX
Error in Law
The learned trial Judge erred in law when he failed or refused to deliver its finding and decision that the name of the 3rd Respondent was wrongly published by the 1st Respondent (INEC) on the 25th March, 2022 as the candidate of the 2nd Respondent (PDP) in the July 16, 2022 Osun State Governorship election not minding that his name and Form EC9 was submitted by the 2nd Respondent in non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of the Timetable and Schedule of Activities and dates for the Osun State Governorship Election, 2022 and the First Supplementary to Regulations and Guidelines for the Conduct of Elections or dismiss the suit if the trial Judge so wished.
GROUND SEVEN
Error in Law
The learned trial Judge erred in law when it failed to consider the issues raised by the Appellants in the substantive suit and thereby occasioned a miscarriage of justice.
GROUND EIGHT
Error in Law
The learned trial Judge erred in law when it held thus:-
“By the decision of the Supreme Court in Zailani v. Gumau (2020) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1709) pg. 452, the date of the occurrence of the event, decision or action complained of is included in the calculation of the number of days. In this instance, calculating from the 11th March, 2022 when the cause of action accrued or arose to the 7th April, 2022 when the suit was filed, it is 28 days. It is well above the statutory period of 14 days permitted by Section 285 (9) of the Constitution. This suit is therefore statute-barred since the suit was not filed within “14 days from the date of the occurrence of the event, decision and action complained of in the suit.”
When an action is statute-barred, what it connotes is that the Plaintiff may have an actionable cause of action but his recourse to judicial remedy is voided. No proceedings can be brought to prosecute the action. In other words, where an action is statute-barred, a plaintiff who might have had a cause of action loses the right to enforce the action by judicial process because the period of time laid down by Limitation Law for instituting such action has elapsed. Thus, an action commenced after the expiration of the period within which an action must be brought as stipulated in a statute of limitation is not maintainable. See A.G. Adamawa State v. A.G. Federation (supra).
This point is thus resolved against the Plaintiffs.”
Without appreciating the position of the law regarding when cause of action arose.
GROUND NINE
Error in Law
The judgment of the trial Court is against the weight of evidence.
4. RELIEFS SOUGHT FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL
i. An Order allowing this Appeal;
ii. An order setting aside the judgment of the trial Court except the part of the judgment where the learned trial Judge dismissed the respective preliminary objections of the 2nd and 3rd Respondents predicated and founded on Reasonable Cause of Action and Abuse at Court Process;
iii. An order that the Court of Appeal do assume Jurisdiction under the General Powers of the Court of Appeal pursuant to Section 15 of the Court of Appeal Act, 2021 and hear or complete the hearing of the Appellants suit which the trial Federal High Court failed or refused hear and determine completely, as all the facts; materials and evidence are now before the Court of Appeal during the life time of the matter;
iv. An order granting the Appellants all the reliefs as contained in the originating summons;
v. Any other consequential order or orders as the Court of Appeal may deem fit to make in the circumstances of this appeal.”

The Appellant’s Brief of Argument was filed on 15/9/2022 while the 2nd Respondent’s Brief of Argument was filed on 23/9/22. The 3rd Respondent’s Brief of Argument was filed on 26/9/22.

The Appellants filed Reply Brief to 2nd Respondent’s Brief of Argument on 26/9/22 and same was deemed filed on 11/10/2022. Appellants also find it necessary to file Reply Brief to the 3rd Respondent’s Brief on 28/9/2022. The appeal was heard on the 11th of October, 2022. I must state that the 1st Respondent did not file Brief of Argument.

The Appellants generated four issues for determination of the appeal as follows:-
1) CONSIDERING THE DECISION OF THE LEARNED TRIAL JUDGE IN HIS JUDGMENT THAT THE 1ST APPELLANT AS THE CANDIDATE SPONSORED BY THE 2ND APPELLANT IN THE 2022 OSUN STATE GOVERNORSHIP ELECTION OF 16TH JULY, 2022 AGAINST THE 2ND AND 3RD RESPONDENTS MEETS THE DEFINITION OF AN ASPIRANT AS DEFINED IN SECTION 152 OF THE ELECTORAL ACT 2022 ​THAT THE APPELLANTS) CASE DISCLOSE REASONABLE CAUSE OF ACTION WORTHY OF CONSIDERATION OR ADJUDICATION BY THE COURT TOGETHER WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 6(6) AND 285 (14) OF THE 1999 CONSTITUTION OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA (AS AMENDED) WHETHER THE LEARNED TRIAL JUDGE WAS RIGHT IN LAW TO HAVE OTHERWISE HELD THAT THE APPELLANTS LACK THE LOCUS STANDI TO INSTITUTE THIS SUIT? (Distilled from grounds 1, 2 and 3 of the Notice and Grounds of Appeal).
2) WHETHER THE LEARNED TRIAL JUDGE WAS RIGHT TO HAVE CHOOSE AND PICKED WHICH PARAGRAPHS OF THE AFFIDAVIT HE WISHES TO DEPLOY, RATHER THAN CONSIDERING THE APPELLANTS’ AFFIDAVITS AS A WHOLE IN ARRIVING AT HIS RESOLUTION THAT THE SUIT OF THE APPELLANTS IS STATUTE BARRED? (Distilled from ground 4 and 8 of the Notice and Grounds of Appeal).
3) WHETHER BY THE COMBINED EFFECT OF SECTIONS 36 (1) AND 285 (8) & (10) OF THE 1999 CONSTITUTION OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF (AS ALTERED) AND THE STATE OF SUPERIOR DECIDED JUDICIAL AUTHORITIES) THE HONOURABLE TRIAL COURT OUGHT NOT TO HAVE DETERMINED THE APPELLANTS SUBSTANTIVE SUIT IN ORDER TO GIVE THE COURT OF APPEAL THE BENEFIT OF THEIR OWN OPINION AND THUS EXPEDITE THE COURSE OF JUSTICE? (Distilled from grounds 5 and 6 of the Notice and Grounds of Appeal).
4) WHETHER BY SECTION 15 OF THE COURT OF APPEAL ACT, THIS HONOURABLE COURT OF APPEAL CANNOT CONSIDER AND DETERMINE THE APPELLANTS SUBSTANTIVE SUIT AND THE RELIEFS SOUGHT BY THE APPELLANTS IN THE ORIGINATING SUMMONS THE COURT HAVING FAILED IN ITS DUTIES IN ITS JUDGMENT. (Distilled from grounds 7 and 9 of the Notice and Grounds of Appeal).

The 2nd Respondent raised three (3) issues for the determination of the appeal viz:-
“3.1 In the 2nd Respondent’s view, the following issues arise for determination in this appeal to wit:
1. WHETHER considering the totality of the Appellant’s case to wit: the questions for determination, the reliefs sought and the supporting affidavit to the originating summons, the trial Court was not right in holding that the appellants lacked locus standi to institute the suit thereby robbing the trial Court of its requisite jurisdiction. (Distilled from Grounds 1, 2 and 3).
2. WHETHER the trial Court was not right in holding that the Appellants suit was statute barred having regards to paragraphs 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28 and 29 of the Appellants’ affidavit in support of the originating summons thereby robbing the trial Court of its requisite jurisdiction to entertain same. (Distilled from Grounds 4 and 8).
3. WHETHER the trial Court was wrong in law when it decided not to proceed with the determination of the substantive case of the appellants having rightly upheld the preliminary objections of the 2nd and 3rd Respondents that it has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit on the merits. (Distilled from Grounds 5, 6, 7 and 9).”

The 3rd Respondent also nominated three (3) issues for determination as follows:-
“1. Whether the learned trial Judge was right in its holding that the alleged cause of action of the Appellants was statute barred. (Distilled from Grounds 4 and 8 of the Notice of Appeal).
2. Whether the learned trial Judge was right in its holding that the Appellants lacks the locus standi to institute and maintain the suit leading to this Appeal. (Distilled from Grounds 1, 2 and 3 of the Notice of Appeal).
3. Whether the learned trial Judge having concluded that it lacks jurisdiction to entertain the Appellants’ suit was bound to decide the merit of the case. (Distilled from Grounds 5, 6, 7 and 9 of the Notice of Appeal).

The appeal will be determined on the questions raised by the Appellants.

ISSUE ONE
Learned counsel submits that it should be noted that the learned trial Judge in exercise of his interpretative powers, at page 34 of his Judgment, particularly at page 712 to 759 of volume 2 of his Record of Appeal affirmed and upheld that the 1st Appellant who is the candidate sponsored by the 2nd Appellant on the same 2022 Osun State Governorship election of 16th July, 2022 with the 2nd and 3rd Respondents meets the definition of an aspirant as defined in Section 152 of the Electoral Act, 2022.

The submits that it is the learned trial Judges affirmed view that after reading the above Sections 285(9) and (14) (b) & (c) of the Constitution and Section 152 of the Electoral Act, 2022, that Section 285 (a) an (14) specifically provided that “pre-election matter” means any suit and therefore that it follows that ‘any suit’ filed pursuant to Subsection 14 (a-c) of Section 285 of the 1999 CFRN (as amended) such as the instant Appellants’ suit comes within the jurisdiction of the honourable trial Court.

That the learned trial Judge rightly found that this suit comes within the provisions of Section 285 (b) and (c) of the Constitution.

That the learned trial Judge held that the plaintiff’s case discloses a cause of action and he cannot rightly in law turn around to hold that the Appellants lack the locus standi to institute this suit.

Learned counsel submits that there is no appeal against any of the above findings and holdings by any of the Respondents. That the law is settled that where there is no appeal against a finding of Court. The finding remains subsisting. The relied on the case of JAIYESIMI V. DARLINGTON (2022) 9 NWLR (PT. 1835) 335 at 367 paragraphs C-D. He relied on the case of ADESANYA V. PRESIDENT OF THE FRN & ANOR (1981) LPELR – 147 (SC) (PP -74 PAPAS. B) to state that it is the cause of action that one has to examine to ascertain whether there is disclosed a locus standi or standing to sue.

He submitted that the Appellants are aggrieved that the 1st Respondent published the name of the 2nd and 3rd Defendants on the 25th March, 2022 which it ought not to do because the submission of the name of the 3rd Defendant was not within the submission window stipulated on the INEC timetable for the election. Learned contended that since the trial Court joined the 3rd Respondent as a co-defendant to the suit of the Appellants, it suffices that the Appellants possess the locus or the standing to maintain their suit against the Respondents. He urged this Court to resolve this issue in favour of the Appellants.

In response, learned counsel to the 2nd Respondent submits that the trial Court was right in law and in fact that the appellants lack locus standi to institute the suit before it. That the trial Court rightly found that the Appellants’ complaint i.e. the submission of form EC9 of the 3rd Respondent by the 2nd Respondent to the 1st Respondent is not a decision of the 1st Respondent and therefore does not come within Section 285 (14) (b) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended).

That it is trite law that in determining the locus standi of the Appellants, the Court is confined to writ of summons/statement of claim. He relied on the case of OKWU VS UME (2016) 4 NWLR (pt. 1501) PAGE 120 – 144, PARAS E-F. He relied in the case of OWURU VS ADIGWU (2018) 1 NWLR (pt. 1599) AT PAGE 27, PARAS E-G to state that in action commenced by originating summons as in the instant case, affidavits serve as a statement of claim are defense.

Learned Counsel submitted that for the Appellant to have locus standi. They must have sufficient interest in the suit relying on the case of CITEC INTERNATIONAL ESTATES LTD VS FRANCIS (SUPRA) AT page 186, para – D. That the appellants must show by their affidavit in support of their originating summons that their civil rights and obligations have been or are in danger of being infringed. He relied on the case of B.B. APUGO & SONS LTD VS ORTHOPEDIC HOSPITALS MANAGEMENT BOARD (OHMB) (2016) 13 NWLR (PT 1529) PAGE 206 AT 269, PARAS D-H.

That the legal consequences of lack of locus standi is that the Court will lack jurisdiction to entertain the plaintiff’s claim and the suit will be liable to be struck out. He relied on the case of INEC VS OGBADIBO LOCAL GOVT. (2016) 3 NWLR (PT 1498) P. 167 at 202, PARA. F.

He urged this Court to uphold the decision of the lower Court.

In his own response, learned counsel to the 3rd Respondent submitted that the learned trial Judge was right in holding that the Appellant’s lacked the locus standi to institute and maintain the suit leading to this appeal. That the law is settled that whether or not a party has locus standi to commence an action is one that is very fundamental and goes to the root of the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain the action. That locus standi focuses on the party seeking to get his complaint before the Court and not on the issues he wishes to have adjudicated. That if a plaintiff has no locus standi or standing to sue, it is not necessary to consider whether or not there is a genuine case on the merit. He relied on the case of ADESOKAN & ORS VS ADETUNJI & ORS (1994) LPELR – 152 (SC) (PP 61 -PARAS D-D) amongst others.

That for a party to have locus standi, he must show through his statement of claim and in affidavit in support of his originating summons that either his personal interest will immediately be or has been adversely affected by the action or that he sustained or is in danger of sustaining an injury to himself which interest or injury is over and above that of the general public.

That the Osun State Gubernatorial election was conducted on 16th July, 2022 with a total of 15 candidates partaking in the said election. That out of a total valid votes of 804,450 casted during the election, the Appellants herein polled a total of 1,222 votes and came 8th at the election. That the result of the present appeal does not in any way confer any interest or benefit to the Appellants. That this appeal is academic.

That the Appellants conceded that their suit was not brought pursuant to the provisions of Section 29(5) and 84 (14) of the Electoral Act 2022.

He urged this Court to uphold the findings of the learned trial Judge.

ISSUE TWO
Learned counsel to the Appellant submitted that the learned trial Judge erred in law when at page 40 of his judgment particularly at page 712 to 769 of volume 2 of the Record of Appeal he held that “the complaint of the plaintiffs can be deduced from paragraphs 22, 23, 24, 25, 27, 28 and 29 of the plaintiffs’ affidavit in support of the originating summons,” but discarded and disregarded every other averment on the rest of the paragraphs of said Appellants’ affidavit in support of the originating summons, and the plaintiffs averment on the paragraphs of their further and Better Affidavit in opposition to 2nd and 3rd Respondents’ Counter-Affidavits.

He submitted that by the express provisions of Section 285(9) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) every pre-election matter shall be filed not later than 14 days from the date of the occurrence of the event, or action complained of in the suit.

That the lower Court erroneously held that the submission of the name of the 3rd Respondent by the 2nd Respondent on 11th March, 2022 was the date of the event, or action complained of by the plaintiffs in their suit. He relied on the case of ADAMU V. DANTIYE (2022) 1 NWLR (PART 1810) 1.

That from the affidavit in support of the originating summons, the Appellants did not get to know of the submission of the said name of the 3rd Respondent until the 25th day of March, 2022 when the publication was made by the 1st Respondent. That when INEC made the publication a cause of action crystallizes for any aspirant that want to challenge the said publication based on invalid nomination allegation and 14 days window to file the action begins to run from the said date of publication. He relied on the case of MODIBBO V. USMAN (2020) 3 NWLR (PT 1712) 470 AT 505 PARAS C-G.

He stated while relying on the case of PDP V. EZEONWUKA (2017) LPELR 42563 (SC) AT 105 PARAS B-C that whoever comes to Justice must do justice and must not come to the temple of justice with dirty hands.

That the power of the 1st Respondent to issue timetable for the said Osun State Governorship election and Guidelines for the submission of nomination of candidates for the election have been re-echoed in the following judicial pronouncements where the Court held that procedure laid down in regulations, guidelines or directives issued by the Defendants have the force of law and must be strictly complied with.
(a) FALEKE V. INEC (2016) 18 NWLR (PT 1543) 61 AT 157.
(b) CPC V INEC (2011) 18 NWLR (PT 1279) 493 AT 542.
(c) AGBALLAH V CHIME (2009) 1 NWLR (PT 1122) 373 AT 459.
(d) BUHARI V YUSUF (2013) 14 NWLR (PT 841) 446)
(e) ABUBAKAR V INEC (2004) 1 NWLR (PT 854).

That the 1st Respondent who made the decision and took the action complained of by the Appellants did not file any counter-affidavit to the Appellant’s suit. He relied on the case of BRONWEN ENERGY TRADING LTD V. OAN OVERSEAS AGENCY (NIG) LTD & ORS (2022) LPELR – 57306 (SC) (PP. 3) PARAS. B.

That the Appellant’s suit filed on the 7th of April, 2022 was not statute-barred from the 25th of March, 2022, when the Respondent (INEC) made that decision and took the action complained of by the Appellants. He urged this Court to resolve this issue in favour of the Appellant.

The 2nd and 3rd Respondents in their replies submit that the learned trial Judge was right in holding that the alleged cause of action of the Appellants was statute barred having been filed outside the mandatory 14 days period allowed by law.

Both Respondents contended that an action commenced after the expiration of the period  within which an action must be brought as stipulated in the stature of limitation is not maintainable relying on the case of EKEOGU VS ALIRI (1991) 3 NWLR (PT 179) 258 amongst others.

​They submitted that by virtue of Section 285 (9) of the Constitution of the FRN, 1999 (as amended), 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. That this was filed by the Plaintiffs on the 7th of April, 2022. That the cause of action arose on the 11th of March, 2022 on the basis of the appellants’ paragraphs 24, 25, 26, 28, and 29 of the supporting affidavit to their originating summons.

They submitted that the trial Court was right to have considered the facts in support of the originating summons in determining whether or not an action is statute-barred, that the Court examines the originating process to know when the wrong in question occurred and compares it with the date the originating process was filed in Court relying on the case of ASABORO VS PAN OCEAN OIL CORPORATION (NIG) LTD (2017) 7 NWLR (PT 1563) PACE 42 68, PARA A.

That the purported ignorance of the Appellants cannot be a basis for the Appellants to commence their suit outside the 14 days period allowed by Section 285 (9) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

That once an action is determined and found to be statute barred, by a Court, the action is liable to be dismissed for being initiated in contravention of a statute.

Both respondents urged this Court to uphold the findings of the learned trial Judge and dismiss this suit for incompetence.

ISSUES THREE AND FOUR
Learned counsel to the Appellant submits that the learned trial Judge wrongly declined Jurisdiction and refused to determine the Appellant’s instant suit and thereafter struck it out by virtue of the provisions of Section 285(8) of the 1999 Constitution (supra). The trial Court is precluded from delivering a separate ruling when the competence of the suit or jurisdiction of the Court is challenged in a pre-election matter but to deliver such ruling at the same time with the judgment of Court on the substantive matter. He relied on the case of OGAH V IKPEAZU & ORS (2017) LPELR – 42372 (SC) (PAGE 38, PARAS A-E). That the said failure on the part of the learned trial Judge occasioned a miscarriage of Justice to the Appellants.

He submitted that by virtue of Section 16 of the Court of Appeal Act, this Honourable Court has full jurisdiction over the whole proceeding in this appeal as if the suit was instituted before it as a Court of first instance. He relied on the case of BAREWA PHARM. LTD V F.R.N. (2019) A NWLR (PT. 1677) 331 (P. 349, PARAS F-G). He urged this Court to resolve these issues in favour of the appellants.

In their replies, learned counsel to the 2nd & 3rd Respondents submitted that the trial Court was right in refusing to consider the Appellants’ suit on the merit same having become moot and academic. The case of AKINJOKUN VS LUFTHANSA GERMAN AIRLINES & ANOR (2018) LPELR – 46729 (CA) (PP. 30 – 30) Paras B – C was relied upon to contend that where a Court lacks jurisdiction, it is unnecessary to consider other issues.

That the trial Court was legally in order not to have considered the merits of the appellant’s case, having held that the Appellant lacked locus standi to institute the suit and that the suit is statute – barred which robbed the trial Court of its requisite jurisdiction.

That the law is trite that once a preliminary objection is filed, it must first be considered as it takes precedence over the issues raised by the parties. He relied on Section 285(8) of the 1999 Constitution.

They urged this Court to dismiss this suit and uphold the decision of the learned trial Judge.

RESOLUTION OF ISSUES
The gravamen of the Appellants’ grouse as agitated in their Brief of Argument under issue one is that since the learned trial Judge found that the 1st Appellant is an aspirant pursuant to Section 152 of the Electoral Act and having further found that the Appellants’ suit discloses reasonable cause of action, the learned trial Judge misdirected himself when he found against Appellants that they have no locus standi to institute the action.

Now an objection by a Defendant or a Respondent to an action to the effect that the Plaintiff or the Claimant lacks locus standi to initiate or institute an action is intertwined or is interwoven with jurisdiction of the Court. In other words where it is established that a Plaintiff is devoid of standing to sue it robs the Court of the jurisdiction to embark upon adjudication over the matter and the reliefs being claimed by the Plaintiff or Claimant.
A person or litigant will only have access to Court or standing to sue if he is able to show that his rights and obligations have been violated or endangered. The locus standi principle is designed to ward off from the hallowed precincts of our Courts and Tribunals, interlopers or jesters who have no justifiable or congnizable complaints affecting their rights or obligations from presenting frivolous suits for adjudication before a Court of law. See:
1. Section 6(6)(b) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended).
2. SUNDAY ADEGBITE TAIWO VS. SERAH ADEGBORO & ANOR (2011) 11 NWLR (PT. 1259) 562 AT 572 F-H where RHODES-VIVOUR, JSC said:-
“Locus Standi means standing to sue or competence of a party to sue. An objection to a plaintiff’s locus standi attacks his competence to sue as to whether he has any legal or equitable interest to protect. The rule about locus standi developed primarily to protect the Courts from being used as playground by professional litigants, or and meddlesome interlopers, busy bodies who really have no real stake or interest in the subject matter or the litigation.”
3. RT. HONOURABLE IGO AGUMA VS APC & ORS (2021) 14 NWLR (PART 1796) 351 AT 401 F – H per JAURO, JSC who said:-
“The law is trite that a person has locus standi to sue in an action if he is able to show to the satisfaction of the Court that his civil rights and obligations have been or are in danger of being infringed. – See Nworika v. Ononeze- Madu & Ors. (2019) LPELR – 46521 (SC), (2019) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1672) 422; Disu & Ors. v. Ajilowura (2006) LPELR – 955 (SC), (2006) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1000) 783; Thomas & Ors. v. Olufosoye (1986) LPELR – 3237 (SC), (1986) 1 NWLR (Pt.18) 669.
​For a person to have the legal capacity to sue over a matter, he must show sufficient interest in the subject matter of litigation and that will give him the access to institute proceedings in a Court of law. As was the case in relation to ascertaining reasonable cause of action, the pleadings of the party seeking to sue must disclose a cause of action vested in the plaintiff and the rights and obligations or interest of the plaintiff which have been violated before he can be vested with locus standi to sue. See Barbus & Company Nigeria Limited & Anor v. Mrs. Gladys Oyiboka Okafor-UdeJi, (2018) LPELR – 44501 (SC), (2018) 11 NWLR (Pt.1630) 298.”
4. CHIEF MAXI OKWU & ANOR VS CHIEF VICTOR UMEH & ORS (2016) 4 NWLR (PART 1501) 120 AT 144H C- G per OKORO, JSC who said:-
“The other issue has to do with the locus standi of the 1st appellant herein to institute the action either for himself or no behalf of others. In Attorney-General of Kaduna State v. Mallam Umaru Hassan (1985) 2 NWLR (Pt. 8) 483, this Court held that the legal concept of standing or locus standi is predicated on the assumption that no Court is obliged to provide a remedy for a claim in which the applicant has a remote, hypothetical or no interest. Thus, where a plaintiff by his pleading, fails to show that he has a locus to institute an action, no issue in the case can be gone into, not even the question whether or not the statement of claim discloses a cause of action. As was held in Nigeria Airways Ltd v. F.A. Lapite (1990) LPELR- 1988 (SC), (1990) 11 – 12 SC 60; (1990) 7 NWLR (Pt. 163) 392, the only and proper order to make in such circumstance is that striking out the Suit. See also Iwuaba v. Nwaosigwelem (1989) 5 NWL2 (Pt. 123) 623.”

The law is firmly settled that in situation such as this touching and concerning the competence of the action on the allegation that the Appellants lacked the locus standi to institute this action which also questioned the jurisdiction of the lower Court to entertain the suit herein, the Court is enjoined to confine itself scrupulously to the examination of the writ of summons and the statement of claim or the Originating Summons and Affidavit in Support in order to determine whether or not the Court has jurisdiction to entertain the Claimants claims or reliefs. This is because a Court does not begin to look into or examine statement of defence in order to decipher if it possesses the jurisdiction to adjudicate upon a matter brought before it. See:
1. THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF THE FEDERATION V THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF LAGOS STATE (2017) 8 NWLR (PART 1566) 20 AT 46 E – C per PETER-ODILI, JSC who said:-
“To determine whether or not a Court has jurisdiction, this Court in the case of Olofu v. Itodo (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1225) 545 at page 573 paras. D-F held that:
“Also settled is the principle of law that in order to determine whether a Court before which a matter pends has the jurisdiction to entertain same, the Court has to look at the plaintiff’s statement of claim before it and not the defence put forward by the defendant to the action. The claim of the plaintiff in an action includes the originating summons and the affidavit(s) in support of same. Where the action is instituted any originating summons as was decided by this Court in the case of Inakoju v. Adeleke (2007) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1020) 427 at 588 – 589.”
2. MR. SUNDAY ADEGBITE TAIWO VS. SERAH ADEGBORO & ANOR 11 NWLR (PART 1259) 562 AT 599 H TO 580 A – B per RHODES-VIVOUR, JSC who held:
“A Plaintiff satisfies the Court that he has locus standi if he is able to show that his civil right and obligations have been or are in danger of being infringed. There must be a nexus between the claimant and the disclosed cause of action concerning his rights, or obligations and locus standi is determined by examining only the Statement of Claim. Furthermore, in determining whether a party has locus standi the chances that the action may not succeed is an irrelevant consideration.” 
3. PEOPLES DEMOCRATIC PARTY VS TIMIPRE SYLVA (2012) 13 NWLR (PART 1316) 85 AT 127 D-E per RHODES-VIVOUR, JSC who held:
“Jurisdiction to entertain a Suit is resolved by scrupulous examination of the writ of summons, the Statement of Claim and the reliefs claimed. No other document should be examined. Where the Originating process is an Originating Summons, the affidavit filed in support of the Originating Summons serves as the plaintiff’s pleadings (Statement of Claim). Jurisdiction would be resolved by examining only the Originating Summons, the reliefs contained therein and the affidavit filed in support.”

The Appellant’s claims have been set out earlier in this judgment. It is here apposite to set out the entire Amended Affidavit in support of the Originating Summons which read thus:-
“1. AWOYEMI OLUWATAYO LUKMAN, Adult, Male, Businessman and Politician, Nigerian Allied Peoples Movement (APM), Osun State, Nigeria, hereby make Oath and state as follows:-
1. I am a member of the 2nd Plaintiff, Allied Peoples Movement (APM) with membership number: APM/028/OS/0331 and its Osun State Governorship Candidate. I am a registered Voter and therefore conversant with the facts hereby deposed to in this case.
2. I am an Aspirant, Candidate of the 2nd Plaintiff and a person who aspires or see to contest election as Governor of Osun State in the forthcoming Osun State Governorship election slated by the 1st Defendant to hold on July 16, 2022 or any other date thereafter.
3. I depose to this affidavit in support of this Originating Summons for myself and on behalf of the 2nd Plaintiff, Allied Peoples Movement (APM).
4. I have the consent and authority of the 2nd Plaintiff in the State and that of the National leadership of my Party to depose to this Affidavit in Support of this Originating Summons.
5. All the facts I here depose to are facts of the circumstances giving rise to this suit and they are borne out of my personal knowledge, unless where I shall state otherwise.
6. I know the 2nd Plaintiff on record, i.e., Allied Peoples Movement (APM) as a registered political party in Nigeria with its Headquarters at Plot 232, No. 2. Leventis Building, Samuel Adesujo Ademulegun Street, Off Muhammadu Buhari Way, Central Business District, Abuja, Nigeria.
7. I know the Defendant in this case, Commission the Independent National Electoral (INEC) as the constitutionally and statutorily recognized Federal Government Agency responsible for the conduct of elections such as Governorship elections in Nigeria among other of its duties, having its Headquarters located at Plot in Nigeria among other of its duties, having its 436 Zambezi Crescent, Maitama, Abuja, Nigeria.
8. I know the 2nd Defendant on record, i.e. Peoples Democratic Party PDP. The 2nd Defendant is a political party in Nigeria having its National Headquarters registered at Plot 1970 Plaza, Wadata House, Michael Okpara Street, Wuse Zone 5, Abuja, Nigeria.
9. I know the newly joined 3rd Defendant in this suit. The 3rd Defendant is the person whose name was unlawfully published by the 1st Defendant (INEC) on the 25th March, 2022 as the candidate of the 2nd Defendant (PDP) in the July 16, 2022 Osun State Governorship election not minding that his name and Form EC9 was submitted by the 2nd Defendant in non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of the Timetable and Schedule of Activities and bates for the Osun State Governorship Election, 2022 and the First Supplementary to Regulations and Guidelines for the Conduct of Elections signed into law on 9th June, 2020 (Subsidiary Legislation) is to all the registered Political Parties in Nigeria including the 2nd Defendant for compliance by INEC, made pursuant to the 1999 Constitution and the Electoral Act.
10. I know as a fact within my knowledge that pursuant to the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (1999 CFRN) (as amended) and the Electoral Act, 2022 and in preparation to the conduct of the 2022 Osun State Governorship election the 1st Defendant (INEC) issued timetable and Schedule and dates of Activities for the said election as well as Guidelines and/or Regulations for nomination process in respect of the Osun State 2022 Governorship election of 16th July, 2022 or any other date thereafter.
11. I know as a fact within my knowledge that the timetable and Schedule and dates of Activities issued by the 1st Defendant (INEC) in respect of the election in question for the Osun State Governorship Election include the Regulation of “Major Activities and Dates.”
12. Upon the publication of the 3rd Defendant’s Personal Particulars (EC9) by the 1st Defendant (INEC) on the 25th March, 2022, we applied through our Solicitors, paid prescribed fees and we were issued a copy of the Certified True Copy (CTC) of the said INEC Timetable and Schedule of major Activities for the Osun State 2022 Governorship election.
13. I have seen and read Certified True Copy (CTC) of the said INEC’s Timetable and Schedule of major activities in the Osun State 2022 Governorship election. The Certified True Copy (CTC) of the said INEC Timetable and Schedule of Major Activities and the Receipt of its payment are hereby attached and marked as “EXHIBIT 1 and 1A” respectively.
14. I know as a fact within my knowledge that every political party including the 2nd Defendant are to obey the timetable or guidelines and/or regulations issued by the 1st Defendant (INEC) in respect of the Osun State 2022 Governorship election, including the Timetable and Schedule of major Activities in the election issued by the 1st Defendant (INEC).
15. I know as a fact within my knowledge that the 1st Defendant (INEC) in the Timetable issued for the Osun State Governorship election, fixed the dates for the mandatory online submission of Forms EC9 and EC9B “(Personal Particulars) of Candidates to be sponsored by political parties to be between 9.00AM 14th March, 2022 to 6.00PM 18th March, 2022.
16. I know as a fact that in the context of the COVID-19 protocols, the 1st Defendant amended the existing Guidelines for nomination and elections by issuing Supplementary Regulations and Guidelines to bring its activities in line with its Policy for Conducting Elections in the context of the COVID-19 Pandemic and other allied matters and this includes the Electronic Nomination Process. A copy of the said Regulation titled “FIRST SUPPLEMENTARY TO REGULATIONS AND GUIDELINES FOR THE CONDUCT OF ELECTIONS” issued on 9th of June, 2020 is hereby attached and marked as “EXHIBIT 2”.
17. I know as a fact that copies of the First Supplementary to Regulations and Guidelines for the Conduct of Elections signed into law on 9th June, 2020 were issued to all the registered Political Parties in Nigeria including the 2nd Defendant for compliance.
18. I know that by the 1st Defendant’s released Regulations and Guidelines for the conduct of Elections, it was specifically stated as part of the procedure for submission of Nomination of Candidates that Forms EC9 and EC9B and other accompanying documents shall be completed, uploaded and submitted to the 1st Defendant’s Nomination Web Portal. The uploaded documents shall include the following:
a. Form EC9 (formerly Form CF001) with all necessary documents and affidavit sworn to by each candidate;
b. The applicable Form EC9(A) – (G) series (formerly Form CF002) duly signed by the National Chairman and National Secretary of the Party, accompanied with an affidavit of Personal Particulars of the candidates.
19. I know as a fact that at the end of online submission of the nomination and Form EC9 to the 1st Defendant’s portal, a slip acknowledging successful submission of same shall be automatically generated by the nomination Portal as evidence of date and time of submission of nominations and Form EC9 by political parties.
20. That I know as a fact that all submissions in respect of nominations shall be as stated in the 1st Defendant’s issued “FIRST SUPPLEMENTARY TO REGULATIONS AND GUIDELINES FOR THE CONDUCT OF ELECTIONS”, and that Personal, Courier or Postal Service deliveries are NOT acceptable and shall NOT be processed by the 1st Defendant.
21. That upon the publication of the Personal Particulars (EC9) of Candidates by the 1st Defendant (INEC) on the 25th March, 2022, we applied through our Solicitors, paid prescribed fee and were issued a copy of the Certified True Copy (CTC) of the 2nd Defendant’s candidate’s Form EC9 and the INEC’s auto-generated acknowledgement copy/submission slip issued to the 2nd Defendant (PDP) regarding its submission of the name and Form EC9 of its candidate for the Osun Governorship election.
22. I have seen and read the CTC of the 2nd Defendant candidate’s nomination and Form EC9 submission acknowledgement copy/slip issued to the 2nd Defendant from INEC Nomination Portal. The Certified True Copy (CTC) of the nomination and Form EC9 submission acknowledgement copy/slip issued to the 2nd Defendant is hereby attached and marked as “EXHIBIT 3.”
23. I have also seen and read the CTC of the 2nd Defendant’s candidate’s 2022 Form EC9. The Certified True Copy (CTC) of the said 3rd Defendant’s 2022 Affidavit Form EC9 is hereby attached and marked as “EXHIBIT 4.
24. I have also seen and read the nomination and Form EC9 submission acknowledgement copy/slip issued to the 2nd Defendant by the 1st Defendant (INEC), it is shown that the online submission of the nomination and Form EC9 of the 2nd Defendant’s candidate for the Osun State 2022 Governorship election was made on Friday 11th March, 2022 at 14:38:12 GMT, and not within the 1st Defendant’s mandatory timeline for online submission of the nomination, name and Form EC9 of its Governorship candidate, that is, between 9:00AM 14th March, 2022 to 6:00PM 18th March, 2022.
25. I know that the said submission by the 2nd Defendant of its candidate’s name and his Form EC9 on 11th March, 2022, was not done in compliance with and not within the mandatory timeline provided by the 1st Defendant for online submission of candidates’ nomination and Form EC9 which is, from 14th March, 22 to 18th March, 2022 for the Osun State Governorship election.
26. I know as a fact that the submission of the name, nomination and Form EC9 of its candidate for the election made by the 2nd Defendant in non-compliance with the mandatory timeline for online submission of the nomination, name and Form EC9 of its Governorship candidate for the election is invalid, null and void and ineffective.
27. I know as a fact that the 2nd Defendant’s candidate should not be included in the Osun State Governorship election scheduled for the 16th July, 2022 or any other date thereafter.
28. I know as a fact that the 1st Defendant (INEC) is not entitled to feature or recognize any person as a candidate of the 2nd Defendant (PDP), whose name and Form EC9 was not submitted online within the mandatory stipulated timeline by the 1st Defendant pursuant to exercise of its statutory powers, functions and obligation in the Osun State Governorship election slated for July 16, 2022 or any other date thereafter.
29. This Honourable Court should set aside or annul the purporting 2nd Defendant’s submission of any name and/or submission of Form EC9 of any person by the 2nd Defendant to the 1st Defendant (INEC) as its Governorship candidate for the Osun State governorship election slated by the 1st Defendant (INEC) for 16th July, 2022 or any date thereafter which was not submitted online within the stipulated timeline issued by INEC in exercise of its statutory powers, duties and functions for the election, that is, not submitted online from 9:00AM 14th March, 2022 6:00PM 18th March, 2022.
30. I know that this Honourable Court can also make such order or orders as we have prayed in this suit or further consequential order or orders as this Honourable Court may deem fit to make in this case in the interest of Justice.
31. That I do solemnly and sincerely depose to the facts set out in paragraphs and I make this solemn declaration conscientiously believing same to be true, and by virtue of the provisions of the Oaths Act, 2004.”

I have calmly read the questions posed for answers by the Appellants and the reliefs sought on the Amended Originating Summons and the Amended Affidavit in Support of the Amended Originating Summons and I am of the firm view that all the complaints of the Appellants have nothing to do with the rights and obligations of the Appellants or the infringement of same under the Constitution, the Electoral Act or any provisions of the Guidelines or Regulations and or Timetable and Schedule of Activities and dates issued by the 1st Defendant in respect of the OSUN STATE 2022 GOVERNORSHIP ELECTION particularly on the Timeline for Online Submission of the Nomination of the 2nd Defendant’s Candidate’s name that is 3rd Defendant now 1st Respondent. The puerile complaint of the Appellants is that by the said Guidelines and Timetable for OSUN GOVERNORSHIP ELECTION 2022 scheduled for 16th July, 2022, the 2nd Respondent ought to have submitted the name of the 3rd Respondent 2nd Respondent’s nominated Candidate on Form EC9 Online to 1st Respondent between “9:00AM 14TH MARCH, 2022 TO 6:00 PM 18TH MARCH 2022 BUT that the 3rd Respondent’s name was submitted online to 1st RESPONDENT on 11th March, 2022. The Appellants contended that the submission of the 3rd Respondent’s name by 2nd Respondent to 1st Respondent before 14th March, 2022 was done in violation of 1st Respondent’s Guidelines for submission of Candidates’ names for the Osun Gubernatorial Election and as such “the submission of the nomination, name and Form EC9 of its (2nd Respondent) Governorship Candidate for the election is invalid, null and void and ineffective”.
​By their own showing, the Appellants have no business with the Primary Election that produced the 3rd Respondent who is a Member of 2nd Respondent’s Party (PDP) and NOT Member of the 2nd Appellant with its Member the 1st Appellant. Their claims are not situated or posited in any provisions of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 as amended and the Electoral Act. They are only out to reap where they did not sow.
They gravitate in outlandish and hypothetical questions and non-justiciable reliefs decorated in guesswork and conjectures upon which the lower Court lacks jurisdiction and upon which the Appellants are no doubt interlopers devoid of any locus standi or standing to seek the determination of these questions and the grant of non-justiciable reliefs sought from Court. All the reliefs sought do not border on the Appellants’ rights and obligations under the Constitution and the Electoral Act, 2022 on procedure or process of nominating candidates and submission of candidates’ names for election in the said Gubernatorial Election to 1st Respondent. They sought to interfere in the submission of the 3rd Respondent’s name who emerged as the candidate of 2nd Respondent in the 2nd Respondent’s Primary election as candidate concerning how and when his name ought to have been submitted to the 1st Respondent. That does not affect their rights and obligations in the electoral process pertaining to Osun Governorship election.
​If anyone should complain about the early submission of name(s) of nominated candidate(s) for the Governorship election for Osun State which held on 16th July, 2022, it is the 1st Respondent that has the rights to complain and NOT any other person including the Appellants because the 1st Respondent is the one charged with duties and responsibilities to conduct the election in question and it received the nomination of candidates for the said election from the Political Parties who legally and lawfully participated in the said election.
It is the prerogative of the 1st Respondent to accept or reject the nomination of candidates being sponsored by a Political Party which the 1st Respondent must do in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution and the Electoral Act, 2022.
The acceptance of the 3rd Respondent’s name as 2nd Respondent’s candidate in the aforesaid election on 11th March, 2022 before 14th March, 2022 cannot be a subject of any action or Suit by the Appellants because they lacked locus standi to challenge the acceptance of the name and publication of the 3rd Respondent’s name by the 1st Respondent.
​The lower Court was right in declining jurisdiction on the ground of lack of standing or locus standi among other reasons adduced by the lower Court for striking out the Appellants’ action. The lower Court was right as the subject matter is not justiciable. The lower Court cannot adjudicate on it. See;
1. NATIONAL ASSEMBLY V ACCORD & ORS (2021) 18 NWLR (PART 1808) 193 AT 295 H TO 297 A – B where I said:-
“A justiciable case or dispute must be the one properly brought before a Court or Tribunal capable of being disposed of judicially. See:-
1. Ufomba v. INEC & Ors. (2017) LPELR – 42079 (SC) 1 at 26 C – D; (2017) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1582) 175 per Ogunbiyi, JSC;
2. Hon. Patrick C. Onuoha v. Chief R. B. K. Okafor & Ors (1983) LPELR – 2705 (SC) 1 at 31 – 2; (1983) 2 SCNLR 244 where Obaseki, JSC said:-
“The touchstone of justiciability of a controversy or dispute is injury to a legally protected right. (per Burton and Douglas, JJ Dissenting in Joint Anti-Fads Refugee Committee v. Inc. Grath 341 US 123 71 set. 624, 95 L Ed. 2nd 817).
In deciding whether a claim is justiciable, a Court must determine whether the duty asserted can be judicially identified and its breach judicially determined and whether protection for the right asserted can be judicially moulded. Powel v. Inkcormack 395 US 486. 89 Set 1944 L. Ed. 2nd 491)”
3. Uwazuruonye v. The Governor of Imo State & Ors (2012) LPELR – 20604 E – A; (2013) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1355) 28 per My Lord Rhodes-Vivour, JSC.
Thus a plaintiff must have a cause of action which encapsulates the entire set of circumstances giving rise to a gaily enforceable claim. The action or suit of the plaintiff must stem out of an act or conduct of a defendant culminating into a justiciable claim. All these  must be discernible or made clear on the statement of claim in an action initiated vide, writ of summons or in an affidavit of the claimant where the action is commenced by originating summons, or originating motion. Relevant facts must be exposed to the Court to show that the rights and obligations of the claimant have been Jeopardized or in imminent danger of being seriously determined by the defendant as the Court can only invoke its judicial powers under Section 6 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria to adjudicate on a matter that is justiciable. See Nigercare Development Company Ltd v. Adamawa State Water Board & Ors (2008) … NWLR (Pt. 1093) 498; 2008 LPELR – 1997 (SC) 1 at 27 per Ogbuagu, JSC who said:-
“In the case of Attorney-General of the Federation & Ors v. Sode & 2 Ors. (1990) 9 NWLR (Pt. 128) 500 at 538; (1990) SCNJ Karibi- Whyte, JSC (Rtd.) in his concurring judgment, stated inter alia as follows:-
“But it is also well settled that the exercise of a right of action is derived from the fundamental law of the land; or any statute specifically conferring such right. The Court can only exercise jurisdiction with respect to a right of action and cannot assume jurisdiction unless the plaintiff who has brought the action, before it has a right of action. See Bello & Ors v. A.G., Oyo State (1986) 5 NWLR (Pt. 45) 828. This Court has in many recent decisions defined what a right of action is.”
2. CHIEF MAXI OKWU & ANOR VS CHIEF VICTOR UMEH & ORS (2016) 4 NWLR (PART 1501) 120 AT 143k TO 144E – H per OKORO, JSC who said:-
“The other issue has to do with the locus standi of the 1st appellant herein to institute the action either for himself or on behalf of others. In Attorney-General of Kaduna State v. Mallam Umaru Hassan (1985) 2 NWLR (Pt. 8) 483, this Court held that the legal concept of standing or locus standi is predicated on the assumption that no Court is obliged to provide a remedy for a claim in which the applicant has a remote, hypothetical or no interest. Thus, where a plaintiff by his pleading, fails to show that he has a locus to institute an action, no issue in the case can be gone into, not even the question whether or not the statement of claim discloses a cause of action. As was held in Nigeria Airways Ltd. v. F.A. Lapite (1990) LPELR – 1988 (SC), (1990) 11 – 12 SC 60; (1990) 7 NWLR (Pt. 163) 392, the only and proper order to make in such circumstance is that striking out the Suit. See also Iwuaba v. Nwaosigwelem (1989) 5 NWLR (Pt. 123) 623. “
3. RT. HON. IGO AGUMA VS APC & ORS (2021) 14 NWLR (PART 1796) 351 AT 401 F – H where My LORD JAURO, JSC said:-
“The law is trite that a person has locus standi to sue in an action if he is able to show to the satisfaction of the Court that his civil rights and obligations have been or are in danger of being infringed. See Nworika v. Ononeze-Madu & Ors. (2019) LPELR – 46521 (SC), (2019) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1672) 422, Disu & Ors v. Ajilowura ​(2006) LPELR – 955 (SC), (2006) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1000) 783, Thomas & Ors. v. Olufosoye (1986) LPELR – 3237 (SC), (1986) 1 NWLR (Pt.18) 669.
For a person to have the legal capacity to sue over a matter, he must show sufficient interest in the subject matter of litigation and that will give him the access to institute proceedings in a Court of law. As was the case in relation to ascertaining reasonable cause of action, the pleadings of the party seeking to sue must disclose a cause of action vested in the plaintiff and the rights and obligations or interest of the plaintiff which have been violated before he can be vested with locus standi to sue. See Barbus & Company Nigeria Limited & Anor v, Mrs. Gladys Oyiboka Okafor-Udeji, (2018) LPELR – 44501 (SC), (2018) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1630) 298.”
Section 285(14)(a) (b) and (c) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 as amended cannot avail the Appellants in that they and the rights they sought to ventilate did not fall within the penumbra or precincts of the aforesaid Subsection 285(14)(a)(b)(c) of the Constitution. The subsection aforesaid and its paragraphs a, b and c do not admit a claim that a political party who submits the name of its candidate earlier in time before the time stipulated by 1st Respondent’s Guidelines or Directive for submission online is a justiciable pre-election matter in which a total stranger and interlopers like the Appellants can enjoy right of action for Court’s adjudication. There is no such right under Section 285(14) of the Constitution. See APC V DELE MOSES & ORS (2021) 14 NWLR (PART 1796) 278 AT 325 C – E per AGIM, JSC.

The time within which a political party shall submit the list of candidates participating in an election has been statutorily provided for under Section 29(1) of the Electoral Act, 2022 which provides:-
“29. (1) Every political party shall, not later than 180 days before the date appointed for a general election under this Act, submit to the Commission, in the prescribed Forms, the list of the candidates the party proposes to sponsor at the elections, who must have emerged from valid primaries conducted by the political party.” The directives or Guidelines of the 1st Respondent on submissions of names of candidates being sponsored in an election by political parties including the Governorship election in Osun State cannot override the provisions of the Electoral Act and the 1999 Constitution. The 1st Respondent was right and acted within the Electoral Act when it accepted the nomination of the 3rd Respondent from the 2nd Respondent as same was submitted after valid Primaries of Political Parties. The date set in the Guidelines or Directive of the Respondent cannot render the submission of the 3rd Respondent’s name to the 1st Respondent by 2nd Respondent null and void. See:
1. WIKE EZENWO NYESOM VS HON. (DR) DAKUKU ADOL PETERSIDE & ORS (2016) 7 NWLR (PART 1512) 452 AT 527H – 528A – F per KEKERE-EKUN, JSC who said:
“Section 138(1)(b) and (2) and 153 of the Electoral Act provide: 138(1) An election may be questioned on any of the following grounds, that is to say:
(b) that the election was invalid by reason of corrupt practices or non-compliance with the provisions of this Act.
(2) An act or omission which may be contrary to an instruction or directive of the Commission or of an officer appointed for the purpose of the election but which is not contrary to the provisions of this Act shall not of itself be a ground for questioning the election.
153. The Commission may, subject to the provisions of this Act, issue regulations, guidelines or manuals for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of this Act and for its administration thereof.”
The above provisions appear to be quite clear and unambiguous. While the Electoral Commission is duly conferred with powers to issue regulations, guidelines or manuals for the smooth conduct of elections, by Section 138(2) of the Act, so long as an act or omission regarding such regulations or guidelines is not contrary to the provisions of the Act itself, it shall not of itself be a ground for questioning the election. In the instant case, one of the complaints of the 1st & 2nd respondents is that there was deliberate non-use of the Card Reader machines in the election. However, as this Court has held the use of the Card Reader has not done away with manual accreditation provided for in Section 49 of the Act. It follows therefore that the inclusion of non-compliance with the Manual for Election Officials 2015 as well as INEC’s 2015. General Elections Approved Guidelines in the circumstances of this case is improper. This issue is accordingly resolved in the appellant’s favour.”
At page 551 G – H of the Report my Lord OKORO, JSC said:-
“Lastly, let me make it clear that the provisions of the Electoral Act are superior to any letter or directive of the Independent National Electoral Commission. That superiority is clearly stated in Section 138(2) of the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended) as follows:
“An act or omission which may be contrary to an instruction or directive of the Commission or of an officer appointed for the purpose of the election but which is not contrary to the provisions of this Act shall not of itself be a ground for questioning the election.”

The holding of lower Court that Appellants suit disclosed reasonable cause of action cannot inure for the Appellants’ benefit whose action are not justiciable due to lack of locus standi which robbed the lower Court of jurisdiction. The Appellants have no scintilla of interest in the subject matter of the action herein and as such the lower Court lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate on it. See the case of:
1. ALHAJI SAKA OPOBIYI & ANOR VS. LAYIOLA MUNIRU (2011) 18 NWLR (PT. 1278) 387 AT 403 D-F per ADEKEYE, JSC who said:
“Locus Standi is the legal capacity to institute an action in a Court of law. Where a plaintiff is held to lack the locus standi to maintain an action, the finding goes to the issue of jurisdiction as it denies, the Court jurisdiction to determine the action. Jurisdiction is in other words, a radical question, of competence – a Court can only be competent when the case comes by due process of law and upon fulfilment of any condition precedent to the exercise of jurisdiction.”
2. SUNDAY ADEGBITE TAIWO VS SERAH ADECBORO & ANOR (2011) 11 NWLR (PL 1259) 562 at 572 F-H where RHODES-VIVOUR, JSC.
The Appellants have no locus standi to sue.

Issue 1 is resolved against the Appellants.

Issue 2 relates to whether the learned trial Judge failed to consider the entire paragraphs of the Affidavit in support of the Originating Summons as a whole before he arrived at the fact that the Appellants action was statute barred. The lower Court was accused of picking only a few of the paragraphs of the said Affidavit to determine that the action was statute barred. 

Now in order to find out or determine whether this action was caught by the provisions of Section 285 (9) of the Constitution, it is crucial to find out when the cause of action accrued to the Appellants as disclosed in their Affidavit and comparing the said date of accrual of action with the date the action was filed or initiated. See DR. TOSIN AJAYI VS PRINCESS (MRS) OLAJUMOKE ADEBIYI & ORS (2012) 11 NWLR (PART 1310) 137 AT 169 B – E per ADEKEYE, JSC who said:
“The essence of a limitation law is that the legal right to enforce an action is not a perpetual right but a right generally limited by statute. If there is a statute of limitation which prescribes a period within which an action should be brought: legal proceedings cannot be properly or validly instituted after the expiration of the prescribed period. Therefore a cause of action is statute-barred if legal proceedings cannot be commenced in respect of same because the period laid down by the limitation law had lapsed. An action which is not brought within the prescribed period offends the provisions of the law and does not give rise to a cause of action.”
​The yardsticks to determine whether an action is statute barred are:
(a) The date when the cause of action accrued.
(b) The date of commencement of the suit as indicated in the writ of summons.
(c) Period of time prescribed to bringing an action to be ascertained from the statute in question. Time begins to run for the purposes of the limitation law from the date the cause of action accrues.

In this case, the action was begun by Originating Summons then recourse must be had to the questions and reliefs sought on the originating summons along with the salient paragraphs of the Supporting Affidavit. See;
1. THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF THE FEDERATION V THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF LAGOS STATE (2017) 8 NWLR (PART 1566) 20 AT 46 E – G per PETER-ODILI, JSC who said:-
“To determine whether or not a Court has Jurisdiction, this Court in the case of Olofu v. Itodo (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1225) 545 at page 573 paras. D-F held that:
“Also settled is the principle of law that in order to determine whether a Court before which a matter pends has the jurisdiction to entertain same, the Court has to look at the plaintiff’s statement of claim before it and not the defence put forward by the defendant to the action. The claim of the plaintiff in an action includes the originating summons and the affidavit(s) in support to of same where the action is instituted by originating summons as was decided by this Court in the case of Inakoju v. Adeleke (2007) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1020 427 at: 488 – 589.”
2. PEOPLES DEMOCRATIC PARTY VS TIMIPRE SYLVA (2012) 13 NWLR (PART 1316) 85 AT 127 per RHODES- VIVOUR, JSC who said:-
“Jurisdiction to entertain a suit is resolved by scrupulous examination of the writ or summons, the Statement or Claim and the reliefs claimed. No other document should be examined. Where the originating process is an originating summons the Affidavit serves as the Plaintiffs pleadings (Statement or Claim). Jurisdiction would be resolved by examining only the originating summons, the reliefs contained therein and the affidavit relied in support.”

The lower Court set out in full the reliefs sought from it by the Appellants on pages 751 to 755 whereat he laid out conspicuously the paragraphs of the Supporting Affidavit that is paragraphs 22 – 29 thereof which to my mind encapsulate the stratum of the Appellants’ complaints ‘against the Respondents. The learned trial Judge exhibited clearly in his judgment that he truly appreciated the case of the Appellants and came to the right conclusion that the Appellants cause of action if any arose on 11th March, 2022 and that this action instituted 28 days later is clearly outside the time stipulated in Section 285(9) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. It is statute barred. I agree with the lower Court that the Appellants’ suit/action commenced on 7th April, 2022 is statute barred.

Issue 2 is hereby resolved against the Appellants.

Issue 3 and 4 will be taken together. Issue 3 accused the lower Court of lack of fair hearing to them and that pursuant to Section 285(8) and (10) of the aforesaid Constitution, the lower Court failed to obey the constitution and judicial precedents. Appellants therefore took liberty to call on this Court to utilize Section 15 of the Court of Appeal Act and decide the matter on the merit.

The Appellants are mistaken. The reason is not far-fetched.

The settled position of the law is that where a time frame is statutorily prescribed or stipulated for the institution of an action or suit to vindicate a right where the rights and obligations of a person have been violated or affected by a government authority or person, the person whose rights and obligations have been affected must commence his action or suit to vindicate his rights within the time mandatorily provided by the Constitution or Statute in order to avoid his suit or action from being pronounced moribund or stale. Failure to sue or begin an action within the statutory limitation period in the manner provided by law, the rights of the party concerned shall automatically become extinguished or terminated.
The situation cannot be remedied once the action or suit is not initiated or commenced within the time provided for ventilation of the party’s rights from the date of the cause of action or accrual of the cause of action. The Court will be divested of jurisdiction. See:
1. ROE LTD VS UNIVERSITY OF NIGERIA (2018) 1 SCM 135 AT 151 C per GALINJE, JSC who said:-
“The issue of whether or not an action is filed within the time stipulated by law goes to the jurisdiction of the Court.
Any omission to institute proceedings within the statutory time limit deprives the Court of jurisdiction to hear and determine the matter. Jurisdiction being the soul of adjudication can be raised at any stage of proceedings, and even at the Supreme Court for the first time.”
2. OBAYEMI TOYIN V. AROGUNADE S. MUSA & ORS (2019) 1 SCM 170 AT 187 1 TO 188 A – B per I. T. MUHAMMAD, JSC (later CJN (Rtd) who said:-
“This Court is thus, robbed of Jurisdiction from entertaining and determining this appeal, in Amadi v. INEC (2013) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1345) 595 at 631, this Court re-stated the trite position of the law:
“The conspicuous effect of limitation law is that legal proceedings cannot be properly, validly instituted after the expiration of the prescribed period. The Court is divested of its jurisdiction in the matter as it is no longer a live issue. It is dead in substance and in form.”
Thus, once an appeal comes outside the time set out for its determination, the Court is divested of jurisdiction to hear it. See Osun State Govt. v. Dalami (Nig.) Ltd. (2007) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1033) 66, Chigbu v. Tonimas (Nig.) Ltd. (2006) 9 NWLR (Part 84) 189.
3. NRMAF & ORS V AJIBOLA JOHNSON & ORS (2019) 2 NWLR (PART 1656) 24 7 AT 270 D – E per ARIWOOLA, JSC (now CJN) said:-
“Generally, the law is that where a statute provides for institution of an action within a prescribed period, the proceedings shall not be commenced after the time prescribed by such statute. Any action that is brought after the prescribed period is said to be statute barred.”
4. TIMIPRE SYLVA VS INEC & ORS (2015) 3 SCM 289 I – G per NGWUTA, JSC.
As stated earlier a calm examination of the Appellants’ Originating Summons and the Affidavit in support show clearly that apart from the fact that the Appellants lacked locus standi to initiate this action the Suit itself was initiated outside the time stipulated in the very section of the Constitution under which Appellants sought refuge. It a subterfuge on the part of the Appellants as they chose to ignore the express provisions of Section 285 (9) which specifically provides:
“1. 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.”

The Appellants’ action is not maintainable and the action had become stale and reliefs sought cannot be looked into or adjudicated upon.

In the light of the above, the lower Court did not err when it declined jurisdiction to decide on the merit of this action.

On whether this is a proper matter to exercise discretion to enter upon adjudication of Appellants’ case on the merit, I am of the firm view that in view of my findings under issues 1, 2 and 3 of the issues nominated for determination, this is not a proper case for the invocation of Section 15 of the Court of Appeal Act, 2004.

I wish to say with all sense of responsibility that having regard to the questions raised on the Originating Summons and reliefs sought and the findings of the lower Court and all that I have decided under issues 1 to 3, the Appellants are not entitled to any relief in their favour even upon the merit of their action. Issues 3 and 4 are resolved against the Appellants.

Consequently, I hold that this appeal lacks merit and same ought to be dismissed. The Appellants’ appeal is HEREBY DISMISSED IN ITS ENTIRETY.

The judgment of the Federal High Court ABUJA DIVISION delivered in suit FHC/ABJ/CS/469/2022: AWOYEMI & ANOR VS. INEC & ORS on 18th August, 2022 IS HEREBY AFFIRMED.
There will be no order as to costs.

UGOCHUKWU ANTHONY OGAKWU, J.C.A.: My learned brother, Peter Olabisi Ige, JCA, made available to me the draft of the leading judgment which has just been delivered.

Having read the Records of Appeal and the briefs of argument filed and exchanged by the parties, I am allegiant to the reasoning and conclusion in the leading judgment that the appeal is devoid of merit and is only deserving of dismissal.

The gravamina of the Appellants’ case is that contrary to the Timetable and Guidelines issued by the 1st Respondent herein, Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC); that the 2nd Respondent submitted the name of the 3rd Respondent as its candidate for the Osun State Governorship Election ahead of the period stipulated in the INEC Timetable and Guidelines. It is instructive that the Appellants have not contended that in so submitting the name, that the provisions of Section 29 (1) of the Electoral Act, 2022 were infringed by the 2nd Respondent. The said Section 29 (1) stipulates: “29 (1) Every political party shall, not later than 180 days before the date appointed for a general election under this Act, submit to the Commission, in the prescribed forms, the list of the candidates the party proposes to sponsor at the elections, who must have emerged from valid primaries conducted by the political party.”
The pertinent question is whether in a situation where the 3rd Respondent’s name was submitted within the timelines in Section 29 (1) of the Electoral Act, 2022, would the fact that it was submitted earlier than the period stipulated in the INEC Timetable and Guidelines void the said nomination? Put differently, would the stipulations of the INEC Timetable and Guidelines override and supersede the clear provisions of the Electoral Act. I was privileged to expound the law in this regard recently in the case of INEC vs. PDP (2022) LPELR (57379) 1 at 50-52 where, inter alia, I stated as follows:
“By all odds, the Appellant’s (INEC) Timetable has the force of law. It is made pursuant to Section 153 of the Electoral Act. It is however important to underscore that the said enabling provision on which the Appellant made the Timetable is made subject to the provisions of the Electoral Act… In as much as the Timetable has the force of law, can it override and supersede a stipulation in the principal enactment which it has been subjected to?
In NYESOM vs. PETERSIDE (2016) LPELR (40036) 1 at 63, the apex Court held that the directives, guidelines and manual issued by the Appellant cannot be elevated above the provisions of the Act. See also OKEREKE vs. UMAHI (2016) LPELR (40035) 1 and NKWONTA vs. INEC (2019) LPELR (49542) 1 at 40-43. The legal position was even more forcefully stated by Agim, JCA (now JSC) in SATUMARI vs. NDUME (2019) LPELR (48875) 1 at 32. Hear His Lordship:
‘S. 153 of the Electoral Act that enables the 3rd Respondent to issue regulations, guidelines and manuals for elections states clearly that the issue of such regulations, guidelines and manuals is subject to the Electoral Act. Any instruction, guideline or procedure … that is contrary to the provision of the Act is illegal and void.’
See also SHELL NIGERIA EXPLORATION AND PRODUCTION CO LTD vs. NOSDRA (2021) LPELR (53068) 1 at 41-43, DIN vs. A-G FEDERATION (1988) 4 NWLR (PT 87) 147 and MOBIL PRODUCING (NIG) UNLTD vs. JOHNSON (2018) 14 NWLR (PT1633) 329.
It seems to me that irrespective of the fact that the Timetable has the force of law, it cannot supersede an express provision of the Electoral Act; and where it conflicts with the stipulation in the Electoral Act, the Electoral Act provision which it is made subject to will take precedence. The phrase Subject to the provisions of this Act’ which is employed in Section 153 of the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended), is an expression of limitation which shall govern, control and prevail over what follows in the section of the enactment. See TEXACO PANAMA INCORPORATION vs. SHELL PETROLEUM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF NIG. LTD (2002) LPELR (3146) 1 at 10-11, KAYCEE (NIG) LTD vs. PROMPT SHIPPING CORPORATION (1986) LPELR (1680) 1 at 14-15 and INEC vs. DPP (2014) LPELR (22809) 1 at 24. Concomitantly, the provisions of the Electoral Act…, will govern, control and prevail over the stipulations of the Timetable… “
See also INEC vs. PDP (2022) LPELR (57380) 1 at 49-54.

As rightly held by the lower Court and affirmed in the lead judgment, which affirmation I agree with, the Appellants do not have the locus standi to ventilate the action. Arguendo, even if they did, the factual basis on which they founded their action, id est, non-compliance with the INEC Timetable and Guidelines, which did not infringe the stipulations of the Electoral Act, would not have grounded the voiding of the submission of the 3rd Respondent’s name as the 2nd Respondent’s candidate.

It is for the foregoing reason and the more elaborate reasoning and conclusion articulated in the leading judgment that I equally join in dismissing the appeal and on the same terms as set out in the leading judgment.

MOHAMMED MUSTAPHA, J.C.A.: I have had the privilege of reading in advance the judgment of my learned brother, PETER OLABISI IGE, JCA just delivered. I agree with his conclusions that the appeal lacks merit and it is consequently dismissed.

The judgment of the Federal High Court, Abuja Division delivered in Suit FHC/ABJ/CS/469/2022: AWOYEMI & ANOR VS. INEC & ORS on 18th August, 2022 is hereby affirmed.
I abide by the consequential orders.

Appearances:

PROF. WAHAB EGBEWOLE, SAN, with him, E. K. OKOKO, ESQ. and AHMAD ELEBURUIKE For Appellant(s)

M. S. ATOLACBE, with him, SULE ASEMOKHAI, ESQ. – for 2nd Respondent

JOHN E. OPALUWA, ESQ. – for 3rd Respondent For Respondent(s)