.P Echor and G.N. Kanu (Miss) for the 4th respondentFor Respondent (2019)

M.D. Ter (Mrs.) with E.P Echor and G.N. Kanu (Miss) for the 4th respondentFor Respondent

(2019)LCN/13777(CA)

PEOPLES DEMOCRATIC PARTY v. ACCORD & ORS

In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

On Friday, the 13th day of September, 2019

CA/PH/408/2019

Justice

ISAIAH OLUFEMI AKEJU Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

MOHAMMED MUSTAPHA Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

ABUBAKAR MUAZU LAMIDO Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

Between

Justice

PEOPLES DEMOCRATIC PARTY (PDP)Appellant(s)

AND

1. ACCORD (A)
2. INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION (INEC)
3. IBIWARI ROBINSON
4. EYAALADA FATIMAH AKARIRespondent(s)

RATIO

WHETHER OR NOT ELECTION PETITIONS ARE SUI GENERIS

On the application or other wise of the interpretation Act, it ought to be noted that election petitions are sui generis, and it is the position of the apex Court that Interpretation Act on computation of time does not apply to the requirement of time as provided in the 4th Alteration, see OKECHUKWU V. INEC (2014) 17 NWLR part 1436 page 255, PDP V. INEC & ORS (2014) 17 NWLR Part 1437 part 525 and NGIGE & ANOR V. INEC & ORS (2015) 1 NWLR Part 1440 page 281. PER LAMIDO, J.C.A.

ABUBAKAR MUAZU LAMIDO, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): This is an appeal against the decision of the Federal High Court, Port Harcourt Judicial Division delivered on 03/07/2019 by A. T. Mohammed, J.

By an originating summons filed on 31/01/2019, the Plaintiff/Appellant sought for the following reliefs
1. DECLARATION that by virtue of the provisions of the Electoral Act and the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) only a political party that held valid primaries for its aspirants is entitled to nominate or sponsor candidates for the election to the Office/Membership of the House of Representatives, Bonny/Degema Federal Constituency of Rivers State slated for Saturday, 16th February, 2019 or thereabout in respect of which it held valid primaries for its aspirants.
2. A DECLARATION that the 1st defendant is not entitled to recognize or feature any person as a candidate for the election to the Office/Membership of the House of Representatives, Bonny/Degema Federal Constituency of Rivers State slated for Saturday, 16th February, 2019 or thereabout, except a person who participated in the

primaries conducted by the sponsoring political party.
3. A DECLARATION that the purported nomination of the 3rd Defendant and the subsequent substitution of the 3rd Defendant with the 4th Defendant as the candidate of the 2nd defendant in the election to the Office/Membership of the House of Representatives, Bonny/Degema Federal Constituency of Rivers State slated for Saturday, 16th February, 2019 or thereabout is invalid, void and of no effect whatsoever.
4. A DECLARATION that the 1st, 3rd, and 4th Defendants are not entitled to participate (save as voters) in the election to the Office/Membership of the House of Representatives, Bonny/Degema Federal Constituency of Rivers State slated for Saturday, 16th February, 2019 or thereabout.
5. A DECLARATION that by virtue of the mandatory, Constitutional and Statutory provisions of Sections 6 (6) 36 of the 1999Constitution (As amended), Section 31 (2), (5), (6), (7) & (8) of the Electoral Act, 2010 (As amended), Section 115(1), (2), & (3) of the Evidence Act, 2011, Paragraph 3 of the first Schedule to the Oaths Acts and other enabling laws in that behalf, the 3rd Defendant, who did not swear

to and sigh her 2018 INEC Form C. F. 001 INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION Affidavit in support of personal particulars of persons seeking election to the Office/Membership of the House of Representatives, Bonny/Degema Federal Constituency of Rivers State as required by law, cannot be said to have been validly nominated and/or substituted by the 1st Defendant as the House of Representatives candidate of the 1st Defendant to contest the fourth-coming 2019 general election scheduled to hold on Saturday, 16th February, 2019 into the House of Representatives, Bonny/Degema Federal Constituency of Rivers State on the platform of the 1st Defendant or any other political party.
6. A DECLARATION that by virtue of the mandatory, Constitutional and Statutory provisions of Sections 6 (6), 36 of the 1999 Constitution (As amended), Section 31 (2), (5), (6), (7) & (8) of the Electoral Act, 2010 (As amended), Section 115(1), (2), & (3) of the Evidence Act, 2011, Paragraph 3 of the First Schedule to the Oaths Act, the authority of MACFOY V. U. A. C. LTD (1961) 3 ALL ELR PAGE 1169 AT APGE 1172 and other enabling laws in that behalf, the purported

substitution of the 3rd Defendant with the 4th Defendant, which is predicted on the invalid nomination of the 3rd Defendant is a nullity ab initio, having regard to the fact that the 3rd Defendant did not swear to and sign her 2018 INEC Form C. F. 001 INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION Affidavit in support of personal particulars of persons seeking election to the Office/Membership of the House of Representatives, Bonny/Degema Federal Constituency of Rivers State as required by law, thereby disqualifying the 4th Defendant from being the House of Representative candidate of the 1st Defendant to contest the fourth-coming 2019 general election scheduled to hold on Saturday, 16th February, 2019 into the House of Representatives, Bonny/Degema Federal Constituency of Rivers State on the platform of the 1st Defendant or any other political party.
7. A DECLARATION that by virtue of the mandatory, Constitutional and Statutory provisions of Sections 6 (6) and 36 of the 1999 Constitution (As amended), the 3rd Defendants 2018 INEC Form C. F. 001 – Affidavit in support of personal particulars of persons seeking election to the Office/Membership of the

House of Representatives, Bonny/Degema Federal Constituency of Rivers State which beers a passport photograph radically different in all material particulars from the passport photograph affixed to the 3rd Defendants letter of Withdrawal has perjured and presented false information and forged certificates, at least, as respects her true identity in the said 2018 INEC form C. F. 001.
8. A DECLARATION that by virtue of the mandatory, Constitutional and Statutory provisions of Sections 6 (6), 36 of the 1999 Constitution (As amended), Section 31 (2), (5), (6), (7) & (8) of the Electoral Act, 2010 (As amended), Section 115(1), (2), & (3) of the Evidence Act, 2011, Paragraph 3 of the First Schedule to the Oaths Acts and other enabling laws in that behalf, the 3rd Defendant stands automatically disqualified from contesting the fourth-coming 2019 general election schedule to hold on Saturday 16th, February, 2019, into the House of Representatives, Bonny/Degema Federal Constituency of Rivers State on the platform of the 1st Defendant or any other political party by reason of the fact that the 3rd Defendant did not submit a valid nomination form to that

effect.
9. A DECLARATION that by virtue of the mandatory, constitutional and Statutory provisions of Sections 6 (6), 36 of the 1999 Constitution (As amended), Section 31 (2), (5), (6), (7) & (8) of the Electoral Act, 2010 (As amended), Section 115(1), (2), & (3) of the Evidence Act, 2011, Paragraph 3 of the First Schedule to the Oaths Act and other enabling laws in that behalf, the 4th Defendant stands automatically disqualified from contesting the fourth-coming 2019 general election schedule to hold on Saturday, 16th February, 2019 into the House of Representatives, Bonny/Degema Federal Constituency of Rivers State on the platform of the 1st Defendant or any other political party by reason of the fact that the 4th Defendants substitution is a nullity ab initio having predicted the said substitution on the null, void and invalid nomination of the 3rd Defendant.
10. AN ORDER of this Honourable Court Disqualifying the 3rd and 4th Defendants from contesting the forth-coming 2019 General Election schedule to hold on Saturday, 16th February, 2019 into the House of Representatives, Bonny/Degema Federal Constituency of Rivers State on the

platform of the 1st Defendant or any other political party by reason of the fact the 3rd and 4th Defendants, who were not validly nominated and substituted respectively, stand automatically disqualified from contesting the said election ab initio.
11. AN ORDER NULLIFYING forthwith the purported nominated and/or sponsorship of the 3rd Defendant by the 1st and/or 2nd Defendants as the candidate of the 1st Defendant to contest the forth-coming general election already slated for 16th February, 2019 or any other thereabout into the House of Representatives, Bonny/Degema Federal Constituency of Rivers State on the platform of the 1st Defendant or any Other political party
12. AN ORDER NULLIFYING forthwith the purported substitution and/or sponsorship of the 4th Defendant by the 1st and/or 2nd Defendants as the candidate of the 1st Defendant to contest the forth-coming general election already slated for 16th February, 2019 or any other thereabout into the House of Representatives, Bonny/Degema Federal Constituency of Rivers State on the platform of the 1st Defendant or any Other political party.
13. AN ORDER OF MANDATORY INJUNCTION directing the 1st

defendant to remove/expunge the name of the 3rd Defendant and/or the 4th Defendant (or any name purporting to have been nominated or sponsored by the 1st Defendant) from its list of nominated or sponsored candidates in the election to the office of member representing Bonny/Degema Federal Constituency of Rivers State in the forth-coming general election or ballot paper or any election records already slated for 16th February, 2019 or any other date thereabout.
14. A PERPETUAL INJUNCTION restraining the 1st and 2nd Defendant either by themselves, agents, privies, surrogates or any other person(s) whosoever from parading, presenting, recognizing, protecting, forwarding, accepting or dealing with either the 3rd Defendant or any other person whosoever in any manner howsoever as the candidate of the 1st Defendant to contest the forth-coming 2019 general election already slated for 16th February, 2019 an any other date thereabout into the House of Representatives, Bonny/Degema Federal Constituency of Rivers State on the platform of the 1st Defendant or any Other political party.
15. PERPETUAL INJUNCTION restraining the 3rd and 4th Defendant either by

themselves, agents, privies, surrogates, political supporters/allies or any other person(s) whosoever from introducing, parading, presenting, recognizing, projecting and/or contesting the forth-coming 2019 general election already slated for 16th February, 2019 or any other date thereabout into the House of Representatives, Bonny/Degema Federal Constituency of Rivers State on the platform of the 1st Defendant or any Other political party.
16. ANY OTHER OR FURTHER CONSEQUENTIAL ORDER OR ORDERS of this Honourable Court as the Circumstances of this case may require in the interest of Justice.

The paragraph affidavit deposed to by Chief Fyneman Ohaka with several annex tines. The Plaintiff/Appellant filed further and better affidavit. The Defendants/Respondents did not file any affidavit in Court.

The trial Court suo motu raised the issue of jurisdiction and upon address by counsel for the Plaintiff/Appellant, the Court strike out the suit for being statute barred. Dissatisfied with the ruling of the trial Court, the Plaintiff/Appellant appealed to this Court on 15/07/2019. The notice of appeal contains 3 grounds of appeal couched thus:-<br< p=””>

</br<>

GROUND ONE
The learned trial Judge erred in law when he held that the cause of action in the Appellants suit arose on 4th October, 2018 and 12th October, 2018 respectively when the 1st Respondent nominated and substituted the 3rd and 4th Respondents respectively; therefore the Appellants suit is statute barred and out rightly dismissed the Appellants suit; and thereby occasioned a grave miscarriage of Justice on the Appellant.
PARTICULARS OF ERROR
(1) At paragraph 20, and 21 (amongst other paragraphs) of the affidavit in support of the Originating Summons, the deponent copiously stated thus:-
20. Surprisingly, on Thursday, 17th January, 2019 the 2nd Respondent published the list of nominated candidates of political parties in Nigeria to contest the 2019 general election at the 2nd Respondents Corporate Headquarters situate at plot 536, Zambezi Crescent, Maitama District, Abuja.
21. Upon going through the list of nominated candidates, I discovered that the 2nd Respondent published the name of the 4th Respondent as the purportedly substituted candidate of the 1st Respondent to contest the forth-coming

2019 general election into the House of Representatives, Bonny/Degema Federal Constituency of Rivers State schedule to hold on Saturday, 16th February, 2019 or thereabout on the platform of the 1st Respondent.
(2) Again, at paragraph 2 (1) (amongst other paragraphs) of the 2nd further and better affidavit in support of the Originating Summons dated and filed on 7th May, 2019. The deponent copiously stated thus:-
2.(1) It was on Thursday January, 2019, when the 2nd Defendant published the list of nominated candidates of political parties in Nigeria to contest the 2019 general election at the 2nd Defendants Corporate Headquarters situate at plot 536, Zambezi Crescent, Maitama District, Abuja, that the plaintiff got to know that the 1st Defendant originally nominated the 3rd Defendant as its candidate to contest the 2019 general election into the House of Representatives, Bonny/Degema Federal Constituency of Rivers State which was eventually held on Saturday, 23rd February, 2019 or thereabout on the platform of the 1st Defendant
(3). From the above-quoted portion of the affidavit in support of the Originating Summons, as well as the 2nd

Further and Better Affidavit in support of the Originating Summons dated and filed on 7th May, 2019, it was on Thursday, 17th January, 2019, when the 2nd Respondent published the list of nominated candidates of political parties in Nigeria to contest the 2019 general election at the 2nd Respondents Corporate Headquarters situate at plot 536, Zambezi Crescent, Maitama District, Abuja, that the Appellant became aware of the facts that 4th Respondent is the purportedly substituted candidate of the 1st Respondent to contest the 2019 general election into the House of Representatives, Bonny/Degema Federal Constituency of Rivers State held on Saturday, 23rd February, 2019
(4). The cause of action in this case arose on Thursday, 17th January, 2019. When the 2nd Respondent published the list of nominated candidates of political parties in Nigeria to contest the 2019 general election at the 2nd Respondents Corporate Headquarters situate at plot 536, Zambezi Crescent, Maitama District, Abuja, to the notice and knowledge of the whole world. It was after the publication that the Appellant got to know that the 4th Respondent is the purported candidate of

the 1st Respondent to contest the 2019 general election into the House of Representatives, Bonny/Degema Federal Constituency of Rivers State held on Saturday, 23rd February, 2019; and not the 3rd Respondent.
(5). Section 285(9) of the 4th Alteration to the 1999 Constitution (As amended) provides thus:
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.
(6). By the clear provisions of Section 15(2) (amongst other provisions) of the interpretation Act and other enabling laws in that behalf, a references in an enactment to a period of days shall be construed where the period is reckoned from a particular event, as excluding the day on which the event occurs RADCLIFFE V. BATHOLOMAL (1892) I QBD 161; GELMINI V. MORRIGIA (1913) 2 KB 549; MARREN V. DAWSON BENTLEY & CO. LTD (1961) 2 KB 135; IMERH V. OKON (2012) 11 NWLR (PT. 1311) C. A. PAGE 270 AT PAGE 277, PARAS. A-D, G; PAGE 278, PARA. F, PAGE 279, PARAS C-D RATIOS 1, 3, 5 AND 6; NGIGE V. AKUNYILI (2011) 4

LRECN PAGE 197, AKEREDOLU & ORS V. AKINREMI (1985) 2 NSCC, 1283 (S.C.N.), 7, YUSUFU V. OBASANJO & ORS (2003) 16 NWLR (PT, 847) C. A. PAGE 554 (S.C.N.) 8,9,10.
(7). Time began to run against the Plaintiff on Friday, 18th January, 2019; being the next day following Thursday, 17th January, 2019.
(8). A careful perusal of the imprimatur endorsed on the Originating Summons by the Registrar of the Trial Court Clearly shows that the suit was filed on 31st day of January, 2019.
(9). By a simple arithmetic computation of time, from Friday, 18th January, 2019 (being the next day following 17th January, 2019 from which time began to run against the Appellant). When the 2nd Respondent published the list of nominated candidates of political parties in Nigeria to 31st day of January, 2019 when this suit was eventually filed, is a period of exactly fourteen (14) days from the day the cause of action accrued in this case.
GROUND TWO
The learned trial judge erred in law when he refused, failed and/or neglected to hear and determine the Appellants suit on the merits; and thereby occasioned a grave miscarriage of

Justice on the Appellant.
PARTICULARS OF ERROR
1. The Appellants suit was commenced by way of Originating Summons, affidavit in support with an accompanying written address duly filed on 31st day of January, 2019.
2. In an action commenced by way of Originating Summons, where a jurisdictional issue or issues are raised challenging the competence of the suit, the law empowers the trial Court to entertain both the jurisdictional issues and the substantive action together and deliver one judgment/decision encompassing both the decision in respect of the Jurisdictional issue(s) and the substantive action.
3. The trial Court raised the Jurisdictional issue as to whether the suit is statute barred suo motu and afforded the Appellant the opportunity to address the trial Court on the issue before delivering the said judgment.
4. However, at the point of delivering the said judgment, the trial Court indicated that the issue of jurisdiction would first be determined with the expectation that thereafter the substantive suit would be considered and determined by the lower Court.
5. Section 285(8) Alteration to the 1999 Constitution (as amended)

enjoins the lower Court to suspend its ruling on the Jurisdictional issues and deliver it together with the main judgment at the stage of final judgment in the substantive suit.
6. After determining the Jurisdictional issue, the lower Court summarily dismissed the Appellants suit without considering and determining the Appellants substantive suit on the merits.
7. By the clear provisions of Section 15 of the Court of Appeal Act. Cap. 26 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2014, Order 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2016 and other enabling laws in that behalf, this Honourable Court has the unfettered powers to hear and determine the Appellants Originating Summons on the merits; being a case based on the interpretation of the relevant provision of law and there being no dispute or substantial dispute of facts.
8. By the clear provisions of Section 15 of this Court of Appeal Act, Cap. 26 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004, Order 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2016 and other enabling laws in that behalf, this Honourable Court has the unfettered powers to grant the reliefs sought by the Appellant in the Originating

Summons filed on 31st January, 2019.
GROUND THREE
The Judgment/decision of the Federal High Court of Nigeria, Holden at Port Harcourt, Rivers State. Coram Honourable Justice A. T. MOHAMMED delivered on Wednesday, the 3rd day of July, 2019 is against the weight of evidence.

In compliance with the rules of this Court, the Appellant filed its brief of argument on 19/08/2019. The 1st 3rd & 4th Respondents filed their Joint brief of argument on 02/09/2019. The 2nd Respondent did not file any brief of argument.

From the grounds of appeal as contained in the notice of Appeal, two issues were formulated by the Appellant. The issues are:-
1. Whether the lower Court was right when it held that the Appellants case is statute barred.
2. Whether having regard to the provision of Section 36(1) of the 1999 Constitution as amended and other enabling laws in that regard the lower Court was right when he it failed, refused or neglected to entertain the Appellant substantive suit on the merit and resolve the fundamental issues presented therein challenging the qualification of the 3rd and 4th Respondents to have contested the said

election in the platform of the 1st Respondent having regard to the fact the Appellant suit was commenced by way of originating summons.
The 1st, 3rd, and 4th Respondent formulated two issues as follows:-
1. Whether lower Court was right when it held that the Appellants case is statute barred and accordingly dismissed the suit.
2. Whether having found that the Appellants suit is statute barred the lower Court was right to have dismissed substantive suit summarily.

Learned counsel for the Appellants submitted in determining whether an action in statute barred or not, the Court is required to look at the writ of summons and the statement of claim. He referred to EGBE V. ADEFARASIN (1987) 1 NWLR (PT. 47) 1; AMATA V. OMOFUMA (1997) 2 NWLR (PT 485) 93 and TUKUR V. GOVERNMENT OF GONGOLA STATE (1989)4 NWLR (PT 117) 517.

Learned counsel argued that by paragraph 20 and 21 of the affidavit in support of the originating summon it can be seen that the 2nd Respondent only published the list of nominated candidates on 17th January 2019 and not 4/10/2018 or 12/10/2018 when the 1st Respondent carried out substitution of its candidate.

He also stated that parties are ad idem that the cause of action accrued on 17/01/2019 when the 2nd Respondent published the list of candidates of various political parties. The provision of Section 285(9) of the 1999 Constitution as amended (Fourth Alteration) Act, every pre-election matter shall be filed not letter than 14days from the date of occurrence of the event, decision, or action complained of in the suit. Learned counsel further argued that by Section 15(2) of the Interpretation Act, a reference to an enactment to a period of days shall be construed where the period is reclaimed from a particular event as excluding the day on which the event occurred. He referred to EZEIGWE V. NWAWULU (2010) 4 NWLR (PT 1183)8; AKEREDOLU V. AKINREMI (1985) 2 NWLR (PT 10) 787 and YUSUFU V. OBASANJO (2003) 16 NWLR (PT 847) 554. He then concluded that if 17/01/2019 is excluded from counting it means by 31/01/2019 when the suit was filed, the Appellant had filed same on the last day allowed by the law. Counsel urged the Court to resolve the issue in favour of the Appellant and against the Respondent.

It is submitted for the 1st, 3rd and 4th Respondent in response that

the Appellants Suit is statute barred and therefore liable to be dismissed, this Court was referred to MADUKOLU V. NKEMDILIM (1961)1 ACC NLR page 587 at 599 and ROSSEK V. ACB LTD (1993) 8 NWLR part 316 page 382. That the suit is statute barred because it is caught up by the limitation law.

That this is so because the 4th Alteration of the constitution gave political parties the right to challenge nomination of a candidate of another party only within a specified period of time, commencing from the cause of action.

It is further submitted for the 1st, 3rd & 4th Respondents that the right of the Appellant the action is predicated on S 285 (14) (C) of the Constitution, as amended by the 4th Alteration Act, 2017.

That a careful reading of the reliefs sought will reveal that the Appellant challenged the nomination and sponsorship in respect of Bonny/Degema Federal Constituency of Rivers State.

That like all legal rights, the right of a non member of a political party to question the nomination and sponsorship of a member of another party does not lie in perpetuity, as the enforceability of such challenge is limited by S. 285 (14) (C) of Constitution

the Constitution.

Learned counsel further submitted that it is clear from S. 285 (14) (C) that the pre-election matter should be filed not later than 14 days from the date of occurrence of the event or action complained of.

That the time does not begin to run from when the aggrieved party discovered the event, the Court was referred to AJIBONA V. KOLAWOLE (1996) 10 NWLR PART 476 PAGE 22 and A. G. ABIA STATE V. A. G. FEDERATION (2005) 12 NWLR PART 940 PAGE 452.

That all the complaint of the Appellant in paragraphs 11, 12, and 14 of the affidavit in support of the originating summons occurred between October and November 2018, her nomination and substitution of candidates to contest the 2019 general election, and this suit was filed on the 31st January, 2019. Whichever way was one calculates the days exceeded the 14 days provided by the 4th Alteration to the constitution.

Learned counsel referred the Court to CHARANCHI V. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION KANO STATE & ORS (2002) LPELR 12269.

Learned Counsel respectively urged the Court to so hold and resolve this in favour of 1st, 3rd & 4th Respondents.

I have carefully gone through the submissions a learned counsel for the Appellant as well as that of the 1st, 3rd and as 4th respondents leading me to arrive at the conclusion that the bone of contention in this case is whether the suit is statute barred? To determine that, one has to ascertain when time started to run in this case. The appellants argued that time began to run on the 18th which is the day the 2nd respondent published the list of candidates. While it is the contention of the 1st, 3rd and 4th Respondent that time started running from the day substitution was made i.e the 4th of October, 2018 the contention of the Appellant is that having filed the suits before the trial Court on the 31st of January, 2019 and the cause of action accruing on the 18th of January, 2019, a fotiori that if the provision of S. 15 (2) of the interpretation Act is taken into consideration then the appellants suit was filed on the last day as provided by Section 285 (9) of the Constitution if the day of the happening of the event i.e 17th January, 2019 is excluded. On the application or other wise of the interpretation Act, it ought to be noted that

election petitions are sui generis, and it is the position of the apex Court that Interpretation Act on computation of time does not apply to the requirement of time as provided in the 4th Alteration, see OKECHUKWU V. INEC (2014) 17 NWLR part 1436 page 255, PDP V. INEC & ORS (2014) 17 NWLR Part 1437 part 525 and NGIGE & ANOR V. INEC & ORS (2015) 1 NWLR Part 1440 page 281. It is clear therefore that S. 15(2) of the Interpretation will seem not to apply to the interpretation S.285(9) of the Constitution, as amended, by which the appellant is required to file case within 14days of the date of the happening of the event. Now, since the Interpretation Act does not apply, the date of reckoning includes the date of the occurrence of the event i.e 17th January, 2019. Or 4th October, 2018 according to the Respondent, as decided by the trial Court. Whichever way one looks at it as if the action is statute barred because it ought to have been filed not later than 30th January, 2019 if the action arose on the 17th January, 2019. Filing the matter outside the statutory period allowed by the Constitution robbed the trial Court of Jurisdiction

to entertain same.
Accordingly this issue is resolved against the Appellant and in favour of the Respondents. On issue two, since the action was statute barred, the trial Courts lacked the requisite jurisdiction to proceed with the substantive issue. Accordingly, issue two also is resolved in favour of the Respondents, against the Appellant.

Having resolved both the issue that arose for determination in this appeal in favour of the Respondent, the appeal is dismissed for lack of merit, it is accordingly dismissed.
No order as to cost.

ISAIAH OLUFEMI AKEJU, J.C.A.: I read the Judgment of my learned brother, ABUBAKAR MUAZU LAMIDO JCA in its draft form. I agree with the reasoning of my learned brother and the conclusion. The appeal fails for lack of merit and it is dismissed accordingly. I abide by the consequential Order.

MOHAMMED MUSTAPHA, J.C.A.: I had the privilege of reading in draft the lead Judgment just delivered by my Learned brother, ABUBAKAR MUAZU LAMIDO, JCA.
The appeal lacks merit and it is hereby dismissed. I also abide by all the consequential Orders.

Appearances:

John Okoriko, Esq. with him, P. K. Ohwororiole, Esq.For Appellant(s)

P. O. Eruayebure, Esq. for the 1st, 3rd & 4th RespondentsFor Respondent(s)

Appearances

John Okoriko, Esq. with him, P. K. Ohwororiole, Esq.For Appellant

AND

P. O. Eruayebure, Esq. for the 1st, 3rd & 4th RespondentsFor Respondent