PRINCE YAHAYA OYIDI AUDU v. ALL PROGRESSIVES CONGRESS & ORS
(2019)LCN/13062(CA)
In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
On Thursday, the 11th day of April, 2019
CA/A/173/2019
RATIO
CAUSE OF ACTION: HOW TO CALCULATE CAUSE OF ACTION ACCORDING TO SECTION 285(9) OF THE 1999 CONSTITUTION OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA
It is clear that by the said Section 285 (9) of the 1999 Constitution, the date of the event, decision or action complained of in the suit is the determinant factor in calculating when the cause of action arose and when same became statute barred.PER ABDU ABOKI, J.C.A.
STATUTE BAR: WHEN A PARTY FAILS TO INSTITUTE AN ACTION WITHIN THE TIME PRESCRIBED BY LAW THE ACTION BECOMES STATUTE BARRED
The law is settled that if a wronged party fails to institute an action within the time permitted by law, the suit becomes stale and statute barred. See
TEXACO PANAMA INC. v. SDPC NIG LTD (2002) FWLR (PT 96) 579;
ATOLAGBE v. AWUNI(1997) 9 NWLR (PT 522) 536;
ELABANJO v. DAWODU (2006) ALL FWLR (PT 326) 604. PER ABDU ABOKI, J.C.A.
JUSTICES
ABDU ABOKI Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
PETER OLABISI IGE Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
MOHAMMED BABA IDRIS Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
Between
PRINCE YAHAYA OYIDI AUDU Appellant(s)
AND
1. ALL PROGRESSIVES CONGRESS (APC)
2. ISAH JIBRIL
3. INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION (INEC) Respondent(s)
ABDU ABOKI, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): The appeal herein is against the Ruling of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Nyanya Abuja delivered on 26th February, 2019 by U. P. Kekemeke J. in Suit No. FCT/ HC/CV/038/ 2018.
The summary of the facts of this case that led to this appeal was that, by the Appellant, as Plaintiff at the Trial Court, filed an Originating Summons on the 31st day of October, 2018 asking for the determination of the questions as can be found at pages 1 – 3 of the Record of Appeal. Upon the favourable determination of these questions, the Appellant also seeks the reliefs as can be found at pages 3 – 5 of the Record of Appeal.
?The summons is supported by an affidavit of 20 paragraphs deposed to by the Appellant himself, with nine (9) exhibits attached. The case of the Appellant is that he participated in, and won the Primary Election of the 1st Respondent for the Kogi East Senatorial District, held on the 3rd of October 2018. He alleged that the 1st Respondent, rather than forward his name to the 3rd Respondent, instead forwarded the name of the 2nd Respondent, as its Kogi East
1
Senatorial Candidate in the 2019 General Elections, in spite of the report of the Appeal Committee upholding the victory of the Appellant; hence the initiation of the suit giving rise to this appeal at the Trial Court.
Upon being served with the Originating Summons, the Respondents filed counter affidavits in defence. The 1st and 2nd Respondents filed separate Notices of Preliminary Objection to the jurisdiction of the Trial Court, praying the Trial Court in the main, to strike out the suit for being statute barred in that the action was filed out of the time limited by statute for filing pre-election cases, contrary to Section 285(9) of the 1999 Constitution.
See pages 129- 130; 204- 205 of the Record.
The Trial Court at the hearing of the suit raised suo motu, the issue of territorial jurisdiction and asked Counsel on both sides to address it on same.
Upon taking the addresses of parties, the Trial Court subsequently delivered its Ruling, and struck out the Appellant’s suit, for want of jurisdiction.
At pages 296-297 of the Record, the Trial Court held as follows:
“I do not have the intention of ‘grabbing’ the case which falls
2
within the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court, or High Court of Kogi State… I shall err on the side of caution. I lack jurisdiction to entertain the case. I also lack jurisdiction to make any order thereon. The case is accordingly struck out.”
It is against this decision that the Appellant herein has appealed to this Court, vide his Notice of Appeal dated and filed on the 5th of March 2019. The said notice of appeal which appears on pages 308 – 319 of the printed record is upon Eight (8)grounds.
The Record of Appeal was compiled and transmitted to this Court on the 6th of March 2019. The briefs of argument were subsequently filed and exchanged by the parties in accordance with the Rules of this Court. The Appellants’ brief of argument is dated the 7th of March 2019, and filed on the 8th of March 2019.
The 1st Respondent’s Brief of Argument, was dated and filed on the 21st of March 2019, and the 2nd Respondent’s Brief of Argument was dated the 21st of March 2019, and filed on the 22nd of March 2019. The Appellant’s also filed a Reply brief to the 1st and 2nd Respondents’ briefs of argument, on the 26th of March 2019.
3
On 28th of March 2019, the appeal was heard before the Court and parties adopted and relied on their briefs of argument, in support of their various positions.
Shaibu Enejoh Aruwa Esq., who settled the Appellant’s brief of argument, formulated the following six (6) issues. They are:
1. Whether the Court below had the territorial jurisdiction to hear, entertain and determine the suit of the Appellant?
2. Whether it is not a miscarriage of justice when the Court below, in spite of the provisions of Section 22(3) of the Federal High Court Act and the binding judicial precedent, refused to transfer the suit of the Appellant to the Federal High Court, Kogi State Judicial Division, sitting at Lokoja?
3. Whether having regard to the limitation for the hearing and determination of the suit of the Appellant, this honourable Court can invoke its powers under the provisions of Section 15 of the Court of Appeal Act, to hear and determine the suit of the Appellant on its merit?
4. Whether the claims of the Appellant in this suit is statute barred, having regards to the provisions of Section 285(9) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (Fourth Alteration Act, No 21), 2017.
4
5. Whether the Appellant, being an aspirant in the primary election of the 1st Respondent for the nomination of the 1st Respondent’s candidate in respect of Kogi East Senatorial District, rightly commenced this suit in the Court below, without exhausting internal dispute resolution mechanism of the 1st Respondent?
6. Whether the 1st Respondent lawfully forwarded the name of the 2nd Respondent to the 3rd Respondent as the 1st Respondent’s nominated candidate in respect of the Kogi East Senatorial District in the 2019 General Elections and whether the 3rd Respondent lawfully published the name of the 2nd Respondent as the 1st Respondent’s nominated candidate in respect of the Kogi East Senatorial District in the 2019 General Elections.
The six issues formulated by the Appellant, were adopted by learned Counsel for the 1st and 2nd Respondents, Abdulwahab Muhammed Esq., and Chief Anthony A. Adeniyi Esq., respectively. They are hereby adopted by me in the determination of this appeal. I shall however proceed to determine Issues one and four first, as they bother on the jurisdiction of the Trial Court to entertain the suit.
5
They shall be determined together.
Learned counsels on both sides have proffered arguments with regards to the issues arising for determination. These arguments form part of the Records of this Court. I shall however for emphasis, highlight some salient points in their respective submissions.
ISSUES ONE AND FOUR
1. Whether the Court below had the territorial jurisdiction to hear, entertain and determine the suit of the Appellant
4. Whether the claims of the Appellant in this suit is statute barred, having regards to the provisions of Section 285(9) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (Fourth Alteration Act, No 21), 2017.
It is submitted for the Appellant that the Trial Court had territorial jurisdiction to hear and determine the Appellant’s before it. Learned Counsel for the Appellant contended jurisdiction is conferred on a Court by either the Constitution or a statute, which is further determined by the Claimant’s Statement of Claim, or Originating Summons, as the case may be.
Relying on the case of A.G. RIVERS STATE v. A.G. FEDERATION (2019) 1 NWLR (PT 1652) 87, learned counsel for the
6
Appellant defined the meaning of ’cause of action’, and opined that a critical perusal of the Appellant’s questions for determination, the reliefs claimed and the averments contained in the affidavit in support of the Originating Summons show clearly that the complaint of the Appellant in this suit is not the outcome of the 1st Respondent’s Primary Election for the nomination of Kogi East Senatorial District Candidate in 2019 General Elections which took place in Idah, Kogi State, which the Appellant won, but the non compliance with the decision of the 1st Respondent’s Appeal Committee and consequently, the unlawful forwarding of the 2nd Respondent’s name to the 3rd Respondent, as its candidate of the Kogi East Senatorial District in the 2019 General Elections despite the confirmation of the Appellant’s victory by the said Appeal Committee. He referred this Court to Exhibits G, H and I, attached to the affidavit in support of the Originating Summons.
?It is the view of learned counsel for the Appellant that by a community reading of Sections 221 and 222 of the 1999 Constitution, as well as Section 31 (1) of the Electoral Act 2010, as amended, the
7
reference to a political party in the Electoral Act means the National Working Committee of the party.
He submitted that the National Working Committee of the 1st Respondent, which is constitutionally domiciled within its National Secretariat located within the Federal Capital Territory, is within the territorial jurisdiction of the Trial Court, and as such, the Trial Court had the requisite jurisdiction to hear and determine the Appellant’s suit. Reliance was placed on the following cases:
ABEGUNDE v. O.S.H.A (2015) 8 NWLR (PT 1461) 314;
ODEDO v. P.D.P (2015) 33 WRN 1 @ 39;
AGI v. PDP & ORS (2016) 12 MJSC 1 @ 86-87;
EMENIKE v. PDP (2012) 48 WRN 1 @ 31 – 32
OGUEBEGO v. PDP (2016) 4 NWLR (PT 1503) 446;
CPC v. LADO (2011) 4 LRECN 126 @ 136
Learned counsel for the Appellant distinguished the instant case with the cases ofMAILANTARKI v. TONGO (2018) 6 NWLR (PT 1614) 69, and DALHATU v. TURAKI (2003) 42 WRN 45, relied upon by the Trial Court in striking out the Appellant’s suit, and submitted that the causes of action in the two cases were irregularities arising from the conducts of the primary elections in States
8
outside Abuja, and no aspect of the cause of action in the said suits took place in Abuja, and this is distinct from the suit giving rise to the instant appeal, where a part of the causes of action is the wrongful acceptance and publication of the name of the 2nd Respondent as the candidate of the 1st Respondent by the 3rd Respondent. He referred also to these cases:
AIR VICE MARSHALL TERRY OMATSOLA OKORODUDU v. APC & ANOR (UNREPORTED) FCT/HC/CV/17/2018, delivered on the 11th of February 2019, as well as the unreported case of BARR. OMEBEH IKEUWA COLLINS v. PDP & 4 ORS in Suit No: FCT/HC/CV/120/18 delivered 30th January, 2019.
He urged this Court to hold that the Trial Court had the jurisdiction to entertain the Appellant’s suit.
On whether the Appellant’s suit is statute barred, it is submitted for the Appellant that in the determination of whether the cause of action is statute barred, recourse must be had to the Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim, or Originating Summons and affidavit in support, as the case may be. He relied on the following cases:
EGBE v. ADEFARASIN (2002) 14 WRN 57;
9
A.I.C LTD v. GOMBE STATE WATER CORP (2015) 25 WRN 37;
INEC v AGBAKOBA (2009) 24 WRN 1.
Learned counsel for the Appellant opined that the gravamen of the Appellant’s complaints is not the conduct of the primary election for the nomination of Senatorial Candidate for the Kogi East Senatorial District in the 2019 General Elections, but the “decisions” and “actions” of the 1st Respondent to unlawfully forward the name of the 2nd Respondent and the “decisions” and “actions” of the 3rd Respondent to accept and publish the name of the 2nd Respondent on the 27th of October 2018, as the Senatorial Candidate of the 1st Respondent for the Kogi East Senatorial District in the 2019 General Elections.
He therefore urged this Court to resolve these Issues in favour of the Appellant, and hold that the suit of the Trial Court had the requisite jurisdiction to entertain the Appellant suit, same not being not statute barred.
In response, it is submitted for the 1st Respondent the crux of the Appellant’s suit is the primary election conducted by the 1st Respondent at Idah Kogi State.
Learned Counsel for the 1st Respondent stated that in determining if a Court has
10
jurisdiction, the geographical location in which the cause of action arose is of paramount important. He referred this Court to the case of ONYEMA & ORS v. OPUTA & ANOR (1987) LPELR 2736 SC, and submitted that in the instant case, the cause of action arose in Kogi State and therefore, the Trial Court lacked the requisite jurisdiction to entertain the Appellant’s action. He relied also on these authorities:
SECTION 272(1) and (2)of the CFRN 1999;
UKPAI v. OKORO & ORS (1983) LPELR 3347 SC;
MAILANTARKI v. TONGO & ORS (2017) LPELR 42467 SC
He maintained that in any event, it is the Federal High Court, and not the Trial Court that has the jurisdiction to entertain matters pertaining to the Federal Government and its agencies.
On whether the claims of the Appellant in this suit is statute barred, having regards to the provisions of Section 285 (9) of the CFRN 1999, (4th Alteration Act, No 21) 2017, it is submitted for the 1st Respondent that the claims of the Appellant giving rise to this appeal, stemmed for the primary election conducted by the 1st Respondent on the 3rd of October 2018, and the Appellant
11
cannot be heard to say that his complaints was about the “decisions” and “actions” of the 1st and 3rd Respondents.
Learned counsel for the 1st Respondent argued that whichever way it is viewed, the crux of the Appellant’s suit is the primary election for nomination of candidates for the Kogi East Senatorial District for the 2019 General Elections and in that case, Section 285 (9) of the CFRN (4th Alteration Act, No 21) 2017, applies to the Appellant’s suit. He commended this Court to the Appellant’s Relief 1, at page 3 of the Record, Paragraph 11 of the Affidavit in support of the Originating Summons, and the case of HASSAN v. ALIYU (2010) 17 NWLR (PT 1223) 547 SC.
In reply, it is submitted for the Appellant that time began to run for the purpose of the Appellant’s claim; he became aware of the substitution of his name with that of the 2nd Respondent.
This Court is again urged to hold that the Appellant’s case is not statute barred.
For the 2nd Respondent, it is submitted that the Trial Court was right to have declined jurisdiction. Learned counsel for the 2nd Respondent posited that the decision of the
12
Trial Court that it lacked jurisdiction was in line with the apex Court’s decision in DALHATU v. TURAKI (2003) LPELR ? 917 SC.
He opined that the Trial Court also lacked the jurisdiction to transfer the case of the Appellant to the Federal High Court as posited by the Appellant. He submitted that Section 22(3) of the Federal High Court Act, 2004 only empowers a Federal High Court to transfer a case to the State High Court or the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja. Reliance was placed on the case of FASAKIN FOODS NIG LTD v. SHOSANYA (2006) 7 MJSC 48.
It is the view of learned counsel for the 2nd Respondent that the only power exercisable by the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory to transfer cases is as provided by Order 41 of its Rules, where the Chief Judge is empowered to transfer cases from the lower Court to the FCT High Court.
He maintained that the Trial Court having found that it lacked the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit of the Appellant, the only option open to it was to strike out the suit in line with the decision in the case of FASAKIN FOODS v. SHOSANYA supra.
13
On whether the Appellant’s suit is statute barred, learned counsel for 2nd Respondent submitted that the complaints of the Appellant fall within the confines of the definition of pre-election matters which by the operation of Section 285(9) of the CFRN 1999, as amended, can only be ventilated by a Court action filed within fourteen days of the event complained of.
He urged this Court to hold that the Appellant’s case is statute barred, having not been initiated within the mandatory fourteen days allowed by law.
In reply, it is submitted for the Appellant that the wrong complained of by the Appellant, was done in Abuja, where the 1st Respondents Appeal Panel sat and where the name of the 2nd Respondent was forwarded to the 3rd Respondent, therefore foisting jurisdiction on the Trial Court.
Learned counsel for the Appellant maintained that time began to run in the instant case, when the 2nd Respondent’s name was unlawfully forwarded to the 3rd Respondent, and when the 3rd Respondent published same; not the date the primary election was conducted. Reliance was placed on the case of INEC v. ENASITO (2018) 2 NWLR (PT 1602).
14
This Court is again urged to hold that the Appellant’s suit is not statute barred.
There is no doubt that jurisdiction is fundamental and indispensable in the administration of justice. It is the hub of all judicial processes so much that the validity or otherwise of any proceedings turns on its existence or non existence, as the case may be. It cannot therefore be toyed with by any party or the Court, else the action will become a nullity. See
DAPIANLONG v. DARIYE (2007) 8 NWLR (PT 1036) 332;
A.N.P.P. v. R.E.C. (2008) 18 NWLR (PT. 1090) 453. In determining jurisdiction for matters begun by originating summons, such as the instant case, the affidavit in support of the Originating summons is used. (See cases on jurisdiction).
At Paragraphs 11 – 18 of the Appellant’s affidavit in support of the Originating Summons, he deposed as follows:
11. That the primary election for the nomination of the candidate of the 1st Defendant in respect of Kogi East Senatorial District, held on the 3rd October, 2018 at Idah, Kogi State; the records of the votes cast were as follows:
i. Prince Yahaya Oyidi Audu – 2276 votes
15
ii. Isah Jibril – 294 votes
iii. Invalid – 45 votes
Copy of the duplicate of the record of the votes issued to me is attached and marked Exhibit ‘F’.
12. That shortly after the said primary election which I clearly won, I was inundated by calls and visit by well wishers and sympathizers who told me that the Executive Governor of Kogi State is not happy at my emergence as the candidate of the 1st Defendant for the Kogi East Senatorial District in the 2019 General Election and would ensure the substitution of my name with the name of Isah Jibril, the 2nd Defendant, who came second in the primary election.
13. That fearing for the worst, I immediately forwarded a petition to the Appeal Committee set up by the 1st Defendant to address the grievances of all aspirants arising from the primary elections; the copy of my letter to the Appeal Committee is attached and marked Exhibit ‘G’.
14. That the Appeal Committee attended to my petition, scrutinized the records, took evidence and upheld my victory as the duly nominated candidate of the 1st Defendant in respect of Kogi East
16
Senatorial District in the 2019 General Elections.
15. That I went away, knowing fully well that the Appeal Committee having done justice to my petition. I later realized on the 27th October, 2018 that the 1st Defendant have surreptitiously forwarded the name of the 2nd Defendant on or about the 18th of October 2018 as the 1st Defendants Senatorial Candidate in respect of Kogi East Senatorial District in the 2019 General Elections.
16. That I applied to the 1st Defendant for the extract of the Appeal Committee Report vindicating my victory. The said letter of request is attached and marked Exhibit ‘H”.
17. That I was issued the extract of the Appeal Committee Report wherein my victory was affirmed. Copy of the extract of the Committee Report is attached and marked Exhibit I’.
18. That the actions of the Defendant came to my knowledge on the 27th October 2018 on the publication of the list of candidates for the National Assembly in the 2019 General Elections by the 3rd Defendant.
It appears from the above depositions, that the crux of the Appellant’s case is the alleged unlawful forwarding of the name of the 2nd Respondent, by the 1st
17
Respondent, to the 3rd Respondent; and the publication of same by the 3rd Respondent, which in my view is a function of a successful primary election.
By Section 285 (9) of the 1999 Constitution (4th Alteration Act 2017);
“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.”
It is clear that by the said Section 285 (9) of the 1999 Constitution, the date of the event, decision or action complained of in the suit is the determinant factor in calculating when the cause of action arose and when same became statute barred.
The law is settled that if a wronged party fails to institute an action within the time permitted by law, the suit becomes stale and statute barred. See
TEXACO PANAMA INC. v. SDPC NIG LTD (2002) FWLR (PT 96) 579;
ATOLAGBE v. AWUNI(1997) 9 NWLR (PT 522) 536;
ELABANJO v. DAWODU (2006) ALL FWLR (PT 326) 604. There is no doubt that some statutes or other laws do prescribe steps to be accomplished by some disputants over matters in the form of
18
internal remedies. In that case, the jurisdiction of a Court will be in abeyance until a party has exhausted those steps spelt out in the statute or law. Not until a party has completed the prescribed options in that enactment or other law, will the jurisdiction of the Court crystallize. The 1st Respondent’s Constitution Article 21c, in my view relates to the right of appeal of an aggrieved member of the party from the decision of any organs of the party, not right of appeal against legislative election appeal committee. Therefore, the said Article 21c in my view is not applicable in the circumstances of this case.
The trial Court in its judgment held thus;
“The 3rd, 4th and 5th questions formulated for determination refer both to the primary election of the 1st defendant in respect of KOGI EAST SENATORIAL DISTRICT. I have also perused the reliefs. They are also such that deal specifically with the KOGI EAST SENATORIAL ELECTION which took place in Kogi State and the decision of the Appeal committee thereon. The said primary election from the basis of any other grievance of the claimant…”
Also, the appellant in Exhibit G dated 5th October, 2018
19
attached to the affidavit in support of his originating summons, call upon the 1st respondent to uphold his victory/nomination.
It is my view that, the date a party realized or became aware of an event or the decision that he challenges in a suit is not the determinant of the date of accrual of the cause of action or the date from which the time prescribed for bringing such action to Court can be reckoned unless the law or statute that prescribes such time limit stipulates that the time shall start running from the date the party became aware of the event or decision. There is nothing in Section 285 (9) of the 1999 Constitution that provides that 14 days period for filing a suit shall start running from the date the party realized or becomes aware of the event or decision. This Court in the case of DAVID UMAR VS. ALL PROGRESSIVES CONGRESS (APC) & 2 ORS Appeal No. CA/A/126/2019 Unreported delivered on 8th April, 2019 PER S.J. ADAH, JCA held thus;
“The lower Court in the instant case had the privilege of going through the length and breadth of the claim of the 1st Respondent. His claim is that he won the primary election conducted on 2nd
20
October, 2018 and that it was not the appellant that won the party primary election conducted for the Niger east senatorial district. That it was the name of the appellant who he alleged did not win the primary election that was submitted to INEC by their political party. It is therefore sure and certain that the cause of action was primarily the party primary election which (sic) held on 5th of October, 2018 or as the 1st Respondent himself claimed, of October, 2018. The issue of submission of name to the INEC on 16 October, 2018 is ancillary to the main issue which is the primary election conducted by the 2nd Respondent. The authority for this is Section 87 of the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended). The law reads as follows:
87. (1) A political party seeking to nominate candidates for elections under this Act shall hold primaries for aspirants to all elective positions.
(2) The procedure for the nomination of candidates by political parties for the various elective positions shall be by direct or indirect primaries.
(3) A political party that adopts the direct primaries procedure shall ensure that all aspirants are given equal opportunity of
21
being voted for by members of the party.
(4) A political party that adopts the system of indirect primaries for the choice of its candidate shall adopt the procedure outlined below:
(a)……………………………………….
(b)………………………………………
(c) In the case of nominations to the position of a Senatorial candidate, House of Representatives and State House of Assembly a political party shall, where they intend to sponsor candidates:
(i) Hold special congresses in the Senatorial District, Federal Constituency and the State assembly constituency respectively, with delegates voting for each of the aspirants in designated centers on specified dates.
(ii) The aspirant with the highest number of votes at the end of voting shall be declared the winner of the primaries of the party and the aspirant’s name shall be forwarded to the Independent National Electoral Commission as the candidate of the party.
The issue of forwarding or submitting a candidate’s name to INEC is a function of a successful primary election. So the cause of action is the primary election.”
(Underline mine for emphasis)
22
I entirely agree with my learned brother above that issue of forwarding or submitting a candidate’s name to INEC is a function of a successful primary election. So the cause of action is the primary election. In this case, the appellant’s action was filed at the trial Court on 31st day of October, 2018 on an event (primary election) which was conducted on 3rd October, 2018. From the 3rd October, 2018 to 31st October 2018 when the plaintiff/appellant filed his suit at the trial Court is well over 14 days. Therefore, the Failure of the appellant to file his suit not later than 14 days after the action complained (in this case replacement of his name), as required by Section 285 (9) of the CFRN (4th Alteration Act 2017) is fatal to his case and ousted the trial Court of its jurisdiction to entertain the matter.
Consequently, it is my view that the suit leading to this appeal, which was filed on the 31st of October 2018, was statute barred. Issue four is also resolved in favour of the respondents.
The second jurisdictional point is whether the Trial Court had the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the Appellant’s suit.
23
In the instant case, the trial Court is the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja which was created by Section 255 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended).
The case of the plaintiff/appellant as I have earlier said is that he participated in, and won the Primary Election of the 1st Respondent for the Kogi East Senatorial District, held on the 3rd of October, 2018. He alleged that the 1st Respondent, rather than forward his name to the 3rd Respondent, instead forwarded the name of the 2nd Respondent, as its Kogi East Senatorial Candidate in the 2019 General Elections, in spite of the report of the Appeal Committee upholding the victory of the Appellant; hence the initiation of the suit giving rise to this appeal at the Trial Court.
The trial Court suo motu raised the issue of territorial jurisdiction and asked counsel to address it on same. Upon taking the address of parties, the trial Court struck out the appellant’s suit for want of territorial jurisdiction.
The appellant suit as pleaded in the originating summons centered on primary election of the 1st respondent for the Kogi west senatorial district held on the 3rd October, 2018 at
24
Kogi State. All the aspect of the primary election took place in Kogi State, no aspect of the primary election took place in the FCT Abuja. To this end, I agree with the trial Court that it lacked territorial jurisdiction which fall within the jurisdiction of High Court of Kogi State. See DALHATU VS. TURAKI (2003) 15 NWLR (PT. 843) PG 310.
From the foregoing, I also resolve Issues One in favour of the Respondents.
Having held that the trial Court lacked the territorial jurisdiction to hear the appellant’s suit, all other issues raised become academic and of no moment.
The appeal fails. The ruling of the trial Court is hereby upheld.
There shall be no order as to costs.
PETER OLABISI IGE, J.C.A.: I agree.
?MOHAMMED BABA IDRIS, J.C.A.: I have read the lead judgment of my learned brother, ABDU ABOKI, JCA. I agree with the reasoning and conclusion that the suit leading to the instant appeal was statute barred. This appeal therefore fails.
25
Appearances:
S. E. Aruwa with him, Adeyemi Ogundiran Kule Lawal, E. E. Mmeni and M. BalogunFor Appellant(s)
Abdulwahab Mohammed with him, Adoyi Michael Adoyi, Oluwole Kolawole for the 1st Respondent.
Chief A.A. Adeniyi with him, Polycarp Nwachukwu, Umar Adbulhameed and W.O Aliwo for the 2nd Respondent.
3rd Respondent absent and unrepresentedFor Respondent(s)
Appearances
S. E. Aruwa with him, Adeyemi Ogundiran Kule Lawal, E. E. Mmeni and M. BalogunFor Appellant
AND
Abdulwahab Mohammed with him, Adoyi Michael Adoyi, Oluwole Kolawole for the 1st Respondent.
Chief A.A. Adeniyi with him, Polycarp Nwachukwu, Umar Adbulhameed and W.O Aliwo for the 2nd Respondent.
3rd Respondent absent and unrepresentedFor Respondent
