SALIHU MUHAMMED v. ABDULRAUF ABDULKADIR MODIBBO & ORS
(2019)LCN/13206(CA)
In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
On Monday, the 6th day of May, 2019
CA/YL/57/19
RATIO
PRELIMINARY OBJECTIVE: PURPOSE AND POSITION IT SHOULD TAKE IN THE RESOLUTION OF A SUIT
The essence of raising a Preliminary Objection against the competence of the suit is to terminate the entire suit if successful. The learned trial Judge rightly resolved the Preliminary Objection raised at the trial Court first.PER CHIDI NWAOMA UWA, J.C.A.
RIGHT OF ACTION: WHEN DOES A RIGHT OF ACTION ACCRUE
It was agreed by the parties that the accrual of the right of action arises on a date or from the time when a breach of any duty or act occurs which warrants the person injured or the victim who is adversely affected by such breach to take a Court action in assertion or protection of his legal right that has been breached. The action must also come within the jurisdiction of the subject matter. See, FADARE VS ATTORNEY GENERAL, OYO STATE (1982) 4 SC 1; WOHEREM VS. EMEREUWA & ORS (2004) LPELR-3500 (SC) P.15, Paragraphs E-F; (2004) 8 SCM 185; (2004) 35 WRN 23; A. G. ADAMAWA STATE & ORS VS. A. G. FEDERATION (2014) LPELR ? 23221 (SC) P. 52, Paragraphs A-C and ADEGBESAN & ANOR VS. ILESANMI (2017) LPELR?42552 (CA) PP. 62, Paragraphs D-A.PER CHIDI NWAOMA UWA, J.C.A.
CAUSE OF ACTION: DEFINITION AND NATURE OF A CAUSE OF ACTION
See DINGOLI VS. BARAU (2012) ALL FWLR (PT. 609) PAGE 1156 AT PAGE 1171 Paragraphs C -E. A cause of action can be defined simply as the fact or facts which give a person a right to judicial redress or relief against another. A situation or state of facts which would entitle a party to sustain an action and give him a right to seek judicial remedy on his behalf.PER CHIDI NWAOMA UWA, J.C.A.
CAUSE OF ACTION: WHEN DOES A CAUSE OF ACTION IT ARISE
See, MOSOJO VS. OYETAYO & ORS (2003) (SC) P. 11, Paragraph C where the Supreme Court, per Tobi, JSC as to when a cause of action arises held thus:
A cause of action arises on the date of occurrence, neglect or default complained of and not the consequence or result of any of the above.(Underlines mine for emphasis).PER CHIDI NWAOMA UWA, J.C.A.
STATUTE BAR: LEGAL ACTIONS CANNOT BE BROUGHT AFTER THE PERIOD PRESCRIBED BY THE LAW
See,OLAGUNJU & ANOR VS. PHCN PLC (2011) 10 NWLR (PT. 1254) 113; (2011) LPELR (2556) SC PAGE 11. Legal Proceedings cannot be properly or validly instituted after the expiration of the prescribed period.PER CHIDI NWAOMA UWA, J.C.A.
PRE-ELECTION MATTERS: PERIOD WITHIN WHICH THEY SHOULD BE BROUGHT BEFORE THE COURT
The Cross Appellants action having been filed outside the 14 days prescribed by Section 285(9) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, as amended is statute barred and the trial Court rightly held so. See, ASABORO & ANOR VS. PAN OCEAN OIL CORPORATION (NIG) LTD & ANOR (2017) LPELR 41558 (SC) AT 30 – 31; A. G. ADAMAWA STATE & ORS VS. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE FEDERATION (2014) LPELR 23221 (SC) and EGBE VS. ADEFARASIN (1987) LPELR (1032) SC.PER CHIDI NWAOMA UWA, J.C.A.
JUSTICES
CHIDI NWAOMA UWA Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
JAMES SHEHU ABIRIYI Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
ABDULLAHI MAHMUD BAYERO Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
Between
SALIHU MUHAMMED Appellant(s)
AND
1. ABDULRAUF ABDULKADIR MODIBBO
2. ALL PROGRESSIVES CONGRESS
3. INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION (INEC) Respondent(s)
CHIDI NWAOMA UWA, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): The appeal is against the judgment of the Federal High Court Yola, delivered on the 6th of March, 2019 by A. M. Anka, J. in respect of suit No. FHC/YL/CS/4/2019. This is a cross appeal against the said judgment.
The background facts are that following the release of the time table for political activities by the 3rd Respondent herein in preparation for the 2019 General Elections, the 2nd Cross Respondent organized a primary election for the selection of its flag bearer for the seat of House of Representative for Yola North/ Yola South/Girei Federal Constituency on the 7th day of October, 2018. The said party (APC) primary election of 7th of October, 2018 was alleged to have been inconclusive by the Cross Appellant and could not produce a candidate. The Cross Appellant with other aspirants caused a complaint to be written on the Primary Election which appeal was not looked into, heard and determined by the said appeal committee. While waiting for the invitation of the appeal panel on Primary Election, the National Working Committee on the 17th of October, 2018 nominated the 1st
1
Cross Respondent (Abdulrauf Abdulkadir Modibbo) as its flag bearer for the seat of House of Representative for Yola North/Yola South/Girei Federal Constituency in the 2019 General Elections. It was alleged that there was a breach of the Electoral Act and the APCs Guidelines for the conduct of primary election amongst others. The Cross Appellant having been aggrieved by the decision of the National Working Committee filed an Originating Summons before the Federal High Court.
Objections were taken as to the competency of the suit being a pre-election matter vis–vis the provisions of Section 285(9) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999, 4th Alteration Act.
In its judgment the trial Court held that the suit was filed outside the prescribed time frame thus, dismissed the suit. The Cross Appellant was aggrieved by the judgment of the trial Court, thus this appeal.
The Cross Appellant distilled two (2) issues for the determination of the appeal thus:
i. Whether having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, most especially the inconclusive nature of the primaries election of the 2nd
2
Cross-Respondent for Yola North/Yola South/Girei Federal Constituency held on the 7th October, 2018, the learned trial Judge did not err when he held that the suit instituted by the Cross-Appellant herein was statute barred and consequently struck out same. (Distilled from grounds 1 and 2 of the Notice of Appeal).
ii. Whether taking into consideration the provisions of Section 87(9) of the Electoral Act (2010) and the fact that no candidate emerged for the Yola North/Yola South/Girei Federal Constituency as at 7th October 2018, the trial Judge did not err when in applying Section 285(9) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 restricted himself only to the event of 7th October, 2018.? (Distilled from ground 3 of the Notice of Appeal).
The 1st Cross Respondent on his part distilled a sole issue for the determination of the appeal thus:
?Whether in the entire circumstances of this suit the Court below was right in holding that the Cross- Appellant?s qua Plaintiff?s case was statute barred.? (Grounds 1, 2 and 3)
On the part of the 2nd Cross Respondent the following two issues were
3
formulated for the determination of the appeal thus:
i. Whether given the entire circumstances of this case in relation to the very nature of pre-election matter particular under Section 87 of the Electoral Act, 2010 as amended, the Lower Courts decision to dismiss the suit on the premise that it is statute barred is correct and sustainable? (Grounds 1 & 2 of the Notice of Appeal.
ii. Whether considering the facts in support of the originating summons, the questions for adjudication and the reliefs sought, the trial Judge was correct to have held that the cause of action of the Cross Appellant arose on the 7th of October, 2018
(Ground 3 of the Notice of Appeal).
In arguing the cross appeal, the learned counsel to the Cross Appellant Y.D. Dangana Esq., adopted and relied on his brief of argument filed on the 15/4/19 as his argument in this appeal. The two issues were argued together. The learned counsel highlighted the provisions of Section 87(1) ? (4) of the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended), the provisions of the 2nd Cross Respondent?s Constitution as well as the 2nd Cross Respondent?s Guidelines for
4
the nomination of candidates for the 2019 General Election- Indirect Primaries which were attached to the affidavit in support of the Originating Summons and marked as Exhibits SM6 and SM7. It was submitted that the 2nd Cross Respondent?s Constitution strengthened the provisions of Section 87 of the Electoral Act, reference was made to Article 20 of the said Constitution. It was argued that the main action complained of in this suit is the submission of the name of the Appellant/1st Cross Respondent despite the inconclusive nature of the 2nd Cross Respondent?s primaries which took place on the 18th of October, 2018. Further, that from the respective affidavit of the parties at the trial, the primary election of 7th October, 2018 did not produce any winner capable of being submitted for the purpose of being the candidate of the 2nd Cross Respondent herein for the 2019 General Election. It was submitted that the petition to the National Working Committee on the inconclusive nature of the said Primary Elections was never investigated before the 2nd Cross Respondent (APC) submitted the name of the Appellant/1st Cross Respondent to the 3rd Cross
5
Respondent on the 18th October, 2018 when the cause of action arose. Further, that a cause of action arises from the date the breach complained of occurred. See, AG ADAMAWA VS. THE AGF (2015) ALL FWLR (PT. 797) 597; PLATEAU CONST. LTD V. AWARE (2014) 6 NWLR (PT. 1404) PG 519 AT PP 542-543 Paragraphs H-C; U.M.B. LTD VS. C.B.N. (2017) ALL FWLR (PT. 880) PG. 823 AT 844 Paragraphs D-H. It was submitted that the trial Court was wrong to have held that 7th October, 2018 was the date the cause of action arose instead of 17th and 18th October, 2018. We were urged to examine the combination of facts forming the basis for the plaintiff?s case. See, MULIMA & ANOR VS. USMAN & 3 ORS (2014) 1-2 SC (PT. 111) PG 126 AT 164-5 LINES 25-25; I.R.E.C. LTD VS. ONI (2017) ALL FWLR (PT. 876) PG 145 AT 179-181. It was argued that even though the primaries held on 7th October, 2018, the cause of action upon which an action could be taken arose on 18th October, 2018 when the 2nd Cross Respondent submitted the name of the Appellant/1st Cross Respondent as its candidate. The circumstances gave the Cross Appellant the right of action. It was concluded that the trial Court
6
was wrong to have held that the cause of action arose on 7th October, 2018. We were urged to allow the cross appeal and set aside the judgment.
In response, the learned counsel to the 1st Cross Respondent S. Atung Esq., adopted and relied on his brief of argument filed on 25/4/19. In arguing his sole issue it was recapped that the Cross Appeal is a product of the judgment of the trial Court upholding the 1st Cross Respondent?s challenge of the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain the suit on the ground that same was statute barred pursuant to Section 285(9) of the Constitution of the federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, 4th Alteration Act, 2017. It was submitted that a plea that a suit is statute barred is an attack on the jurisdiction of a trial Court to entertain same. See, NWAKA VS. HEAD OF SERVICE, EBONYI STATE (2008)3 NWLR (Pt. 1073) PAGE 156, SHELIM VS. GOBANG (2009) 12 NWLR (PT. 1156) 435, U.M.B. LTD V. C.B.N. (2017) ALL FWLR (PT. 880) PAGE 823 AT PAGE 848 Paragraphs B-D; UTIH VS. ONOYIVWE (1991) 1 NWLR (PT. 166) AT P. 206 Paragraphs A-B, UNIVERSITY OF ILORIN VS. OLUWADARE (2006) 14 NWLR (PT. 1000) 751 (SC) AT P. 767 Paragraphs E-F and PP.
7
770 ? 771 Paragraphs G-B, D.E.N.R. LTD VS. TRANS. INT?L BANK LTD (2008) NWLR (PT. 1119) 388 (SC) at PP 417 Paragraphs C-G, 427 Paragraphs D-G & 435 Paragraphs D-E and OLOBA VS. AKEREJA (1988) 3 NWLR (PT. 84) 508 (SC).
Further, that in determining whether a Court has jurisdiction, it is the claim before the Court particularly the relief sought by the plaintiff that determines the jurisdiction of the Court therefore, the statement of claim, the writ of summons and other originating processes. See, F.G.N. v OSHIOMHOLE (2004) 3 NWLR (PT. 531) 29 AT RATIO 2; EGBUONU VS. B.R.T.C (1997) 12 NWLR (PT. 531) 29 AT RATIO 3 and USMAN VS. BABA (2005) NWLR (PT. 917) 133 AT RATIO 5. Also, LAGOS STATE WATER CORP. VS. SAKAMORI CONST. (NIG) LTD (2011) 12 NWLR (PT. 162) PAGE 569 AT PAGE 595 Paragraphs D-E. It was contended that from the reliefs sought by the Appellant the complaint is about the primary election of 7th October, 2018 which can further be shown by the Cross Appellant?s letter dated 8th October, 2018 complaining about the conduct of the primary election for Girei/Yola North/Yola South federal Constituency, Enclosure 2 to ?Exhibit
8
SMB4? to the affidavit in support of the Originating Summons as well as paragraphs 13-16 of the Affidavit in support of the Originating Summons. It was submitted that the accrual of a right of action occurred on 7th October, 2018. See, ELABANJO VS. DAWODU (2006) ALL FWLR (PT 328) PAGE 604. Further, whether a suit is statute barred or not is a threshold issue that touches on the jurisdiction of the Court that must be determined first, which the trial Court rightly did. The outcome determined the fate of the substantive suit. It was submitted that Section 285 (9) and (14) must be given their ordinary meaning without external interpretation. See, SUNMONU VS. OLADOKUN (1996) 8 NWLR (Pt. 467) PAGE 387 AT P. 419, Paragraphs B-D. It was concluded that the trial Court was right to have held that the suit at the lower Court was statute barred, the cause of action having arisen on the 7th day of October, 2018 whereas the suit at the trial Court was filed on the 29th day of October, 2018 outside the 14 days period allowed by Section 285 (9) of the 4th Alteration, No. 21, Act 2017.
The learned counsel to the 2nd Cross Respondent Sule Shuaibu Esq., in response
9
adopted and relied on his brief of argument filed on 25/4/19 as his argument in the appeal. The two issues formulated were argued together. It was submitted that once an action is instituted outside the time prescribed by law or statute, in this case Section 285(9) of the 1999 Constitution, Fourth Alteration Act, the action cannot be sustained, the Plaintiff would have lost his right of action. See, ETHIOPIAN AIRLINES VS. AFRIBANK (NIG) PLC & ANOR (2006) LPELR ? 5613 AT 11-16 Paragraphs A-B; FALANA & ORS VS. OLORO & ORS (2012) LPELR 14794 AT 39-48 Paragraphs B-E; KPATI & ANOR VS. PLATEAU INVESTMENT PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT CO. LTD (2017) LPELR-43365 AT 21-24 Paragraphs B-C amongst others. It was submitted that the Cross Appellant had objected to and contested the mode upon which the primary election was held on 7th October, 2018 and complained about an alleged inconclusive nature of the said primary election by petitioning to the Appeal Panel on the Primary Election of the 2nd Respondent. Reference was made to paragraphs 14 -20 and 22-23 of the affidavit in support of the originating summons. Further, paragraph 26 of the affidavit in respect
10
of Exhibit LAG6, the petition. It was submitted that from paragraphs 18-20 of the supporting affidavit, the primaries took place on 7th October, 2018 and from Exhibit LAG5 attached to the affidavit. The Cross Appellant complained that the 2nd Cross Respondent violated its guideline for nomination of candidates for the 2019 General Election which commenced the cause of action on that date, paragraph 15 of the affidavit in support of the Originating Summons referred; therefore it is clear that the cause of action arose on 7th October, 2018 when the primary election was conducted. It was submitted that the petition/complaint of the Cross Appellant is self explanatory at page 32 of the printed records of appeal, as to the date of accrual of cause of action. The petition dated 8th October, 2018 was headed thus:
RESOLUTION OF THE CONTESTANTS FOR THE HOUSE OF REPS FOR GIREI, YOLA NORTH AND YOLA SOUTH FEDERAL CONSTITUENCY ON INCONCLUSIVE ELECTIONS HELD ON THE 7TH OCTOBER, 2018 AT LAMIDO CINEMA JIMETA.”
The above captioned petition shows the Cross Appellant?s dissatisfaction against the outcome of the primary election that held on 7th October, 2018.
11
It was submitted that from the 7th October to 29th October, 2018 when the suit was filed at the lower Court it was filed outside the 14 days prescribed by law, by Section 285(9) of the 1999 Constitution, Fourth Alteration Act, therefore the judgment of the trial Court that the suit was statute barred cannot be faulted.
It was submitted that the submission of the 1st Cross Respondents name by the 2nd Cross Respondent to the 3rd Cross Respondent is a consequence of the decision of the National Working Committee (NWC) of the 2nd Cross Respondent (APC) which took place on the 17th October, 2018 and that the consequence of the event of 7th October, 2018 cannot be the date of the accrual of a cause of action.
In alternative argument, assuming but, not conceding that the cause of action arose on 17th and 18th October, 2018 as alleged by the Cross Appellant, it was submitted that the nomination of a candidate by a political party is purely an intra party affair which the Court has no jurisdiction to entertain. See, ANGADI VS. PDP (2018) 15 NWLR 1 AT 34-36, Paragraphs C A; PEOPLES DEMOCRATIC PARTY (PDP) &
12
ORS VS. BARRISTER SOPULUCHUKWU E. EZE & ANOR (2017) LPELR 42563. The sponsorship of candidates was argued to be within the partys exclusive control and domain, See, UGWU & ORS VS. PDP & ORS (2015) LPELR?24352; ARDO VS. NYAKO & ORS (2014) LPELR ? 22878. It was concluded that by paragraph 4.12 of the Cross Appellant?s brief of argument the Cross Appellant admitted that the primaries took place on 7th October, 2018 to which he alleged non-compliance with Section 87 of the Electoral Act, the Constitution and Guidelines to the partys primary election, Exhibit LAG7 and LAG8 respectively. Dissatisfaction with the said primaries led to the cross appellant?s petition of 8th October, 2018 alleging non compliance with the Electoral Act, the Constitution and Guidelines of the party, 2nd Cross Respondent. It was concluded that the trial Court was correct to have held that the cause of action of the Cross Appellant arose on the 7th October, 2018 and therefore the action was statute barred.
I would utilize the issues as formulated by the Cross Appellant in the determination of the cross appeal. When a suit is
13
said to be statute barred pursuant to Section 285(9) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 4th Alteration Act, it touches on the jurisdiction of the trial Court to have entertained the matter. When the issue of jurisdiction is challenged at any stage of the proceedings, in this case vide a Preliminary Objection, it must be resolved first before any other step is taken in the proceedings if need be. The essence of raising a Preliminary Objection against the competence of the suit is to terminate the entire suit if successful. The learned trial Judge rightly resolved the Preliminary Objection raised at the trial Court first.
The parties are agreed that the appeal emanated from a pre-election matter. By the provisions of Section 285(9) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, as amended, any action to challenge any event concerning any incident pertaining to or preceding the election, in this case, the primary election of Yola North/Yola South/Girei Federal constituency ought to be filed within 14 days from the date of the incident which gave rise to the action. Section 285(9) provides as follows:
14
285(9) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary to 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 parties are agreed that the action is a pre-election matter. While the cross appellant says the event complained about took place on the 17th and 18th October, 2018 when the name of the 1st Cross Respondent was submitted by the 2nd Cross Respondent to the 3rd Cross Respondent, the Cross Respondents have submitted that the accrual of the event or cause of action was on the 7th October, 2018 when the primaries took place. The trial Court computed the date of accrual of the cause of action to be 7th October when the primary election took place. To determine when the cause of action accrued and the jurisdiction of the Court, the Court would examine the Originating Summons, the affidavit in support of the claim, the claim of the Plaintiff and the relief sought. It was agreed by the parties that the accrual of the right of action arises on a date or from the time when a breach of any duty or act occurs which warrants the person injured
15
or the victim who is adversely affected by such breach to take a Court action in assertion or protection of his legal right that has been breached. The action must also come within the jurisdiction of the subject matter. See, FADARE VS ATTORNEY GENERAL, OYO STATE (1982) 4 SC 1; WOHEREM VS. EMEREUWA & ORS (2004) LPELR-3500 (SC) P.15, Paragraphs E-F; (2004) 8 SCM 185; (2004) 35 WRN 23; A. G. ADAMAWA STATE & ORS VS. A. G. FEDERATION (2014) LPELR ? 23221 (SC) P. 52, Paragraphs A-C and ADEGBESAN & ANOR VS. ILESANMI (2017) LPELR?42552 (CA) PP. 62, Paragraphs D-A.
A look at the reliefs sought by the Cross Appellant as Plaintiff in the trial Court vide his Originating Summons and the facts deposed to in its support made it clear that the Cross Appellants grouse emanated from the 2nd Cross Respondent?s primary election held on the 7th October, 2018, to select its candidate for Yola North/Yola South/Girei Federal Constituency for the 2019 General Election. The first relief is reproduced hereunder for clarity:
1. A DECLARATION that the 1st Respondent?s primary election conducted for Yola North/Yola South/
16
Girei Federal Constituency on the 7th day of October, 2018 is NOT in compliance with the Provisions of Section 87(4) (c) (i) and (ii) of the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended) to warrant the 1st Respondent submitting the name of the 2nd Respondent to the 3rd Respondent as its candidate for the 2019 General Election into Yola North/Yola South/Girei Federal Constituency of Adamawa State.
All the other reliefs, 2 – 14 are ancillary to relief 1 above. In the above relief, there is no mention of the decision of 18th October, 2018 of forwarding the name of the 1st Cross Respondent by the 2nd Cross Respondent to the 3rd Cross Respondent as its candidate. It is not the focal point of Section 87(4) (i) ? (ii) of the Electoral Act, 2010, as amended. The Cross Appellant?s complaint is over the primary election of the 7th October, 2018 which is further shown by the action of the Cross Appellant after the primary election, that is, he co-authored the letter dated 8th October, 2018 complaining about the conduct of the primary election for Girei/Yola North/Yola South Federal Constituency that is, Enclosure 2 to Exhibit SMB4 to
17
the affidavit in support of the supporting affidavit to the Originating Summons, also the depositions in Paragraphs 13 ? 26 of the supporting affidavit to the Originating Summons. All these go to show that the Cross Appellant was dissatisfied with the conduct of the primary election held on 7th October, 2018 on the ground that same was not conducted in accordance with the partys Constitution and Guidelines. It is the event of the 7th October, 2018 that gave the Cross Appellant the right of action. See DINGOLI VS. BARAU (2012) ALL FWLR (PT. 609) PAGE 1156 AT PAGE 1171 Paragraphs C – E. A cause of action can be defined simply as the fact or facts which give a person a right to judicial redress or relief against another. A situation or state of facts which would entitle a party to sustain an action and give him a right to seek judicial remedy on his behalf. In the present case, there is no doubt that the accrual of a cause of action on the part of the Cross Appellant occurred on 7th October, 2018 for him to enforce his right to remedy under Section 87(9) of the Electoral Act, 2010 as amended. From the 7th of October, 2018 when the primary
18
election of the 2nd Cross Respondent held on 29th October when the present action was instituted it is beyond the 14 days provided for by Section 285(9) of the Constitution, as amended. The rest of the reliefs sought by the Cross Appellant are consequential to the first relief sought in the Originating Summons. The events of the 17th and 18th October, 2018 of the 2nd Cross Respondent submitting the name of the 1st Cross Respondent to the 3rd Cross Respondent is as a consequence of the primary election of 7th October, 2018. These are not the dates to be considered as the accrual of the cause of action. See, MOSOJO VS. OYETAYO & ORS (2003) (SC) P. 11, Paragraph C where the Supreme Court, per Tobi, JSC as to when a cause of action arises held thus:
A cause of action arises on the date of occurrence, neglect or default complained of and not the consequence or result of any of the above.? (Underlines mine for emphasis).
Having held that the accrual of the cause of action took place on the 7th October, 2018 the action instituted by the Cross Appellant was statute barred and the Court had no jurisdiction to have entertained it and
19
rightly dismissed same, no matter how meritorious the case may have been. See,OLAGUNJU & ANOR VS. PHCN PLC (2011) 10 NWLR (PT. 1254) 113; (2011) LPELR (2556) SC PAGE 11. Legal Proceedings cannot be properly or validly instituted after the expiration of the prescribed period.
The Cross Appellant?s action having been filed outside the 14 days prescribed by Section 285(9) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, as amended is statute barred and the trial Court rightly held so. See, ASABORO & ANOR VS. PAN OCEAN OIL CORPORATION (NIG) LTD & ANOR (2017) LPELR 41558 (SC) AT 30 – 31; A. G. ADAMAWA STATE & ORS VS. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE FEDERATION (2014) LPELR 23221 (SC) and EGBE VS. ADEFARASIN (1987) LPELR (1032) SC.
In the final analysis, I hold that the cross appeal is without merit, same is hereby dismissed. The judgment of the trial Court in Suit No. FHC/YL/CS/4/19 delivered on 6th March, 2019 to the effect that the action of the Cross Appellant at the trial Court is statute barred, is hereby affirmed.
Parties to bear their respective costs.
20
JAMES SHEHU ABIRIYI, J.C.A.: I agree.
ABDULLAHI MAHMUD BAYERO, J.C.A.: I agree.
21
Appearances:
Y. D. Dangana, Esq. with him, Idris M. Talle, Esq.For Appellant(s)
S. Atung, Esq. for the 1st Cross Respondent.
Sule Shuaibu, Esq. for the 2nd Cross Respondent.
F. R. Baiyo, Esq. with him, Ishaku Bala, Esq. holding the Brief of I. E. Uzuegbu, Esq. for the 3rd Cross Respondent
For Respondent(s)
Appearances
Y. D. Dangana, Esq. with him, Idris M. Talle, Esq.For Appellant
AND
S. Atung, Esq. for the 1st Cross Respondent.
Sule Shuaibu, Esq. for the 2nd Cross Respondent.
F. R. Baiyo, Esq. with him, Ishaku Bala, Esq. holding the Brief of I. E. Uzuegbu, Esq. for the 3rd Cross RespondentFor Respondent
