Legalpedia Citation: (2023-02) Legalpedia 86193 (SC)

In the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Holden at Abuja

Fri Feb 24, 2023

Suit Number: SC.CV/157/2023

CORAM

KUDIRAT MOTONMORI OLATOKUNBO KEKERE-EKUN JUSTICE SUPREME COURT

UWANI MUSA ABBA AJI JUSTICE SUPREME COURT

MOHAMMED LAWAL GARBA JUSTICE SUPREME COURT

IBRAHIM MOHAMMED MUSA SAULAWA JUSTICE SUPREME COURT

EMMANUEL AKOMAYE AGIM JUSTICE SUPREME COURT

PARTIES

ACHAN AFFIDAVIT ACHAN

APPELLANTS

1. PHELYX TER AZEGETOR
2. NEW NIGERIA PEOPLES PARTY (NNPP)
3. INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION (INEC)

RESPONDENTS

AREA(S) OF LAW

APPEAL, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, ELECTION PETITION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Appellant, being the Plaintiff at the trial Court, was disqualified by the 2nd Respondent for not purchasing the nomination form to contest the Sankera Federal Constituency primary election of APC. He claimed that he made a deposit and was issued the forms on 12/5/2022. He claimed to have made two instalmental payments subsequently.

He also claimed to have contested against the 1st Respondent and won, after being cleared by the party but he received a message on 9/6/2022 from the party’s State Chairman that he was disqualified for failure to provide evidence of payment for purchase of nomination form and the name of the 1^st Respondent was to be submitted. Consequently, he approached the trial Court vide originating summons.

The 1st Respondent however at the trial Court contended that the Appellant was not even a candidate at the primary election of the 2nd Respondent for Sankera Federal Constituency, having not been screened and cleared to contest the said primary election. The trial Court found for the Appellant, which judgment was overturned by the lower Court, hence this appeal by the Appellant to this Honourable Court.

HELD

Appeal dismissed

ISSUES

Ø Whether the lower Court was right in holding that the Appellant’s cause of action accrued on 26th May, 2022 and not on 9th day of June, 2022 and was therefore caught by the statute of limitation?

Ø Was the Appellant from the available documentary evidence and circumstances of this case, not qualified to contest the primary election of the 2nd Respondent to be its flag bearer for Katsina-Ala, Ukum and Logo Federal Constituency in the forthcoming elections of 2023 as decided by the Court below?

RATIONES DECIDENDI

FAIR HEARING – CONSIDER THE CASE OF BOTH PARTIES TO MAINTAIN FAIR HEARING

 

Usually but not always, it is the Plaintiff’s process that may be utilized in ascertaining the cause of action. However, it is advisable in order to maintain a balance and fair hearing to consider the case of both parties especially in the sui generic facts and circumstances of pre-election and election matters. In the case of WALI VS APC, (2020) 16 NWLR (PT 1749) 82 AT 99 PARAS B-E, the Court held that:

Now on whether the plaintiffs cause of action was statute barred by dint of Section 285(9) of CFRN, (as amended), I accept the principle of law that it is not always that for purposes of determining the date the right to the cause of action accrued to the plaintiff, it is only from the pleading or evidence of the plaintiff that the fact is deducible. – Per U. M. Abba-Aji, JSC

CAUSE OF ACTION – LIMITATION LAW ACCRUES ON DATE ON WHICH INCIDENT GIVING RISE TO THE CAUSE OF ACTION OCCURS

Section 285(9) of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, prescribes a period of 14 days from the date of the commencement of the event, decision or action complained of, for the filing of a suit in a pre-election matter. This Court in Bello vs Yusuf & Ors. (2019) LPELR – 47918 (SC) @ 11-21 E – B, per Musa Dattijo Muhammad, JSC dealt extensively with the interpretation of the provision and held that in determining when the cause of action accrued, which would give the plaintiff the right to seek redress in Court, the relevant consideration is the date of the occurrence of the specific event, decision or action complained of. Knowledge of the plaintiff is immaterial as that factor is not provided as a pre-condition in the provision. See also: Abdullahi Vs Loko (2022) LPELR-57578 (SC) @ 29-32 G – E; Karshi vs Gwagwa (2022) LPELR- 57578 (SC) @ 30-33 D – A.

​On the general principle regarding the application of a limitation law and the accrual of a cause of action, it was held thus in: Eboigbe vs NNPC (1994) 19 NWLR (Pt.347) 649 @ 659 A- C:

“Time begins to run from the date the cause of action accrues. The cause of action generally accrues on the date on which the incident giving rise to the cause of action occurs … Proceedings must be begun, normally by the issue of Writ of Summons within a period prescribed by the relevant statute.”

See also:Ajibona Vs Kolawole (1996) 10 NWLR (Pt.476) 22 @ 36 E – F, per Ogwuegbu, JSC:

“All limitation laws have for their object the prevention of the rearing up of claims that are stale. To contend that the defendant must prove plaintiff’s knowledge of such adverse possession for time to start to run, or the defendant’s presence on the land, is to import a strange condition into the Limitation Law.” – Per K. M. O. Kekere-Ekun, JSC

CASES CITED

STATUTES REFERRED TO

1. The Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended)

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT