Legalpedia Citation: (2023-03) Legalpedia 10177 (SC)

In the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Fri Mar 31, 2023

Suit Number: SC.CV/340/2023

CORAM

John Inyang Okoro SCN

Chima Centus Nweze SCN

Uwani Musa Abba Aji SCN

Mohammed Lawal Garba SCN

Tijjani Abubakar SCN

PARTIES

1.DR. MICHAEL ONOLEMEMEN 2. PASCAL UGBOME 3. OMOREGIE OGBEIDE-IHAMA

APPELLANTS

INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION (INEC) 2. ENGR. SEN. CLIFFORD ORDIA 3. HON. MATTHEW IDUORIYEKEMNEN 4. SEN. FRANCIS ALIMIKHENA 5. PEOPLES DEMOCRATIC PARTY (PDP) 6. DR. IYORCHIA AYU (NATIONAL CHAIRMAN, PDP & CHAIRMAN PDP NATIONAL WORKING COMMITTEE)

RESPONDENTS

AREA(S) OF LAW

: APPEAL, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, ELECTION, EVIDENCE, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Appellants were aspirants in the 5th Respondent’s (PDP) primary election for House of Assembly for Edo North, Edo South and Edo Central in Edo State, conducted on 23/5/2022, purportedly monitored by officers of the 1st Respondent (INEC), wherein they emerged winners. However, on 25/5/2022, the 1st Respondent (INEC) wrote Exhibit 6 to the 6th Respondent indicating and informing that only candidate who emerged winners at congresses monitored by INEC would be recognized because of parallel elections that took place, one conducted by the National Working Committee of the PDP and the other by the State Committee. Apprehensive of the implication on their candidature in the upcoming general election, the Appellants filed a suit on 6/6/2022 seeking for reliefs contained in their originating summons. The 2nd-4th Respondents, who emerged as candidates of the PDP for the said seats, applied to be joined as parties to the suit and were so joined, bringing in also the Party Chairman and the PDP. The Appellants consequently amended their originating summons.

The trial Court dismissed the objection to its jurisdiction on statute of limitation by the Respondents and entered judgment in favour of the Appellants. On appeal, the lower Court set aside the decision of the trial Court and struck out the Appellants’ suit for being statute barred. The Appellants were dissatisfied hence this appeal.

HELD

Appeal dismissed

ISSUES

1. I shall make use of the issue distilled by the learned senior counsel to the 2nd-4th Respondents, since it has adequately covered the two issues framed by the Appellants’ learned senior Counsel.
2. Whether the lower Court rightly held that the Appellants’ suit was statute barred.

It was submitted by the learned silk to the Appellants that by the Appellants’ originating summons and Exhibit 6, it was wrong for the lower Court to hold that the cause of action arose on 23/5/2022 and not on 25/5/2022, since the Appellant’s grievance was against Exhibit 6. Thus, where there is a question on cause of action, the Plaintiff’s pleadings/ originating summons with the affidavit should be examined. He relied on UWAZURUONYE v. GOV. IMO STATE (2013) 8 NWLR (PT. 1355) AT 56. Also, that where documents are examined, the contents must be read as a whole. He cited In support PDP v. ORANEZI (2018) 7 NWLR (PT. 1618) AT 257. It is further submitted that the Appellants’ complaint is against Exhibit 6 (the letter written by the 1st Respondent) on 25/5/2022 and not against the events of 23/5/2022. Thus, a cause of action arises on the date the action complained of occurred. He relied on GBENGA v. APC (2020) 14 NWLR (PT. 1744) AT 267. He therefore maintained that the suit is not statute barred since by Exhibit 6, the cause of action arose on 25/5/2022 and the suit was filed on 6/6/2022. He prayed that this Court should set aside the judgment of the lower Court and affirm the decision of the trial Court.

​The learned Counsel to the 1st Respondent, the learned Silk to the 2nd-4th Respondents and the learned Silk to the 5th-6th Respondents agreeing and towing same line of arguments submitted that Exhibit 6, issued on 25/5/2022 by the 1st Respondent did not adversely affect the Appellants to cause them to base or predicate their cause of action on it since they have not shown and by its contents any grievance, they have against it. It was submitted that their cause of action was the conduct of the primary election on 23/5/2022, and having filed their originating summons on 6/6/2022, they were caught up by Section 285 (9) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), since the 14 days’ window had elapsed. They argued that the Court examines all the available facts relevant to the issue and not to rely only on the Plaintiff’s pleadings. They relied on ABUBAKAR UMAR ABDULLAHI v. HON. MOHAMMED ANGULU LOKO & ORS (2022) LPELR-57578 (SC). They urged this Court to resolve the issue in favour of the Respondents and to dismiss the appeal.

RATIONES DECIDENDI

PRIMARY ELECTIONS – WHERE THERE ARE TWO PARALLEL PRIMARY ELECTIONS

There cannot be two parallel primaries to produce two parallel candidates for same party. On this, this Court, Per ABBA AJI, JSC, in APC v. JEGA & ORS (2023) LPELR- 59866(SC) (PP. 21-22 PARAS. D-D), held:

If there are two parallel primary elections, as in the cases from which these appeals arose, only a person who took part in the primary election conducted by the National Executive Committee of the party is an aspirant… Anyone who takes part in the primary election conducted by a State organ of the party is not an aspirant and cannot approach the Court for redress; for he has no locus standi to ask for redress. – Per U. M. Abba-Aji, JSC

PRE-ELECTION MATTER – TIME FOR FILING PRE-ELECTION MATTERS

It must be noted also that by the provision of Section 285(9) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) providing that; “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”, the mentioning or pinning of a particular date does not necessarily make that date the “the date of the occurrence of the event, decision or action complained of”. What the Court must look into is whether an event, decision or action has given rise to non- compliance with “the provisions of this Act and the guidelines of a political party have not been complied with in the selection or nomination of a candidate of a political party for election…” as explicitly provided in Section 84 (14) of the Electoral Act, 2022. – Per U. M. Abba-Aji, JSC

PRE-ELECTION MATTER – WHEN TIME BEGINS TO RUN IN A PRE-ELECTION MATTER

In fact, knowledge/awareness of the occurrence of the event/decision/action complained of is immaterial in the determination of when time begins to run to institute a pre-election matter. The clear and unambiguous section neither makes knowledge on the part of the appellant a precondition to the filing of his action nor excludes the date his cause of action accrues in the determination of when time begins to run against him.

To hold that time begins to run against the Appellants only after issuance of Exhibit 6 in determining when limitation begins to run against them is to read into the section what it does not contain, to muddle things up and put the cart before the horse. No Court has the jurisdiction of doing so. See Per JAURO, JSC, in ABDULLAHI v. LOKO & ORS (2022) LPELR-57578(SC) (PP. 29-32 PARAS. F), citing and relying on DANGANA & ANOR v. USMAN & ORS (2012) LPELR-25012 GANA v. SDP & ORS (2019) LPELR-47153 (SC). – Per U. M. Abba-Aji, JSC

CASES CITED

STATUTES REFERRED TO

1. Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended)
2. Electoral Act, 2022

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT