SHINA OKETAOLEGUN V THE STATE
April 30, 2025THE STATE VS JAMES GWANGWAN
April 30, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (2015-07) Legalpedia (SC) 72211
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Fri Jul 3, 2015
Suit Number: SC.309/2014
CORAM
NWALI SYLVESTER NGWUTA
WALTER SAMUEL NKANU ONNOGHEN
SULEIMAN GALADIMA
NWALI SYLVESTER NGWUTA
KUDIRAT M.O. KEKERE-EKUN
PARTIES
INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION APPELLANTS
OGBADIBO LOCAL GOVERNMENT & ORS
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The Respondents commenced an action against the Appellant at the Federal High Court Abuja, the matter was subsequently transferred to Makurdi. The Respondents at the Trial Court sought for declarative reliefs which include amongst all other; a declaration that the Benue State House of Assembly is not properly constituted or composed as required by Sections 91and 112 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria., a declaration that having regard to the provision of section 91 and 112 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, the defendant acted improperly and unfairly in refusing or failing to include the suppressed OTUKPA State Constituency in Ogbadibo Local Government Area among the names of the suppressed state constituencies. The Appellant in response to the Originating Summons filed a Notice of Preliminary objection challenging the jurisdiction of the trial Court to entertain the suit which he claimed was statute barred, having not been instituted within three months after the accrual of cause of action. The trial Court after hearing both parties, dismissed the Preliminary Objection, and granted all the reliefs sought by the Respondents. Aggrieved, the Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal where his appeal was disallowed and the decision of the trial Court affirmed. The Appellant was thereafter prompted to make further appeal to the Supreme Court.
HELD
Appeal Allowed
ISSUES
1. Whether the Court of Appeal was right in holding that the respondents satisfied the requirements of the law on locus standi and therefore clothed with the necessary locus standi to institute the action?
2. Whether the Appellant is not protected by section 2(a) of the Public Officers Protection Act having regard to the circumstances of this caseWhether the Court of Appeal was right in holding that Exhibits A,B and C are admissible in evidence and their usage cannot be faulted (Ground 3)?
3. Whether the Court of Appeal was right in relying on its judgment in the case of Oju Local Government v. INEC (2007) 14 NWLR (pt 1054) 242 having regard to the circumstances of this case?
4. Whether the Court of Appeal was correct to require the Appellant to proffer legal argument by affidavit evidence in the circumstances of this case?
5. Whether the Court of Appeal was correct when it held that there were sufficient materials for grant of declaratory reliefs in the circumstances of this case?
RATIONES DECIDENDI
RAISING AN ISSUE SUO MOTU – WHERE PARTIES ARE NOT GIVEN OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS THE COURT ON ISSUES RAISED SUO MOTU, SUCH ISSUE CANNOT FORM THE BASIS OF ANY DECISION
“When a Court raises an issue suo motu as was done in this case, the issue so raised cannot form the basis of any decision if Counsel to the parties are not given the opportunity to address the Court on it. See Ugo v. Obiekwe (1989) 2 SC (Pt. 11) 41; Shasi & Anor v. Smith & 2 ors (2009) 12 SC (Pt. Ill) 1.” PER N.S.NGWUTA, J.S.C.
JURISDICTION – IMPORTANCE OF JURISDICTION
“Jurisdiction is the bedrock of any judicial proceeding and its absence or defect renders any proceeding a nullity notwithstanding that it was well conducted. See Madukolu v. Nkemdilim (1962) All NLR 587; Aaron Nfionadi v. Clement Ezenwosu (1988) 6 SCNJ 88 at 95-96.” PER N.S.NGWUTA, J.S.C.
SECTION 2(A) OF THE PUBLIC OFFICERS PROTECTION ACT – PRINCIPLE OF SECTION 2(A) OF THE PUBLIC OFFICERS PROTECTION ACT
“The general principle of Section 2(a) of the Public Officers Protection Act is that where a statute provides for the institution of an action within a prescribed period, the action shall not be brought after the time prescribed by such statute. Any action that is instituted after the period stipulated by the statute is totally barred as the right of the plaintiff or the injured person to commence the action would have been extinguished by such law. What this means in effect is that the Limitation Act or Law removes the right of action of a plaintiff, his right of enforcement and right of judicial relief leaving him with a bare and empty cause of action which he cannot enforce by judicial process. It is statute barred. See Egbe V. Adefarasin (1987) 1 NWLR (pt. 47) I, Military Administrator Ekiti State V. Aladeyelu (2007) 14 NWLR (pt. 1055) 619, Hassan V. Aliyu (2010) 17 NWLR (pt. 1223) 547, P. N. Udoh Trading Co. Ltd. V. Sunday Abere & Anor. (2001) 11 NWLR (pt. 723) 114, Alhaji Ado Ibrahim V. Alhaji Maigida U. Lawal & Ors (2015) LPELR – SC. 99/2009 delivered on 5th June, 2015.” PER J.I.OKORO, J.S.C
DEFENCE OF LIMITATION OF TIME – ONCE A DEFENCE OF LIMITATION OF TIME IS STATED AND GROUNDED IN THE AVERMENTS IN SUPPORT OF THE SUMMONS, AND IT IS ESTABLISHED, THIS BARS THE PLAINTIFF’S REMEDY AND EXTINGUISHES THE RIGHT OF HIS ACTION
“ In law once a defence of limitation of time is stated and grounded in the averments in support of the summons, (as in this case at hand) and it is established, this bars the plaintiffs, remedy and extinguishes the right of his action; then the Court will wash off its hands and decline to entertain the action. This in effect means that there, is absolutely no basis for prying into the conduct of the Appellant howsoever which gave rise to the action, even as being suggested here by the learned counsel for the Respondents. See Amadi v. NNPC (2000) 6SC (pt.l) 66; Inakoju v. Adeleke (2007) 4 NWLR (PT.1025) 423.” PER S.GALADIMA, J.S.C
FRESH ISSUE ON APPEAL – A FRESH ISSUE ON APPEAL MUST BE RAISED WITH THE LEAVE OF COURT
“The issue of a continuance of injury is a fresh issue which the respondents as plaintiffs cannot raise without leave of Court first sought and granted.” PER N.S. NGWUTA, J.S.C.
CONCURRENT FINDING OF FACT OF LOWER COURTS – ATTITUDE OF APPELLATE COURTS TO CONCURRENT FINDING OF FACT OF LOWER COURTS
“While this Court does not, in principle and practice, make a habit of disturbing a concurrent finding of fact of the two Courts below, it will not hesitate to interfere where it has reason to do so in the interest of justice.” PER N.S.NGWUTA, J.S.C.
ESTABLISHMENT OF LOCUS STANDI – DUTY OF A PARTY ESTABLISHING LOCUS STANDI
“For a party to establish locus standi, he must show that the matter is justiciable – capable of being disposed of judiciously in a court of law and the existence of dispute between parties. See Ajayi v. Adebiyi (2012) 11 NWLR (pt. 1310) 137.” PER S.GALADIMA, J.S.C
CONTINUANCE OF THE DAMAGE OR INJURY – MEANING OF CONTINUANCE OF THE DAMAGE OR INJURY
“The continuance of the damage or injury constitutes an exception to the general rule. It was held in: Obiefuna Vs Okoye (1961) All NLR 357 @ 360 that:
“Continuance of injury or damage means continuance of the legal injury and not merely continuance of the injurious effects of a legal injury.”
See also: Olaosebikan Vs Williams (1996) 5 NWLR (Pt.449) 437 @ 456 — 457 D — H.” PER K.M.O.KEKERE-EKUN, J.S.C
LIMITATION LAW – EFFECT OF A LIMITATION LAW
“It is settled law that a limitation law, such as the provisions of section 2 (a) of the Public Officers Protection Act, takes away the legal right of a litigant to enforce an action leaving him with an empty shell of a cause of action where the action is not instituted within the time frame enacted in the statute of limitation.” PER W.S.N. ONNOGHEN,J.S.C.
STATUTE BARRED ACTION – A STATUTED BARRED ACTION CANNOT BE MAINTAINED AS IT ROBS THE COURT OF ITS JURISDICTION TO ENTERTAIN SAME
“Where the action is instituted outside the time so allotted by the statute, we say that the action so instituted is statute -barred and cannot be maintained since it robs the court of the jurisdiction to entertain and determine same.” PER W.S.N. ONNOGHEN, J.S.C.
CASES CITED
STATUTES REFERRED TO
Public Officer Protection Act Cap. P.41 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004
