Christabel O. Ekwu & Ors v. Natasha Irobhosa Osawaru & Ors (2023)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report – SUPREME COURT

UWANI MUSA ABBA-AJI, JSC (Delivering the leading judgment)

The appellants allegedly participated in the 17th respondent’s (PDP) primary election for House of Assembly for Edo State, conducted on 22/5/2022, purportedly monitored by officers of the 16th respondent (INEC), wherein they emerged winners.

However, on 25/5/2022, the 16th respondent (INEC) wrote exhibit Y to the 18th 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 1st – 15th 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 filed further amended 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 hence this appeal. The appellants therefore seek for determination:

1. Whether in view of the appellants’ affidavit in support of the originating summons and exhibit Y annexed thereto, the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal were not wrong to have held that the appellants’ cause of action arose on the 22nd of May, 2022 and not the 25th of May, 2022 as stated in the appellants’ originating summons.
2. Whether the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal were right when they held that the appellants’ suit was statute barred.

The 1st – 15th respondents, the 16th respondent and the 17th – 18th respondents respectively through their various learned and senior counsel framed sole issue for determination in their various order thus:

• Whether the lower court rightly held that the appellants’ suit was statute barred.
• Whether the lower court was right in setting aside the judgment of the trial court?
• Whether the court below was in error when it held that the appellants’ originating summons was predicated on the primary election of the 22nd of May, 2022 and its filing on the 6th of June, 2022 rendered it statute barred and liable to be struck out by virtue of section 285(9) of the 1999 Constitution.

Issue for determination:

I shall make use of the issue distilled by the learned senior counsel to the 1st – 15th respondents, since it has adequately covered the two issues framed by the appellants’ learned senior counsel.

Whether the lower court rightly held that the appellants’ suit was statute barred.

Submissions of counsel:

It was submitted by the learned silk to the appellants that by the appellants’ originating summons and exhibit Y, it was wrong for the lower court to hold that the cause of action arose on 22/5/2022 and not on 25/5/2022 since the appellant’s grievance was against exhibit Y. 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 Y, (the letter written by the 16th respondent) on 25/5/2022 and not against the events of 22/5/2022. 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. The suit therefore is not statute barred since by exhibit Y, 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 senior counsel to the 1st-15th respondents, 16th respondent and 17th-18th respondents towing same line of arguments together submitted that exhibit Y, issued on 25/5/2022 by the 16th respondent did not adversely affect the appellants to cause them base or predicate their cause of action on it since they have not shown and by its contents any grievance, they have against it.