Dr. Michael Onolememen & Ors Vs Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) & Ors (2023)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report – SUPREME COURT

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

The alleged fact is that 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, after 2 days, 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; 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 6 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 23rd 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 respondent, the 2nd-5th respondents and the 6th respondents respectively vide their learned senior counsel framed sole issue for determination in the order infra:

Whether the lower court was right in setting aside the judgment of the trial court?

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

Whether the court below was in error when it held that the appellants’ originating summons was predicated on the primary election of the 23rd 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 2nd – 4th 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.