Mrs. Adanma Ode v. F.S.A Uzor & Ors (2024)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report – SUPREME COURT

HELEN MORONKEJI OGUNWUMIJU, JSC (Delivering the leading judgment)

This is an appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal Enugu Judicial Division in appeal No: CA/E/354/2022 between Mrs. Adanma Ode v. F.S.A Uzor & 2 Ors delivered on the 19th of January 2023, Coram: Honourable Justice Uzoamaka Ifeyinwa Ndukwe-Anyanwu (JCA), Honourable Justice Joseph Olubunmi Kayode Oyewole (JCA), Honourable Justice Joseph Ekanem (JCA) which allowed the appeal in part and set aside the decision of the trial court that the suit of the appellant is statute-barred.

The facts that led to this appeal are as follows.

Appellant and the 1st respondent are members of the 2nd respondent, a political party registered in Nigeria.

The 1st respondent was the Chief of Staff to the Governor of Enugu State, and therefore a political office holder.

Both the appellant and the 1st respondent alongside with others contested the primary election of the 2nd respondent for the nomination of its candidate to contest for the Udi/Ezeagu Federal Constituency in the general election of 2023.

The 1st respondent won the primary election with 99 votes while the appellant came second with 8 votes. It was the appellant’s case that the 1st respondent, a political appointee, did not resign his position before purchasing the Expression of Interest and Nomination Form as required by the second limb of Part VII of the Peoples’ Democratic Party Electoral Guideline and that the Electoral Act, 2022 forbids a political appointee from voting or being voted for in the convention or congress of any political party for the purpose of nomination of candidates for any election.

It was also her case that as at the time of the primary election, the 1st respondent was still in office as the Chief of Staff to the Governor of Enugu State having not complied with the resignation protocol specified in the party guideline.

The appellant commenced the action at the trial court by way of a writ of summons filed on the 3rd June, 2022 seeking several reliefs. The process was, with the leave of court, turned into an originating summons which was filed on the 28th September, 2022. The appellant raised 3 questions for consideration of the trial court and sought seven (7) declaratory reliefs produced below respectively:

“1. Whether the 1st defendant’s participation as an aspirant at the 2nd defendant’s primary election conducted on the 22/5/2022 for the nomination of the 2nd defendant’s candidate for the election to the House of Representative for Udi/Ezeagu Federal Constituency of Enugu State was not a contravention of paragraph 1, Part VII, of the PDP Guidelines as well as Section 84(12) of the Electoral Act, 2022.

2. Whether having regard to the express provision of the said paragraph 1, Part VII, page 36 (2nd limb thereof) of the aforesaid PDP Guidelines and section 84(12) of the Electoral Act, 2022, the 1st defendant’s purported nomination at the said primary election of the 2nd defendant for the election to the House of Representatives for Udi/Ezeagu Federal Constituency of Enugu State, is not liable to be set aside as a nullity on the ground of non-qualification, being in contravention of the aforesaid provisions of both the PDP Electoral Guideline and Electoral Acts, 2022.
3. Whether the plaintiff who came 2nd at the aforesaid primary is not entitled to be declared the nominated candidate of the 2nd defendant for the election to the House of Representative for Udi/Ezeagu Federal Constituency of Enugu State.”

The appellant sought the following reliefs:

1. A declaration that the 1st defendant was not qualified to be voted for at the primaries of the 2nd defendant conducted on the 22nd day of May, 2022 to nominate the 2nd defendant’s candidate for the election to the House of Representatives for Udi/Ezeagu Federal Constituency.
2. A declaration that the 1st defendant’s declaration as the winner of the said primary election, and therefore the candidate for the 2nd defendant in the election to the House of Representatives for Udi/Ezeagu Federal Constituency is a nullity, the 1st defendant being unqualified to participate in the said primary, being an unresigned political appointee.
3. A declaration that the plaintiff, who came to score 2nd at the aforesaid primary election, is the candidate of the 2nd defendant for the election to the House of Representatives for Udi/Ezeagu Federal Constituency of Enugu State.
4. An order voiding the nomination of the 1st defendant as the candidate of the 2nd defendant for the said election.
5. An order directing the 3rd defendant to delist and remove the 1st defendant as the candidate of the 2nd defendant for the election to the House of Representatives for Udi/Ezeagu Federal Constituency of Enugu State.
6. An order compelling the 2nd defendant to submit to the 3rd defendant in the prescribed form, the plaintiff’s name and personal particulars and for the 3rd defendant to accept and publish same, as the candidate of the 3rd defendant for the election to the House of Representatives for Udi/Ezeagu Federal Constituency of Enugu State.
7. And for such further orders, as the honourable court may deem appropriate in the circumstances.

The appellant filed an affidavit of 16 paragraphs with several exhibits attached in support of the originating summons.

The respondents at the trial court filed their respective notices of preliminary objection to the suit challenging the jurisdiction of the trial court as well as their respective counter-affidavit in opposition to the originating summons.

After hearing counsel for the parties, the trial court in its judgment delivered on 17/11/2022 on page 1621 – 1626 of the record of appeal held that the action was statute barred and that the court lacked jurisdiction to hear and determine the matter. The trial court upheld the objection of the 1st respondent on the basis that the time line for purchase of Expression of Interest Form of the 2nd respondent was between 17/3/22 to 14/4/22 while the 1st respondent filed the action on 3/6/22 which was clearly outside 14 days as provided by section 285(9) of the 1999 Constitution (as altered).