ADEBAYO SEGUN ONI V. JOHN KAYODE FAYEMI & ORS. (2019)

Background

This appeal arose from the All Progressives Congress (APC) governorship primary election conducted in Ekiti State on 12 May 2018. Adebayo Segun Oni and John Kayode Fayemi were among the aspirants. Fayemi won the primary with 941 votes, while Oni came second with 481 votes, and Fayemi’s name was subsequently forwarded to the Independent National Electoral Commission as the APC’s candidate for the governorship election.

Oni challenged Fayemi’s nomination before the Federal High Court, Abuja, by originating summons filed on 22 June 2018. He alleged, among other things, that Fayemi had been indicted by a Judicial Commission of Inquiry and was therefore disqualified from holding public office under the APC’s guidelines. Oni also argued that Fayemi, who was then a Minister, had failed to resign from his appointment at least 30 days before the primary election. The Federal High Court dismissed the action, and the Court of Appeal, Ado-Ekiti Division, affirmed that decision. Oni appealed to the Supreme Court. Fayemi filed a preliminary objection challenging the competence of some grounds of appeal and also brought a cross-appeal.

Issues

1. Whether the appeal and the originating action were competent having regard to the 14-day limitation period prescribed for pre-election matters by section 285(9) of the 1999 Constitution, as altered by the Fourth Alteration Act No. 21 of 2017.
2. Whether the Supreme Court could raise the issue of jurisdiction and competence suo motu without first hearing the parties.
3. Whether a statute altering the time within which proceedings must be commenced could apply immediately or retrospectively.
4. Whether parties could confer jurisdiction on a court by consent, acquiescence or participation in proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court, in the lead judgment delivered by Sanusi JSC, held that the action was a pre-election matter arising from the APC primary election of 12 May 2018. Section 285(9) of the Constitution requires every pre-election matter to be filed not later than 14 days from the occurrence of the event, decision or action complained of. The latest date for filing was therefore 26 May 2018. Since Oni commenced the action on 22 June 2018, approximately 41 or 42 days after the primary election, the action was statute-barred and incompetent.

The Court held that once an action is statute-barred, the court lacks the jurisdiction and competence to entertain it. The defect is fundamental and renders the proceedings a nullity, regardless of the quality of the evidence or reasoning adopted by the lower court. Consequently, an appeal founded on such proceedings is itself incompetent.

The Court further held that although courts ordinarily should not raise and determine an issue suo motu without giving the parties an opportunity to address it, jurisdictional issues constitute an exception. Where the defect in jurisdiction is apparent from the record and does not depend on disputed facts, the court may raise the issue on its own initiative and terminate the proceedings.

Court Findings

The Court rejected the need to determine the substantive arguments concerning whether a minister is an employee in the public service, the validity of the APC guidelines, the alleged indictment, and the requirement to resign before contesting. Those questions became academic once it was established that the originating action was filed outside the constitutionally prescribed period.

The Justices also endorsed the principle that procedural statutes regulating the time within which proceedings may be commenced can have immediate or retrospective effect, unless the legislation provides otherwise. The provision did not alter the underlying cause of action; it merely regulated the time and procedure for invoking the court’s jurisdiction. Accordingly, no party had a vested right to insist on a former, longer procedural period.

The Court applied the established principle that parties cannot, by consent or acquiescence, confer jurisdiction on a court that lacks it by law. Participation by the parties before the Federal High Court and the subsequent appellate proceedings could not cure the fundamental defect.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court struck out both the main appeal and Fayemi’s cross-appeal because they arose from an incompetent, statute-barred action. The Court awarded costs of N1,000,000 each to the first and second respondents, payable by the appellant.

Significance

The decision emphasises the strict and jurisdictional nature of the constitutional time limit for pre-election litigation in Nigeria. Aspirants and political parties must challenge primaries, nominations and related decisions within 14 days of the complained-of event. Courts may terminate proceedings at any stage where the limitation defect is manifest, even if the parties did not raise it. The case also confirms that procedural amendments affecting filing periods may apply immediately and that no agreement between litigants can validate proceedings commenced outside the court’s jurisdiction.