site logo

BAWA V. DANDAURA (2023)

case summary

Supreme Court of Nigeria

Before Their Lordships:

  • Amina Adamu Augie JSC (Presided)
  • Helen Moronkeji Ogunwumiju JSC
  • Adamu Jauro JSC
  • Tijjani Abubakar JSC
  • Emmanuel A. Agim JSC (Read the Lead Judgment)

Parties:

Appellant:

  • Larry Ven Bawa

Respondents:

  • Hon. Hehemiah Tsentse Dandaura
  • Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC)
  • All Progressive Congress (APC)
Suit number: SC/CV/317/2023Delivered on: 2023-03-31

Background

The case of Bawa v. Dandaura revolves around a political dispute regarding the nomination of candidates for the Akwanga North Constituency election in Nasarawa State. Larry Ven Bawa (the appellant) challenged the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) and the All Progressive Congress (APC) regarding a primary election where he claimed to have been wrongly replaced as the candidate. He initially filed a suit on 6 July 2022, which was struck out by the trial court as statute-barred. The appellate court subsequently overturned this decision, claiming the suit was not out of time, allowing the applicant's claims, which led the appellant to appeal to the Supreme Court on 31 March 2023.

Issues

The key issues in this appeal included:

  1. Was the lower court in error when it held that the respondent's suit was not statute-barred?
  2. Did the Court of Appeal have jurisdiction to hear the substantive matter after the expiration of the stipulated 180 days for pre-election cases?

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that:

  1. The Court of Appeal erred in determining the merits of the suit after the expiration of the trial court's jurisdiction to hear the matter.
  2. The suit was indeed not statute-barred, as the event triggering the cause of action occurred within the permitted time frame for filing.

Court Findings

The court found that the 1st respondent's claim stemmed from events occurring on 24 June 2022, which aligned with the timeline established in the initial filing. The Supreme Court emphasized that the Court of Appeal misused its powers by assuming jurisdiction that was no longer available to the trial court.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of the appellant in part. While it agreed with the Court of Appeal that the suit was not statute-barred, it ruled that the lower court lacked jurisdiction to determine the substantive matter, resulting in the nullity of its ruling.

Significance

This case is significant as it reaffirms the principles surrounding the jurisdiction of courts in pre-election matters and the importance of adhering to statutory timelines in electoral disputes. It emphasizes the necessity of clear and credible evidence when contesting electoral outcomes, especially in terms of determining the validity of party nominations.

Counsel:

  • D. D. Dodo, SAN
  • M. I. Dikko, SAN
  • Mathew G. Burkaa, SAN
  • N. D. Ter, Esq.