EZE V. UMAHI (2022)

Background

The All Progressives Congress conducted a primary election for the Ebonyi South Senatorial District on 28 May 2022. Chief Augustine Chukwu Umahi won with 279 votes, while Princess Ann Eze came second with 5 votes. Following an alleged disruption, a further primary was conducted on 9 June 2022, at which Nwaeze David Umahi was the only contestant and emerged as the party’s candidate.

Chief Augustine Chukwu Umahi was said to have withdrawn his nomination on 9 June 2022. The party submitted Nwaeze Umahi’s name to INEC, but INEC did not publish it. Nwaeze Umahi consequently commenced proceedings before the Federal High Court seeking declarations and an order compelling INEC to accept and publish his name. Eze was joined as a party on 20 July 2022 and filed a counter-affidavit and counterclaim. She denied withdrawing her nomination, challenged the further primary, and contended that she was entitled to be recognised as the remaining aspirant after Augustine Umahi’s withdrawal.

The Federal High Court dismissed the claims of Nwaeze Umahi and the APC and granted Eze’s counterclaim in part. The Court of Appeal held that Eze’s counterclaim was statute barred, struck it out, dismissed her appeal on the merits, and granted the reliefs sought by Nwaeze Umahi and the APC. Eze appealed to the Supreme Court. The 1st and 2nd respondents’ cross-appeal was also before the Court, and a sister appeal, SC/CV/1318/2022, was agreed to abide by the decision in the present appeal.

Issues

1. Whether the Court of Appeal properly evaluated the evidence, exhibits and briefs before dismissing Eze’s appeal and granting the reliefs sought by Nwaeze Umahi and the APC.
2. Whether the Court of Appeal was right to hold that Eze lacked locus standi and ought not to have been joined.
3. Whether Eze’s counterclaim, filed on 20 July 2022, was statute barred under section 285(9) of the Constitution.

Ratio Decidendi

Section 285(9) of the 1999 Constitution requires every pre-election matter to be filed not later than 14 days from the date of the occurrence of the event, decision or action complained of. The constitutional period is mandatory, immutable and incapable of extension. Pre-election matters are sui generis, and time is of the essence.

Eze’s counterclaim was an independent action and therefore had to comply with the applicable limitation period as if it were a separate suit. Its substance was founded on the withdrawal of Augustine Umahi and the further primary election conducted on 9 June 2022. Her cause of action accrued on that date, when the operative facts giving rise to her complaint occurred. The counterclaim filed on 20 July 2022 was approximately 42 days later and outside the prescribed 14-day period.

The Court held that the claimant’s knowledge of the event does not postpone the commencement of time under section 285(9). The section refers to the date of occurrence of the event, decision or action, not the date on which the aggrieved person became aware of it. A court cannot read a knowledge requirement into the clear constitutional language.

Court Findings

The Supreme Court found that Eze’s pleadings and reliefs themselves proceeded on the basis that Augustine Umahi had withdrawn. She could not rely on section 33 of the Electoral Act 2022, which regulates substitution following death or withdrawal, while simultaneously denying the withdrawal on which her reliefs were predicated.

A counterclaim is a cross-action and must satisfy limitation law independently of the principal claim. Once the 14-day period expired, Eze’s cause of action was extinguished by operation of law, the counterclaim became incompetent, and the trial court lacked jurisdiction to entertain it. The jurisdictional defect affected the appellate proceedings concerning the counterclaim.

Because the counterclaim was incompetent, the Supreme Court considered the remaining issues academic and did not determine them. The cross-appeal was likewise academic after dismissal of the main appeal.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court unanimously dismissed Eze’s appeal and affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeal delivered on 30 September 2022. The cross-appeal was struck out as academic. The sister appeal, SC/CV/1318/2022, was dismissed pursuant to the parties’ agreement that it would be bound by the judgment. The parties were ordered to bear their respective costs.

Significance

The decision confirms the strict constitutional limitation period applicable to Nigerian pre-election proceedings. It establishes that a counterclaim is subject to the same 14-day requirement as an originating claim, that time runs from the occurrence of the impugned event rather than the claimant’s subjective discovery of it, and that courts cannot extend or suspend the period on grounds of lack of knowledge. An action commenced outside the period is incompetent and deprives the court of jurisdiction.