KUSAMOTU V. A.P.C. (2021)

Background

This case addresses the appeal of Barrister Ayodele Musibau Kusamotu against the All Progressives Congress (APC) and related respondents concerning his candidacy in a pre-election matter. Initially, the Federal High Court, Abuja, granted the trial to be conducted via pleadings upon an application from the second respondent. Dissatisfied with this ruling, Kusamotu escalated the matter to the Court of Appeal, which permitted the case to proceed as originally intended. Kusamotu sought to declare himself as the authentic candidate for the Ifelodun/Boripe/Odo-Otin Federal Constituency due to alleged electoral improprieties.

Issues

The main issues to be determined were:

1. The competency of the appeal based on the time constraints established by section 285(12) of the 1999 Constitution.
2. Whether the court can extend the statutory period for hearing pre-election matters.
3. The implications of retrospective application of the amended Constitution on Kusamotu's case.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court concluded that appeals related to pre-election matters must be resolved within 60 days as mandated by section 285(12) of the 1999 Constitution. The court emphasized that neither the Court of Appeal nor the Supreme Court has the authority to extend this timeline, categorically stating that doing so amounts to judicial legislation, which is impermissible.

Court Findings

The court identified that Kusamotu’s appeal was lodged significantly outside the stipulated time frame, specifically more than 266 days after the initiation of the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was declared statute-barred, resulting in its dismissal. The Supreme Court also addressed the implications of retrospective application of the amended section 285, arguing that while such changes concern procedural matters, fairness in legal proceedings remains paramount.

Conclusion

Ultimately, the Supreme Court’s ruling was that Kusamotu's appeal could not be entertained due to its status as time-barred, rendering the jurisdiction of the court inapplicable.

Significance

This case is significant as it underscores the rigid adherence to procedural timelines in electoral matters as established by the Nigerian Constitution. It clarifies the boundaries of judicial authority in relation to legislative amendments, reinforcing the imperative for litigants to act promptly within the legal framework to avoid forfeiture of their rights.