OLADIMEJI LATEEF AJIJOLA V. HON. FATIMA RASAKI & ORS. (2019)

Background

This case involves Oladimeji Lateef Ajijola's challenge against the nomination of Hon. Fatima Rasaki by the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) as their candidate for the Ekiti Central Senatorial District in the general elections.

Initially, Ajijola participated in the primary election held on December 7, 2014, where he claimed to have won the highest votes. Despite this, the PDP submitted Rasaki’s name to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) instead of Ajijola’s, prompting him to file a suit.

Issues

The core legal issues in this appeal are:

1. Whether the time for calculating the limitation period was suspended when suit No. FHC/CS/ABJ/1087/14 was pending.
2. Whether the Supreme Court could invoke the provisions of section 22 of the Supreme Court Act, primarily considering the failure of the lower court to exercise its powers under section 15 of the Court of Appeal Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court, in dismissing both appeals, held:

1. A case struck out still exists legally, allowing the plaintiff the option to relist the action after correcting deficiencies that led to the strike out.
2. Since Ajijola's appeal stemmed from a suit that had not been properly relisted, and a fresh suit had been initiated outside the statutory time limits, the appeal was dismissed.

Court Findings

The Court determined that:

1. Ajijola did not relist his earlier struck suit, but rather filed a new action which fell outside the time limit set forth in the Public Officers Protection Act.
2. The jurisdictional questions raised by Ajijola regarding the power of the Federal High Court to resolve pre-election matters had been established in prior cases.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeal's decision to dismiss Ajijola’s claim due to procedural deficiencies and lack of timely action on his part. His failure to relist the initial suit was critical in affirming the dismissal.

Significance

This ruling emphasizes the importance of adhering to procedural rules and timelines in election matters, signifying that even the merits of a case may be overshadowed by procedural oversights. It also clarifies the concurrent jurisdiction of the Federal and State High Courts in pre-election disputes under the Electoral Act.