Kalu Kalu, Labaran Ismail and Hassy El-Kuris, who were appellants in the dismissed suit challenging the qualification of President Muhammadu Buhari for the 2019 presidential election have taken their grievances to the Supreme Court.
They want the apex court to nullify the candidacy of President Buhari in the just concluded presidential poll.
A federal high court, Abuja and the court of appeal sitting in Abuja had earlier dismissed their suit on the ground that it was statute barred.
They ruled that because the suit was filed out of time their hands were tied to hear the suit on its merit.
However, not satisfied with the judgments, the appellants approached the Supreme Court, seeking that Buhari’s nomination and subsequent victory at the February 23 presidential election to be nullified on the ground that President Buhari lied on oath in his form 001 he submitted to INEC for the purpose of clearance for the presidential election.
In the notice of appeal marked: CA/A/436/2019, they are asking the apex court for an order to set aside the judgment of the Court of Appeal and hear the matter on merit and grant the reliefs sought in the originating summons.
The court of appeal in a unanimous judgment delivered by Justice Mohammed Idris, had on July 12, 2019, held that the singular fact that the suit was filed outside the 14 days provided by the law robbed the court of jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
The suit was accordingly dismissed for being incompetent and lacking in merit.
In the notice of appeal dated and filed July 24, 2019, the appellants through their counsel, Ukpai Ukairo, presented 12 grounds for the setting aside of the judgment of the court of appeal, Abuja, amongst which are; that the “Learned Justices of the Court of Appeal erred in law in relying on a preliminary objection withdrawn and struck out by the court of appeal in striking out and dismissing the appeal.
“The Learned Justices of the court of appeal erred in law and breached the right of the appellants to fair hearing by relying on a Preliminary Objection, withdrawn by the second respondent and struck out by the court, thus being a case not made out or relied upon or abandoned by a party in entering a decision in a judgment.
“The Learned Justices of the court of appeal erred in law in holding that “the failure of the registrar to sign the originating summons is fatal and goes to the issue of jurisdiction” and thereby struck out the originating summons.
“The Learned Justices of the court of appeal erred in law in holding that the cause of action for the purpose of calculating the 14 days provided for in Section 285(9) of the 1999 Constitution, (4th Alteration) Act, 2017 within which to file an action under Section 31(5) of the Electoral Act arose on the day the 1st Respondent submitted his Form CF 001 to the third Respondent.
“The Learned Justices of the Court of Appeal erred in law in holding that the appellants did not put a date as to when the cause of action arose”, among other reliefs.
According to Ukairo, the appellants in the brief of argument distilled two issues for determination, (i). Whether the Learned Trial Judge was right in relying on the processes filed by the 1st defendant through a law officer in the Ministry of Justice?
(ii). Whether the Learned Trial Judge was right in holding that the suit was statute-barred by computing the number of days from the 28th day of September, 2018 when the 2nd Respondent held its primary election wherein the 1st Respondent was elected as a candidate of the 2nd Respondent?
“The issue one was distilled from ground one of the notice and Ground of appeal which said ground of appeal was a challenge to the refusal of the trial court to uphold the challenge by the appellants of the competence of the process filed on behalf of the 1st respondent by a law officer from the Ministry of Justice.
“One of the processes that was the subject of the challenge to competence is the further affidavit of the 1st respondent filed on the April 15, 2019 to which is attached a written address which are the only processes wherein the issue of 14 days in Section 285(9) 0f the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (4th Amendment) Act, 2017 was raised.
“The court relying on the documents assailed by objection to competence arrived at a decision and then held the challenge to the competence academic”, he said.
Felix Omohomhion, Abuja
