Federal High Court (Court 10) sitting in Abuja, presided over by Justice Peter Odolifu, has dismissed a suit that sought to stop the Kwara State Independent Electoral Commission (KWASIEC) from conducting the local government elections in Kwara State.
Justice Odolifu also ruled that the suit was statute-barred and an abuse of the process of the court, according to the judgement delivered on Monday.
The suit, No. FHC/ABJ/CS/1061/2024, has the Peoples Democratic Party as the plaintiff, represented by Mayor Eze.
The defendants are the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), KWASIEC, represented by B.O. Elias, and the Attorney-General of Kwara State, represented by I.A. Olorundare (Senior State Counsel), while the Special Adviser to the Governor of Kwara State on Legal Matters, Sambo Muritala, was an observer.
The plaintiff commenced the action by originating summons, seeking, inter alia, an order restraining KWASIEC from conducting the last LG elections in Kwara State, and an order restraining INEC from furnishing KWASIEC with the Voters’ Register for that purpose.
The court initially made an order for the maintenance of the status quo, which was subsequently vacated.
In consequence, the local government elections were conducted while the substantive suit was still pending. The plaintiff participated fully in the electoral process and, thereafter, filed some 24 election petitions. All the petitions were dismissed, and no appeal was lodged against any of the decisions.
The plaintiff subsequently applied to amend its originating summons to seek an order nullifying the said elections.
But the court held that the amendment fundamentally altered the character of the action. It noted that the suit, which was originally a pre-election matter, was, by virtue of the amendment, transformed into a post-election claim, which ought to have been an election petition, and that the court lacked jurisdiction to sit as an election tribunal.
It added that, having been so reconstituted, the suit was caught by the statutory limitation period, that the court had no power as an electoral tribunal, and that the suit was equally statute-barred, and the court so held.
The court further upheld the defendants’ preliminary objection that the suit constituted an abuse of the process of the court.
It noted that the plaintiff had voluntarily participated in the local government elections, presented election petitions and failed in all of them.
According to it, it was impermissible for the plaintiff to return to the court, by way of an amended originating summons, to seek reliefs which it could no longer obtain through the election petition process.
It added that such conduct amounted to an attempt to re-litigate, by a different route, matters that ought to have been ventilated exclusively before the appropriate election tribunals.
