This pre-election Appeal turns on the issue of "territorial jurisdiction" - whether the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja (FCT High Court), has jurisdiction to entertain a pre-election matter, involving Primaries conducted by the first Respondent at ldah in Kogi State. The Appellant, who participated in the said Primaries, which held on 3/10/2018, to nominate the first Respondent's candidate for the Kogi East Senatorial District at the General Elections, filed an Originating Summons at the FCT High Court, Abuja, wherein he presented five questions to be determined by the Court, and sought seven reliefs, including- An Order of the (FCT High Court) directing the 3rd Defendant (INEC) to immediately replace and publish the name of the 2nd Defendant (i.e. second Respondent) with the name of the Claimant (i.e. Appellant) as the 1st Defendant's duly nominated candidate in respect of Kogi East Senatorial District in the 2019 General Election.

In response, the first Respondent herein filed a Notice of Preliminary Objection, urging the Court to dismiss the Suit for being incompetent on the Grounds that:

The second Respondent also filed Notice of Preliminary Objection for an Order of the Court "declining jurisdiction to entertain this action" on the Ground that Claimant (sic) action is statute barred and stale in view of the extant provision of Section 285(9) Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) in its (Fourth Alteration No. 21) Act, 2017).

After a number of adjournments, the matter came up for hearing on 26/212019, and the Record shows that the learned FCT High Court Judge, Kekemeke, J., asked Appellant's counsel - "do I have jurisdiction to entertain this action?", and Appellant's counsel replied "yes, the Court has jurisdiction". The Court said: "kindly address me on the issue of jurisdiction". Learned counsel for the Parties addressed the Court, and in its Ruling delivered same day, it held as follows:

The cause of action in the instant case is the result of the 1st Defendant's Primary Election for the nomination of the 1st Defendant's candidate in respect of KOGI EAST SENATORIAL DISTRICT and the decision of the Appeal Committee thereon. There is no doubt that the cause of action occurred in Kogi State. l do not have the intention of 'grabbing' the case, which falls within the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court or High Court of Kogi State. The case of DALHATU V. TURAKI started in this Court. I am, therefore, well guided. I agree with the 2nd Defendant counsel's argument that this Court lacks territorial jurisdiction to entertain this case and I so hold.

As to whether it could transfer the matter to the Federal High Court, it held thus: I have also read Section 22 (1 & 2) of the Federal High Court Act. The reference to "A Judge of the Court" as it appeared in sub-paragraph 1 refers to a Judge of Federal High Court, "Any other Judge" of the Court in the sub-paragraph also refers to the "Any Other Judge of the Federal High Court". The Federal High Court Act is an instrument, which created and governs the Federal High Court and not any other. The argument of learned counsel for the Claimant that this Court can rely on that provision to transfer a case to the Federal High Court to Court (sic) is misconceived. The argument lacks merit. I have also considered the authority cited by Claimant's counsel. The facts are not the same. The nature of the two cases is different. Neither does the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory Act nor Rules of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory 2018 empower this Court to make such a transfer. I shall err on the side of caution. I lack jurisdiction to entertain the case. I also lack jurisdiction to make any other thereon. The case is accordingly struck out.

Dissatisfied with the decision of the FCT High Court, the Appellant appealed to Court of Appeal, and in dismissing his Appeal, the Court of Appeal held that Forwarding or submitting a candidate's name to INEC is a function of a successful Primary Election. So, the cause of action is the Primary Election. In this case, the Appellant's action was filed at the trial Court on 31/10/2018 on an event (Primary Election), which was conducted on 3/10/2018.

From the 3/10/2018 to 31/10/2018, when the Plaintiff/Appellant filed his Suit at the trial Court is well over 14 days. Therefore, the failure of the Appellant to file his Suit not later than 14 days after the action complained of (in this case replacement of his name), as required by Section 285 (9) of the CFRN (4th Alteration Act 2017) is fatal to his case and ousted the trial Court of its jurisdiction to entertain the matter. Consequently, it is my view that the Suit leading to this Appeal, which was filed on 31/10/2018, was statute barred.