This appeal is against the decision of the Court of Appeal, Abuja Division, which allowed the appeal of the 1st respondent, and upturned the judgment of the Rivers State High Court, sitting in Port Harcourt. The National Working Committee of the 1st respondent dissolved the entire executive structure of the party at all levels in Rivers State. It went ahead to set up a Caretaker Committee, headed by the 2nd respondent, to run the affairs of the party in the State. Upon the constitution and inauguration of the said Caretaker Committee, the appellant instituted an action at the High Court of Rivers State via an originating summons, claiming as follows: 1. \"A Declaration that by virtue of Article 12(1)(v), (8), 8(xxx) and 13(4) of the All Progressives Congress's Constitution the claimant is a member of the National Convention of the 2nd defendant and as such a statutory member of the State Executive Committee of the 2nd defendant in Rivers State. 2. A Declaration that the exclusion of the claimant and all other statutory members of the State Executive Committee of the 2nd defendant from the Caretaker Committee set up by the 2nd and 3rd defendants in Rivers State is ultra vires the Constitution of the 2nd defendant and is therefore null and void. 3. A Declaration that the continuous stay in office of the Caretaker Committee is unconstitutional. 4. An Order of this Honourable Court setting aside the said appointment and/or inauguration of the Caretaker Committee of the 2nd defendant in Rivers State made on or about the 6th day of September, 2019. 5. An Order directing the 2nd and 3rd defendants within 48 hours of the making thereof to constitute a fresh Caretaker Committee incorporating the claimant as the Chairman and all statutory members of the State Executive Committee as members in furtherance of the Constitution of the 2nd defendant, failure of which statutory members shall comprise the Caretaker Committee chaired by the claimant in furtherance of the All Progressives Congress Constitution. 6. AND of such order and further orders as this Honourable Court may deem fit to make in the circumstances of this application.\" The trial Court granted all the reliefs sought by the appellant. Aggrieved by the decision, the 1st respondent, appealed successfully to the Court of Appeal. Appellant therefore appealed to the Supreme Court.

ADAMU JAURO, J.S.C. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

On the whole, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal.

Mr. Emeka Etiaba SAN ; Echezona Ariaha, SAN with them Joy Etiaba, Esq. and Nancy Shikaan, Esq. For Appellant(s) Mr. Tunde Tuduru U. Ede, SAN with him, Chief E. N. Ebete, Esq., C. W. Jerome, Esq., Sheriff Adukke, Esq. and M. G. Bello, Esq. for 1st Respondent M. S. Ibrahim, Esq. with him, C. C. Agidi, Esq., Nafisat Jibril, Esq., G. O. Akpelu, Esq. and Aisha Ibrahim, Esq. - for 2nd Respondent Obinna Ajoku, Esq. with him, Obinna Eze-Odili, Esq. for 3rd Respondent

ACTION – STATUTE BARRED ACTION – Meaning, nature, purpose and effect of a statute barred action

PRINCIPLE

SUBSCRIPTION REQUIRED! Log In or Register Now

Dear Esteemed Visitor

Thank you for your interest in LawCompass™. Unfortunately, you are currently logged out. To access our exclusive repository of premium legal insights, please Log In to your account.

If you’re not yet a premium member, consider Registering Now for unlimited access to our extensive collection of Cases, Laws, Rules/Forms, and more.

Best regards, LawCompass™.

You are here:

Home
PRINCIPLE
ACTION – STATUTE BARRED ACTION – Meaning, nature, purpose and effect of a statute barred action

My LawKitShare

No bookmark found

ACTION – STATUTE BARRED ACTION – Meaning, nature, purpose and effect of a statute barred action

See Also:

Table of Contents

My LawKitShare