AMINU CHINDO & ORS V LAMALANG SANDA
April 25, 2025FRANCIS OGBORO VS THE REGISTERED TRUSTEES OF LAGOS POLO CLUB
April 25, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (2016) Legalpedia (SC) 18020
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Mon Feb 22, 2016
Suit Number: SC/46/2016 SG45/2016 SC47/2016 SC48/2016 SC50/2016 SC58/2016 SC59/2016
CORAM
PARTIES
1. AISHA JUMMAI ALAHASSAN
2. ALL PROGRESSIVE CONGRESS (APC)
APPELLANTS
1. MR DARIUS DICKSON ISHAKU
2. PEOPLES DEMOCRATIC PARTY (PDP)
3. INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION (INEC)
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
APPEAL, ACTION, COURT, ELECTION PETITION, STATUTE, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, JURISDICTION
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The 1st Appellant and 1st Respondent sponsored by the 2nd Appellant and 2nd Respondent respectively contested the gubernatorial election conducted by the 3rd Respondent on 11th and 25th April 2015 along with eleven other candidates. The 1st Respondent was declared the winner of the election having scored a majority of the lawful votes cast at the election while the 1st Appellant came in second. Aggrieved by the result, the Appellants filed a petition at the Taraba State Governorship Election Petition Tribunal contesting the said result and return of the 1st Respondent. The 1st Appellant alleged that the 1st Respondent was at the time of the election, not qualified to contest for the Office of Governor of Taraba State, having not been sponsored by a political party, a condition precedent prescribed under the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), that the election was invalid by reason of substantial non-compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended) and Approved Guidelines and Regulations for the conduct of 2015 General Elections, and Manual for Election Officials 2015, which substantially affected the result of the election, that the election was invalid by reason of corrupt practices which vitiated the election amongst others. The Respondents stated that the election and the return of the 1st Respondent were conducted in accordance with the provisions of the electoral laws and regulations and subsequently urged the court to dismiss the petition. The Tribunal after hearing the arguments of the parties found that the 1st Respondent was not duly sponsored by a political party and therefore was not qualified to contest the election and declared the 1st Appellant winner of the election. The 1st Respondent not satisfied with the decision of the Tribunal filed an appeal at the Court of Appeal challenging the decision of the Tribunal. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal of the 1st Respondent, whilst it reversed the judgment of the Tribunal and ordered for the return of the 1st Respondent as Governor of Taraba State. The 1st Appellant not satisfied with the decision of the Court of Appeal filed an appeal at the Court of Appeal.
HELD
Appeal Dismissed.
ISSUES
1. Having regard to section 137 of the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended) whether Appellants did not have the locus standi to challenge the non-qualification of the 1st Respondent for sponsorship as required under section 177 (c) of the Constitution?
2. Whether the Court of Appeal properly construed section 177 (c) of the Constitution with regards to sponsorship to contest Governorship Election in the face of undisputed evidence of FW2 and exhibit A3 to the effect that 2nd Respondent did not conduct any primary election to entitle them to sponsor the 1st Respondent in the April 11 and 25, 2015 election to the Office of Governor of Taraba State as required under section 87 (4) of the Electoral Act, 2010?
3. Whether section 87 (9) of the Electoral Act was rightly invoiced by the Court of Appeal in determining the Petitioners ground of non-qualification of the 1st Respondent to contest the Taraba State Governorship Election of 11 and 25 April, 2015?Having regard to the duty on court to consider the pleading of parties in its entirety, whether the Court of Appeal correctly applied the principle of admission of evidence in coming to the conclusion that Appellants made an inconsistent case that the 1st Respondent was not qualified to contest the Governorship Election of Taraba State on account of lack of sponsorship?
RATIONES DECIDENDI
ADMISSION – FORM OF AN ADMISSION THAT IS BINDING ON THE MAKER
“Therefore, admission in my view, if it is clear, unequivocal, and cannot be said to be based on any misapprehension of any fact, is binding on the maker and such maker cannot be heard changing it subsequently or at a later stage to suit his supposed new or fresh case or averment. It is trite and well settled law, that where a party admits a fact in issue such fact in issue does not require any proof any again. The courts do not need proof of fact already admitted and further dispute in such facts should not be entertained since admission is the strongest and highest of the fact in issue”. PER A. SANUSI, J.S.C <foo
CONDUCT OF PRIMARIES OF A POLITICAL PARTY – WHO CAN CHALLENGE THE CONDUCT OF PRIMARIES OF A POLITICAL PARTY
“On who can challenge the conduct of primaries of a political party, I said in PDP v. Sylva & 2 ors (2012) 13 NWLR (pt.l316) p.85 that: “…….Section 87 (9) of the Electoral Act confers jurisdiction on the court to hear complaints from a candidate who participated at his party s primaries and complains about the conduct of the primaries…” –PER O. RHODES-VIVOUR, J.S.C <foo
PLEADINGS – STATUS OF EVIDENCE WHICH CONTRADICTS PLEADED FACTS
“The long held position of the law is that evidence which is at variance with pleaded facts are inadmissible and ought to be rejected by the court. See Alade vs. Olukade (1976)2SCp183. Emegokwe vs. Okadigbo (1973)4SCp113.” PER O. RHODES-VIVOUR, J.S.C. <foo
PLEADINGS – EFFECT OF ADMISSIONS IN PLEADINGS
“Admissions in pleadings are a waiver of all controversy on the fact the pleader admits.” PER O. RHODES-VIVOUR, J.S.C. <foo
ADMISSION – FORM OF AN ADMISSION THAT IS BINDING ON THE MAKER
“Therefore, admission in my view, if it is clear, unequivocal, and cannot be said to be based on any misapprehension of any fact, is binding on the maker and such maker cannot be heard changing it subsequently or at a later stage to suit his supposed new or fresh case or averment. It is trite and well settled law, that where a party admits a fact in issue such fact in issue does not require any proof any again. The courts do not need proof of fact already admitted and further dispute in such facts should not be entertained since admission is the strongest and highest of the fact in issue”. PER A. SANUSI, J.S.C <foo
PLEADINGS – DUTY OF A PARTY WHEN STATING HIS CASE IN HIS PLEADINGS
“A party should be consistent in stating his case in his pleadings and consistent in proving it. He would not be allowed to take one stand in his pleadings and the opposite during trial”. PER O. RHODES-VIVOUR, J.S.C. <foo
LOCUS STANDI – MEANS OF ESTABLISHING LOCUS STANDI IN ELECTION PETITIONS
“A petitioner satisfies the court that he has locus standi if he is able to show that his civil rights and obligations have been or are in danger of being infringed. PER O.RHODES-VIVOUR, J.S.C <foo
INADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE – DUTY OF THE COURT WHERE INADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE IS ADMITTED
“It is the singular duty of counsel to object to inadmissible evidence, but if somehow inadmissible evidence is admitted it becomes the duty of the court when it delivers judgment to treat such evidence as if it was not admitted. Courts must ensure that evidence contrary to pleading of a party is never admitted. If such evidence escapes the scrutiny of the court of first instance the Appeal Court must reject such evidence and decide the case on legal evidence.” PER O. RHODES-VIVOUR, J.S.C. <foo
PLEADINGS – FUNDAMENTAL RULE OF PLEADINGS – PURPOSE OF PLEADING
“At this stage, it is necessary to admit the elementary but fundamental rule of pleadings that parties are bound by their pleadings. As was held by this court in American Cyanamid Company v. Vitality Pharmaceuticals Ltd.(1991)2NWLR (Pt. 171)15, the purpose of pleading is to reveal to the opposing party, the nature of the case, at the earliest opportunity, he is likely to be confronted with. See also Osho v. Foreign Finance Corporation & Anor(1991) 4 NWLR (PT. 184) 157, Odonigi v. Oyeleke(2016)6 NWLR (Pt. 708).”PER J.I.OKORO, J.S.C <foo
CONDUCT OF PRIMARIES OF A POLITICAL PARTY – WHO CAN CHALLENGE THE CONDUCT OF PRIMARIES OF A POLITICAL PARTY
“On who can challenge the conduct of primaries of a political party, I said in PDP v. Sylva & 2 ors (2012) 13 NWLR (pt.l316) p.85 that: “…….Section 87 (9) of the Electoral Act confers jurisdiction on the court to hear complaints from a candidate who participated at his party s primaries and complains about the conduct of the primaries…” –PER O. RHODES-VIVOUR, J.S.C <foo
CONDUCT OF PRIMARIES OF A POLITICAL PARTY – COURTS VESTED WITH JURISDICTION TO EXAMINE THE CONDUCT OF PARTY’S PRIMARIES
“It is so clear that party primaries are domestic affair of the political party which no outsider can complain about. Only aspirants at the primaries can complain about the conduct of party primaries. Furthermore an election tribunal has no jurisdiction to comment or examine how party primaries were conducted. Jurisdiction for such an exercise resides with Federal High Court, High Court of a State, or FCT High Court and only at the instance of a dissatisfied aspirant at the primaries. Finally nomination, sponsorship of candidates by a party are pre-election matters that should be heard before petition is heard in an Election Tribunal”. PER O. RHODES-VIVOUR, J.S.C <foo
ELECTION –WHETHER THERE IS PROVISION FOR INDEPENDENT CANDIDATURE IN THE ELECTORAL ACT
“Before a person can stand election for the Office of Governor of a State he must belong to a political party and be sponsored by that party. This is so because the Constitution and the Electoral Act make no provision for Independent Candidates.” PER O. RHODES-VIVOUR, J.S.C. <foo
ELECTION – PROVISIONS FOR CHALLENGING AN ELECTION ON GROUNDS OF NON QUALIFICATION TO CONTEST AN ELECTION
“A person who participated in an election, and it is his desire to challenge the election of the winner on the ground that the winner was not qualified to contest the election can do so only under section 177 of the Constitution, if he failed to do so under section 31(5) and (6) of the Electoral Act. See PDP v INEC (2014)17 NWLR (Pt. 1437) p. 525.” PER O. RHODES-VIVOUR, J.S.C. <foo
PLEADINGS – EFFECT OF ADMISSIONS IN PLEADINGS
“Admissions in pleadings are a waiver of all controversy on the fact the pleader admits.” PER O. RHODES-VIVOUR, J.S.C. <foo
LOCUS STANDI – MEANS OF ESTABLISHING LOCUS STANDI IN ELECTION PETITIONS
“A petitioner satisfies the court that he has locus standi if he is able to show that his civil rights and obligations have been or are in danger of being infringed. PER O.RHODES-VIVOUR, J.S.C <foo
INADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE – DUTY OF THE COURT WHERE INADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE IS ADMITTED
“It is the singular duty of counsel to object to inadmissible evidence, but if somehow inadmissible evidence is admitted it becomes the duty of the court when it delivers judgment to treat such evidence as if it was not admitted. Courts must ensure that evidence contrary to pleading of a party is never admitted. If such evidence escapes the scrutiny of the court of first instance the Appeal Court must reject such evidence and decide the case on legal evidence.” PER O. RHODES-VIVOUR, J.S.C. <foo
PLEADINGS – FUNDAMENTAL RULE OF PLEADINGS – PURPOSE OF PLEADING
“At this stage, it is necessary to admit the elementary but fundamental rule of pleadings that parties are bound by their pleadings. As was held by this court in American Cyanamid Company v. Vitality Pharmaceuticals Ltd.(1991)2NWLR (Pt. 171)15, the purpose of pleading is to reveal to the opposing party, the nature of the case, at the earliest opportunity, he is likely to be confronted with. See also Osho v. Foreign Finance Corporation & Anor(1991) 4 NWLR (PT. 184) 157, Odonigi v. Oyeleke(2016)6 NWLR (Pt. 708).”PER J.I.OKORO, J.S.C <foo
ADMISSION – MEANING OF AN ADMISSION
“An admission, to my understanding, is a statement oral or documentary, made by a person which suggests any inference as to any fact in issue or relevant fact. See Narindex Ltd vs NIMB Ltd (2001) 4 SCNJ 208 at 220. See also Section 20 of Evidence Act 2011. It also means a statement by one of the parties to an action, which amounts to acknowledgement by him, that one of the material facts relevant to the issues in controversy in the proceedings is not as he claims it to be. See NAS Ltd vs UBA Plc (2005) All FWLR(pt 284) 275”. PER A. SANUSI, J.S.C <foo
PLEADINGS – DUTY OF A PARTY WHEN STATING HIS CASE IN HIS PLEADINGS
“A party should be consistent in stating his case in his pleadings and consistent in proving it. He would not be allowed to take one stand in his pleadings and the opposite during trial”. PER O. RHODES-VIVOUR, J.S.C. <foo
PLEADINGS – AIM OF PLEADINGS
“This is so because the main aim of pleadings is to convey the case and the claim of the plaintiff (Petitioner) to the defendant (1st Respondent). In this way the defendant would not be taken by surprise. He would either admit the claim or present his own defence. So if pleadings are to be of any use parties and the courts are bound by them. See Adesanya v Aderonmu (2000)9 NWLR(Pt.672)p.370 Echir v Nnamani(2000)8NWLR(Pt.667)p.1, Ogbogu v Ugwuegbu (2003)10NWLR(Pt.827)p.189, Makinde v Akinwale (2000)2NWLR {Pt.645)p.435. On no account would a party be allowed to contend the contrary”. PER O. RHODES-VIVOUR, J.S.C. <foo
OFFICE OF GOVERNOR OF A STATE – CRITERIA FOR QUALIFICATION FOR ELECTION TO THE OFFICE OF GOVERNOR OF A STATE
“Section 177 of the Constitution states that: 177. A person shall be qualified for election to the Office of Governor of a State if (a) He is a citizen of Nigeria by birth; (b) He has attained the age of thirty-five years; (c) He is a member of a political party and is sponsored by that political party; and (d) He has been educated up to at least School Certificate level or its equivalent.” PER O. RHODES-VIVOUR, J.S.C. <foo
CONDUCT OF PRIMARIES OF A POLITICAL PARTY – COURTS VESTED WITH JURISDICTION TO EXAMINE THE CONDUCT OF PARTY’S PRIMARIES
“It is so clear that party primaries are domestic affair of the political party which no outsider can complain about. Only aspirants at the primaries can complain about the conduct of party primaries. Furthermore an election tribunal has no jurisdiction to comment or examine how party primaries were conducted. Jurisdiction for such an exercise resides with Federal High Court, High Court of a State, or FCT High Court and only at the instance of a dissatisfied aspirant at the primaries. Finally nomination, sponsorship of candidates by a party are pre-election matters that should be heard before petition is heard in an Election Tribunal”. PER O. RHODES-VIVOUR, J.S.C <foo
ELECTION – PROVISIONS FOR CHALLENGING AN ELECTION ON GROUNDS OF NON QUALIFICATION TO CONTEST AN ELECTION
“A person who participated in an election, and it is his desire to challenge the election of the winner on the ground that the winner was not qualified to contest the election can do so only under section 177 of the Constitution, if he failed to do so under section 31(5) and (6) of the Electoral Act. See PDP v INEC (2014)17 NWLR (Pt. 1437) p. 525.” PER O. RHODES-VIVOUR, J.S.C. <foo
OFFICE OF GOVERNOR OF A STATE – CRITERIA FOR QUALIFICATION FOR ELECTION TO THE OFFICE OF GOVERNOR OF A STATE
“Section 177 of the Constitution states that: 177. A person shall be qualified for election to the Office of Governor of a State if (a) He is a citizen of Nigeria by birth; (b) He has attained the age of thirty-five years; (c) He is a member of a political party and is sponsored by that political party; and (d) He has been educated up to at least School Certificate level or its equivalent.” PER O. RHODES-VIVOUR, J.S.C. <foo
ELECTION –WHETHER THERE IS PROVISION FOR INDEPENDENT CANDIDATURE IN THE ELECTORAL ACT
“Before a person can stand election for the Office of Governor of a State he must belong to a political party and be sponsored by that party. This is so because the Constitution and the Electoral Act make no provision for Independent Candidates.” PER O. RHODES-VIVOUR, J.S.C. <foo
CASES CITED
NONE
STATUTES REFERRED TO
1. 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended)
