MUHAMMADU BUHARI V CHIEF OLUSEGUN A. OBASANJO
June 13, 2025BOMA GOODHEAD V MR. OTELEMABA AMACHREEE & ORS
June 13, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (2003) Legalpedia (CA) 18440
In the Court of Appeal
Thu Nov 6, 2003
Suit Number: CA/J/152/2003
CORAM
ALEXANDER, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT
OBINNAYA ANUNOBI OKEZIE
ALOMA MARIAM MUKHTAR JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL
PARTIES
ALHAJI MOHAMMED SANUSI DAGGASH APPELLANTS
HAJIA FATI IBRAHIM BULAMA INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSIONTHE RESIDENT ELECTORAL COMMISSIONER, BORNO STATE THE RETURNING OFFICER FOR THE SENATORIAL ELECTION FOR BORNO NORTH SENATORIAL DISTRICT THE RETURNING OFFICER FOR KAGA LOCAL GOVERNMENT FOR THE SENATORIAL ELECTION FOR BORNO NORTH SENATORIAL DISTRICT THE RETURNING OFFICER FOR DONGO WARD OF KAGA LOCAL GOVERNMENT AREA FOR THE BORNO NORTH SENATORIAL DISTRICT THE ELECTORAL OFFICER FOR KAGA LOCAL GOVERNMENT AREA RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The Petitioner /1st Respondent who was a contestant in the election into the Borno North Senatorial District on the 12th day of April, 2003 under the platform of All Nigeria Peoples Party (ANPP) filed an election petition against the 1st Respondent/Appellant contesting that the said election in some polling units were invalidated by reasons of corrupt practices, illegalities, and unconstitutional act committed by the 1st Respondent/Appellant and his agents on the day of the election, thus making the election in the said polling unit inconclusive. He sought for an order of bye-election in the said areas. The 1st Respondent/Appellant filed a notice of preliminary objection, pursuant to section 66(1)(h) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999, on the grounds that the Petitioner/1st Respondent lacked the requisite locus standi to file the petition because he was indicted for fraud and embezzlement by a panel of enquiry set up by the Borno State Government whose report was accepted by the Government of Borno State. The tribunal dismissed the preliminary objection and entered judgment for the Petitioner/1st Respondent. Dissatisfied with the trial tribunal’s decision, the 1st Respondent/Appellant filed an appeal against the interlocutory decision and the final judgment of the tribunal separately but with the leave of the appellate Court, the two appeals were consolidated. The Petitioner/1st Respondent filed a cross-appeal contending that the tribunal having discountenanced the preliminary objection of the Respondent/Petitioner was functus officio by the principle of issue estoppel to have considered the issue of the disqualification of the Petitioner/1st Respondent in its judgment.
HELD
Appeal allowed and Cross-appeal dismissed
ISSUES
Whether the majority of the members of tribunal were correct when they rejected and refused to admit the certified true copy of the Borno State white paper on the Report of the Panel of Inquiry on Revenue Generation and Utilization by Maiduguri Metropolitan Council from April to December, 1994 Whether the non-production of the report of the Panel of Inquiry which indicted the 1st respondent was fatal to the notice of preliminary objection Whether the appellant had established that the 1st respondent was and remains disqualified to contest for and hold the office of Senator under the 1999 Constitution. Whether the tribunal was correct in rejecting the original copy of the report of the panel of inquiry set up by the Borno State Government on Revenue Generation and Utilization by the Maiduguri Metropolitan Council from April to December, 1994 and the Borno State Government white paper on the said reportWhether in the trial of the substantive matter the appellant established that the 1st respondent was and remains disqualified to contest for and hold the office of Senator under the 1999 Constitution.” Whether the ruling of the tribunal dated the 3rd day of June, 2003 finally disposes of the issue of disqualification of the petitioner so as to preclude the loosing (sic) party and the tribunal from revisit (sic) the issue all over again.
RATIONES DECIDENDI
PUBLIC DOCUMENT-CERTIFICATION OF PUBLIC DOCUMENT-RATIONALE FOR
“The reason for authenticating public documents by a designated official to enable its admissibility, are said to be (a) to obviate the necessity of calling the officials to come to testify to the genuineness of copies made from original documents or records of a public nature and (b) to preserve those original documents or record from being removed from their proper place of custody through requests that they be tendered in court”. PER OGBUAGU, J.C.A
DISSENTING JUDGMENT-WHETHER IT CONSTITUTES THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF
“A dissenting judgment, however powerful, learned or articulate, is not the judgment of the court or tribunal and it is not therefore, binding. The judgment of the court or in the case of tribunal, is the majority judgment. PER OGBUAGU, J.C.A
DOCUMENT- DISTINCTION BETWEEN ADMISSIBILITY OF A DOCUMENT AND THE WEIGHT TO BE ATTACHED TO IT
“It should be borne in mind that admissibility of a document, is quite different from the weight to be attached to it. It is only when it is admissible, that the court considers the weight to be attached to it”. PER OGBUAGU, J.C.A
APPEAL AGAINST AN INTERLOCUTORY RULING/DECISION- WHETHER MAY BE MERGED WITH THE APPEAL
“An appeal against an interlocutory ruling/decision, may be merged with the appeal against the final judgment, but with the leave of court “.PER OGBUAGU, J.C.A
AFFIDAVIT-AVERMENTS IN AFFIDAVIT-WHERE NOT SPECIFICALLY TRAVERSED-EFFECT OF
“An allegation in an affidavit which is not specifically traversed/denied, such an allegation/averment, must be deemed to be indirectly admitted by the adverse party and no need for the deponent of the said affidavit, to establish it by evidence”. PER OGBUAGU, J.C.A
LOCUS STANDI-NATURE OF
“Issue or question of locus standi, relates to or deals with jurisdiction and the competence of the court to entertain and determine the action or petition”. PER OGBUAGU, J.C.A
DOCUMENT-REQUIREMENT FOR ADMISSIBILITY OF
“It is now firmly settled that admissibility of a or any document in evidence, now depends on relevance”. PER OGBUAGU, J.C.A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS-BINDINGNESS ON COURT AND PARTIES
“The record of proceedings, bind both the parties and the court”. PER OGBUAGU, J.C.A
DOCUMENT- CRITERIA FOR ADMISSIBILITY OF A DOCUMENT
“Generally, three main criteria govern the admissibility of a document in evidence, namely:
1. is the document pleaded?
2. is it relevant to the inquiry being tried by the court? and
3. is it admissible in law?” PER OGBUAGU, J.C.A
DOCUMENT-WHERE A PHOTOCOPY IS PRODUCED INSTEAD OF THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT-HOW TREATED
“Where the original document is not produced but a photocopy, it is inadmissible as not in compliance with sections 94, 95 and 96 of the Evidence Act if the whereabouts of the original was not explained”. PER OGBUAGU, J.C.A
ISSUE OF JURISDICTION-WHEN CAN BE RAISED
“Issue of jurisdiction can be raised at any stage of the proceedings and whenever raised, it is to be decided when the point or issue is raised”. PER OGBUAGU, J.C.A
RELIEF- WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEAL IS BOUND BY THE RELIEFS SOUGHT BY PARTIES
“However, the Court of Appeal is not limited to or bound by the reliefs sought before the court. Order 3 rule 23(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2002 gives the Court of Appeal the liberty to give appropriate reliefs on hearing an appeal and will not therefore be bound by the reliefs sought in the notice of appeal”. PER OBADINA, J.C.A
ISSUE ESTOPPEL-CONDITIONS FOR ITS APPLICABILITY
“The law is settled that when the question is whether the doctrine of issue estoppel is applicable to a case or not, the important questions to ask, are whether the parties are the same; whether the issues are the same; whether the issues are material to the cause of action in the previous and in the latter case; and whether that issue has been resolved in the previous case”. PER OBADINA, J.C.A
DOCUMENT-DUE EXECUTION OF A DOCUMENT- OPTIONS OPENED TO THE COURT WHERE THE MAKER OF A DOCUMENT DENIES HIS SIGNATURE
“The law is settled that in resolving the issue of due execution of document where the alleged maker denies his signature, the course or options opened to the court would inter alia be to compare the signature admitted by the alleged signatory to be his own with the one under contention under section 108(1) of the Evidence Act”. PER OBADINA, J.C.A
ELECTION-CONDITIONS FOR DISQUALIFICATION OF A CANDIDATE FOR ELECTION TO THE SENATE-SECTION 66 OF THE 1999 CONSTITUTION
“Section 66 of the 1999 Constitution prescribes conditions that would disqualify a person from being qualified for election. It provides:-
“66(1) No person shall be qualified for election to the Senate or the House of Representatives if:-
(h) he has been indicted for embezzlement or fraud by a Judicial Commission of Inquiry or an Administrative Panel of Inquiry or a tribunal set up under the Tribunal of Inquiry Act, a Tribunal of Inquiry Law, or any other law by the Federal or State Government which indictment has been accepted by the Federal or State Government respectively,”
PER OBADINA, J.C.A
PUBLIC DOCUMENT-CERTIFICATION OF-SECTION 111(1) OF THE EVIDENCE ACT- REQUIREMENTS OF A CERTIFIED TRUE COPY OF A PUBLIC DOCUMENT
Section 111(1) of the Evidence Act, Cap 112, Laws of the Federation, 1990 provides as follows:-
“111(1) Every public officer having the custody of a public document which any person has a right to inspect shall give that person on demand a copy of it on payment of the legal fees therefore, together with a certificate written at the foot of such copy that it is a true copy of such document or part thereof, as the case may be, and such certificate shall be dated and subscribed by such officer with his name and his official title, and shall be sealed, whenever such officer is authorized by law to make use of a seal, and such copies so certified shall be called certified copies.” From the provisions of section 111(1) of the Evidence Act, what a certificate written at the foot of a certified true copy of a public document should contain are clearly stated.
“Such certificate shall be dated, and subscribed by such officer with his name and his official title and shall be sealed, whenever such officer is authorized by law to make use of a seal.”
PER OBADINA, J.C.A
SECONDARY EVIDENCE OF A DOCUMENT-REQUIREMENT FOR ADMISSIBILITY OF
“Also settled, is that in respect of admissibility of copies as secondary evidence, there is the need for certification by someone other than the maker of the copy”. PER OGBUAGU, J.C.A
ISSUE ESTOPPEL-RATIONALE FOR THE DOCTRINE OF ISSUE ESTOPPEL
“The doctrine of issue estoppel is founded on strong principles of justice and public policy”. PER OBADINA, J.C.A
PLEADINGS-NEED TO SPECIFICALLY TRAVERSE ESSENTIAL ALLEGATIONS IN PLEADINGS
“It is now firmly settled, that essential allegations – be they in pleadings or affidavits, should be specifically traversed”. PER OGBUAGU, J.C.A
TRIBUNALS OF INQUIRY-TYPES OF-SECTION 66(1) (H) OF THE CONSTITUTION
“From the provisions or section 66(1)(h) of the Constitution quoted above, it is very clear that three types or bodies are postulated therein namely:-
(a) a Judicial Commission or Inquiry,(b) an Administrative Panel or Inquiry, and
(c) a tribunal set up under the Tribunals of Inquiry Act, a Tribunals or Inquiry Law or any other law by the Federal or State Government”. PER OBADINA, J.C.A
PUBLIC DOCUMENT- CRITERIA FOR ADMISSIBILITY OF A PUBLIC DOCUMENT UPON MERE PRODUCTION
“It is the law that once a public document is certified and signed as required by section 111 of the Evidence Act, such a document is admissible on its mere production and it is unnecessary to prove custody or verify it”. PER OBADINA, J.C.A
TRIBUNAL OF INQUIRY- RESIDUAL POWER OF A STATE TO ESTABLISH SAME
“It is now settled that setting up of a tribunal of Inquiry, is purely a residual matter under the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, both in the 1979 and 1999 Constitutions.
In other words, it is not a matter on which the National Assembly can legislate save in respect of the Federal Capital Territory. The power to make a general law for the establishment and regulation of tribunals of inquiry in the form of Tribunals of Inquiry Act, 1966, is now a residual power under the Constitution belonging to the States. However, in respect of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, the power resides in the National Assembly”. PER OGBUAGU, J.C.A
CROSS-EXAMINATION-FAILURE TO CROSS-EXAMINE -EFFECT OF
“That the effect of failure to cross-examine, means the acceptance in its entirety, the evidence of the witness as true”. PER OGBUAGU, J.C.A
EVIDENCE PROCURED FROM EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF OR UNDER CROSS-EXAMINATION-VALIDITY OF
“Evidence procured from cross-examination, is as valid and authentic as evidence procured from examination-in-chief. Both is said to have the potency of relevancy and relevancy is also said to be the heart of admission in the law of evidence. That where evidence is relevant, it is admissible and admitted whether it is procured from examination-in-chief or under cross-examination”. PER OGBUAGU, J.C.A
COURT PROCEEDINGS-DUTY OF A COURT THERETO
“This is settled, that a court is expected in all proceedings before it, to admit and act only on evidence which is admissible in law”. PER OGBUAGU, J.C.A
CASES CITED
Adani v. Igwe (1956) 2 FSC 81 at 89Adenle v. Olude (2002) 18 NWLR (Pt. 799) 413 at 430Agagu v. Dawodu (1990) 7 NWLR (Pt. 160) 56Abdul Ogo v. Adedemi (1976) 3 S.C. 65, 227 Abolade Agboola Alade v. Salami Jagun Olukade (1976) 2 S.C. 183Adejumo & Anor v. Governor of Lagos State (1970) 1 ANLR 183Adeleke v. Iyanda (2001) 13 NWLR (Pt.729) 1 at 20; (2001) 6 SCNJ 101;Afribank (Nig.) Plc. (2000) 13 NWLR (pt. 684) 392, (2000) 10 SCNJ 1 Afro-Continental (Nig.) Ltd. & Anor v. Co-operative Association of Professionals Inc. (2003) 5 NWLR (Pt. 813) 303, (2003) 1 SCNJ 530 at 537,539Agbaisi v. Ebikorefe (1997) 4 NWLR (pt. 502) 630, (1997) 4 SCNJ 147 at 160Agbahomovo & 2 Ors. v. Eduyegbe & 6 Ors. (vice-versa) (1999) 3 NWLR (pt. 594) 170; (1999) 2 SCNJ 94 at 103Ajanya & Ors. (1998) 6 NWLR (pt. 554) 348 at 360, 364 – 365; (1998) 5 SCNJ 95;Akinbi v. The Military Governor, Ondo State & Anor. (1990) 3 NWLR (Pt.140) 525 at 531 – 532 C.A.A. K. Fadlallah v. Arewa Textiles Ltd. (1997) 8 NWLR (pt. 518) 546, (1997) 7 SCNJ 202 at 217Akintola v. Solano (1986) 2 NWLR (Pt. 24) 598, (1986) All NLR 395 at 421All NLR (Pt.1) at 11; (1986) 1 ANLR (Pt. 1) 1Alhaji Willoughby v. International Merchant Bank (Nig.) Ltd. (1987) 1 NWLR (Pt. 48) 105, (1987) 1 S.C. 137, 166, 179, (1987) 1 SCNJ 46;Amadi v. Nwosu (1992) 5 NWLR (Pt. 241) 273, (1992) 6 SCNJ (Pt. 1) 59 at 71Anyakora & 4 Ors. v. Obiakor & 8 Ors. (1990) 2 NWLR (Pt. 130) 52 at 645 C.AAnyaduba v. Nigerian Renowned Trading Co. Ltd. (1990) 1 NWLR (Pt. 127) 397Artra-Industrial Ltd. v. M.B.C.I. (1997) 1 NWLR (Pt. 483) 574 C.A.Att.-Gen. of Oyo State & Anor. v. Fairlakes Hotels Ltd. & Anor. (1988) 5 NWLR (Pt. 92) 1, (1981) 12 SCNJ 1 at 20A.W Elias v. Oleyemi Disu & Ors. (1962) ANLR (Pt. 4) 214Bamgboye & Ors. v. Olanrewaju (1991) 4 NWLR (Pt. 184) 132 at 155; (1991) 5 SCNJ 88.Construction (WA.) Ltd. (1998) 4 NWLR (Pt. 544) 1, (1998) 3 SCNJ 1 at 10,12; Chief Briggs & 12 Ors. v. Chief Bob-Manuel & 6 0rs. (2003) 5 NWLR (Pt. 813) 323, (2003) 1 SCNJ 218 at 226-227Chief Gani Fawehinmi & 2 Ors v. Gen. Ibrahim Babangida (Rtd.) & 2 Ors. (2003) 3 NWLR (Pt. 808) 604, (2003) 1 SCNJ 231 at 258 – 259.Dr. Ufere Torti v. Chief Chris Ukpabi & Ors. (1984) 1 S.C. 370 at 412 – 143, (1984) ANLR 185 at 195; (1984) ANLR 185 at 195; (1984) 1 SCNLR 214 Dr. M.G.O. Iweka v. S.C.O.A. (Nig.) Ltd. (2000) 7 NWLR (pt. 664) 325, (2000) 3 SCNJ 71 at 91,Duniya v. Jimoh (1994) 2 NWLR (Pt. 334) 609 Eliochin (Nig.) Ltd. v. Mbadiwe (1986) 1 NWLR (Pt. 14) 47; (1986) 1 SC 99 at 130; (1986) 1Elom O. Oke & Ors. v. Eze Nwaogbuinya & Ors. (2001) 3 NWLR (Pt. 700) 406; (2001) 1 SCNJ 157 at 168Everett v. Ribbands (1952) 2 QB 198 at 266 andFadare & Ors. v. Att.-Gen. of Oyo State (1982) 1 ANLR (Pt. 1) 24; (1982) 4 S.C. 1 at 21 & 22.Funduk Engineering Ltd. v. Mc Arthur (1995) 4 NWLR (Pt. 392) 640 at 652; (1995) 4 SCNJ 240Ibeanu & Anor. v. Ogbeide & Anor. (1998) 12 NWLR (Pt. 576) 1, (1998) 9 SCNJ 77 at 86Ikabala v. Ojesipe (1988) 4 NWLR (pt. 86) 119 at 127Iloabuchi v. Ebigbo (2000) 8 NWLR (Pt. 668) 197; (2000) 4 SCNJ 46 at 64,Jacob Dashe v. Adamu Bawa (1989) 1 NEPLT 71Lawson-Jack v. The Shell Petroleum Dev. Co. of Nigeria Ltd. (2002) 13 NWLR (Pt. 783) 180, (2002) 7 SCNJ 121 at 134L.C. & D Railway v. S. E. Railway (1888) 55 L.T. III,Lewis & Peat (N.R.I.) Ltd. v. Akhimien (1976) 1 All NLR 460 at 421; Mackson Ikeni & Or. v. Chief William Akuma Efamo & Ors. (2001) 10 NWLR (Pt. 720) 1, (2001) 87, LRCN 1690 at 1704Martins v. Administrator-General of the Federation & Anor (1962) 1 ANLR 120Metal Construction (WA.) Ltd. v. Meridien Trade Corp. Ltd. (1990) 5 NWLR (Pt. 149) 144 at 152Norwich v. Norwich Electric Tramway Co. (1906) 2 K.B. 119NDIC v. Central Bank of Nigeria & Anor (2002) 7 NWLR (Pt. 766) 272, (2002) 3 SCNJ 75 at 89Nwankwo v. Nwankwo (1993) 5 NWLR (pt. 293) 281 at 287; (1993) 6 SCNJ 84 at 88;Nwosu v. Imo State Environmental Sanitation Authority & 4 Ors (1990) 2 NWLR (Pt. 135) 688 at 735; (1990) 4 SCNJ 97Obadina Family & Anor. (1969) 1 ANLR 49 at 59.Oba R.A.A. Oyediran of Igbonla v. H. R. H. Oba Alebiosu II & Ors. (1992) 6 NWLR (Pt. 249) 550 at 559; (1992) 7 S.C.N.J. 187Ogige & 3 Ors. v. Obiyan (1997) 10 NWLR (Pt. 524) 179, (1997) 10 SCNJ 1;Okobia v. Oshunride v. Akande (1996) 6 NWLR (Pt. 455) 383, (1996) 6 SCNJ 193 at 199 – 200Okonji & 4 Ors. v. Njokanma & 2 Ors. (1991) 7 NWLR (Pt. 202) 131, (1990) 9-10 SCNJ 37 at 37.Onubruchere & Anor. v. Esegine & Anor. (1986) 1 NWLR (Pt. 19) 799, (1976) 2 S.C. 315 at 403-404 and Re:Onuaguluchi v. Ndu (2001) 7 NWLR (Pt. 712) 309, (2001) 3 SCNJ 110 at 118.Orugbo & Anor. v. Bulari Una & 10 Ors. (2002) 16 NWLR (Pt. 792) 175, (2002) 9 SCNJ 12Sommer v. Federal Housing Authority (1992) 1 NWLR (Pt. 219) 548; (1992) 1 SCNJ 73;Sugun Maimele v. Alhaji Tijjani Goni Mohammed & 7 0rs (1999) 3 NWLR (Pt. 495) 425 at 436;Shell B. P. Petroleum Dev. Co. v. Onasanya (1976) 6 S.C. 89 at 94Summonu v. Ashorota (1975) 1 NMLR 16 at 23Texaco Panama Incorporation (owners of the Vessel “M. V. Star Tulsa)” v. Shell PetroleumWallersteiner v. Moir (1974) 1 WLR 991 at 1002;West African Provincial Ins. Co. Ltd. v. Nigerian Tobacco Co. Ltd. (1987) 2 NWLR (pt.56) 299 at 306;Yeoman Credit Ltd. v. Apps (1961) 2 All ER 281 at 292
STATUTES REFERRED TO
The 1999 Constitution of Federal Republic of NigeriaCourt of Appeal Rules, 2002Electoral Act, 2002Evidence Act, 1990
