CORAM

---

THERESA N. ORJI-ABADUA JCA

MOHAMMED BABA IDRIS JCA

HANNATU LAJA-BALOGUN JCA

---

PARTIES

---

1. ALIYU USMAN MAHMUD

2. ALL PROGRESSIVE CONGRESS (APC)

APPELLANTS 

---

1. USMAN MUSTAPHA

2. PEOPLES DEMOCRATIC PARTY (PDP)

3. INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION

RESPONDENTS 

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

APPEAL, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, ELECTION, EVIDENCE, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

 

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The 1st Respondent was the candidate of the 2nd Respondent in the election conducted by the 3rd Respondent on the 18th day of March, 2023 into the seat of Member representing Shinkafi State Constituency in the Zamfara State House of Assembly. At the end of the election, the 1st Appellant who was the 2nd Appellant’s candidate at the said election was declared the winner of the election and was returned elected by the 3rd Respondent. Totally dissatisfied with the declaration and return of the 1st and 2nd Appellants as winners of the said election, the 1st and 2nd Respondents filed a petition against the return of the 1st Appellant before the lower Tribunal.

The 1st Respondent’s complain is that the 1st Appellant was not duly elected by majority of lawful votes cast at the election. The crux of the 1st and 2nd Respondents’ complaint was that there was over voting in 4 (four) polling units of the constituency.

The trial Tribunal delivered its judgment allowing the petition in part and ordered the 3rd Respondent to conduct a supplementary election in 9 polling units – the 4 (four) polling units affected by over voting and the 5 (five) polling units where elections were cancelled.

Dissatisfied with the said judgment of the trial Tribunal, the Appellants herein, appealed to this Court.

 

---

HELD

---

Appeal dismissed

 

---

ISSUES

---

Whether the application of the 1st and 2nd Respondents should be granted by this Court?

 

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

GROUND OF APPEAL – EFFECT OF FAILURE TO FORMULATE AN ISSUE FOR DETERMINATION FROM A GROUND OF APPEAL

---

The effect of a failure to formulate an issue for determination from a Ground of Appeal is that the said Ground of Appeal is deemed to have been abandoned and liable to be struck out. See the case of KENTE VS. BWACHA (2023) 9 NWLR (PT. 1889) 329, P. 362, PARAS E – G. – Per M. B. Idris, JCA

 

---

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION – CONDUCT OF PARTIES IN FORMULATING ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION – CONDUCT OF COURTS TO OVERLY LENGTHY ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION

---

Issues for determination are not supposed to be argumentative. The parties are expected to formulate their issues for determination as precise as possible with professional elegance and brevity but without sacrificing its essential messages. By practice, issues formulated for determination are different from issues argued or arguments on issues. Arguments or analogies on issues formulated are not to be contained in the issues so formulated. Arguments and analogies are to be supplied separately to amplify on the issues so formulated. See the case of ONYEKWULUJE VS. ANIMASHAUN (2019) 4 NWLR (PT. 1662) P. 255, PARAS B – C. Issues formulated for determination should be brief and concise and should not be argumentative.

The length of an issue for determination is however not a valid ground for striking out an appeal. See the case of IHEKORONYE VS. HART (2000) 15 NWLR (PT. 692) 840. Also, see the case of IHIM VS. MADUAGWU (2021) 5 NWLR (PT. 1770) 584 wherein the Supreme Court held inter alia that: “…where an issue formulated by counsel is wordy, inapt, argumentative, and assumes fact which were not established before the trial court or the Court of Appeal as in this case, the Supreme Court can reformulate the issue for resolution of the appeal.” – Per M. B. Idris, JCA

 

---

ARGUMENTS – WHERE AN ARGUMENT CANVASSED ON APPEAL DOES NOT RISE FROM AN ISSUE FOR DETERMINATION

---

An argument canvassed on appeal which does not arise from an issue for determination goes to no issue. See the case of ALUBANKUDI VS. A. G. FED. (2002) 17 NWLR (PT. 796) 388. It is an important rule of brief writing that not only must issues for determination be based on the grounds of appeal; the arguments canvassed on an issue for determination must also be based on the issue for determination. Arguments on an issue must be in accord with the issue itself.

See again the case of C. G. C. NIG LTD VS. ISA (2023) 9 NWLR (PT. 1888) 129. – Per M. B. Idris, JCA

 

---

DOCUMENTS – THE IMPORTANCE OF A SEAL OR SIGNATURE OF THE AUTHOR OF A DOCUMENT/COURT PROCESS

---

It is the seal or signature of the author on a document that authenticates the document. A court process that purports to be settled by a legal practitioner must as a requirement of statute, have not only the signature of the legal practitioner, but also his name clearly shown and indicate that the signature is his. In other words, the process must have the signature or mark of the legal practitioner either against his name, or over and above his name. See the case GLOBAL FLEET OIL & GAS NIG LTD VS. OROK (2021) 1 NWLR (PT. 1758) 451. – Per M. B. Idris, JCA

 

---

ELECTION – THE NEED FOR COMPLIANCE WITH MANDATORY PROVISIONS OF PRACTICE DIRECTION IN RELATION TO ELECTION/PRE-ELECTION MATTERS

---

Compliance with mandatory provisions of the Practice Direction issued, made or enacted pursuant to the provisions of the Constitution on or in relation to election or pre-election matters cannot be said to be adherence to technicality since that argument would be in complete disregard to the sui generis nature of such matters which warranted the enactment of special and specific rules and regulations to govern and regulate them. It is the strict compliance with the special and specific rules and regulations or Practice Directions that will ensure that the clear intention and purpose of the constitutional provisions on expeditious determination of election and pre-election matters are met and achieved. See the case of WELLINGTON VS. P. D. P. (2023) 10 NWLR (PT. 1893) 455. – Per M. B. Idris, JCA

 

---

APPEAL – DUTY OF THE COURT OF APPEAL TO CONSIDER THE MAIN APPEAL – THE COURT OF APPEAL BEING THE APEX COURT IN RESPECT OF APPEALS ARISING FROM CERTAIN ELECTIONS

---

This Court being an intermediate appellate court is enjoined to consider the main appeal in the event that the Supreme Court, as the apex court, does not agree with the reasoning for upholding a preliminary objection. The aim is to save precious judicial time and cost to the litigants. See the case of OBI VS. ETIABA (2015) 6 NWLR (PT. 1455) 377. However, by Section 246(2) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended), the decisions of the Court of Appeal in respect of appeals arising from National and State House of Assembly elections are final. See the case of AONDOAKAA VS. OBOT (2022) 5 NWLR (PT. 1824) 523. – Per M. B. Idris, JCA

 

---

ACADEMIC EXERCISE – WHERE A MATTER BECOMES AN ACADEMIC EXERCISE

---

In the case of ATTORNEY GENERAL FEDERATION VS. ANPP (2003) 18 NWLR (PT. 851) PAGE 182 AT 215, it was held per Uwaifo, JSC that: “There cannot be said to be a live issue in a litigation if what is presented to the court for a decision, when decided, cannot affect the parties thereto in anyway either because of the fundamental nature of the reliefs sought or of changed circumstances since after the litigation started. So that in case of an appeal, the appeal may become academic at the time it is due for hearing even though originally there was a living issue between the parties. And I think the fact that the decision may help any of the parties to redirect its affairs in an entirely different or probably anticipated situation is irrelevant.” – Per M. B. Idris, JCA

 

---

ACADEMIC SUIT – MEANING OF ACADEMIC SUIT – CONDUCT OF COURTS TO ACADEMIC SUITS

---

In the Supreme Court case of PLATEAU STATE VS. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE FEDERATION (2006) 3 NWLR (PT. 967) PAGE 346 AT 419, it was held per Niki Tobi, JSC that: “A suit is academic where it is merely theoretical, makes empty sound and of no practical utilitarian value to the plaintiff even if judgment is given in his favour. A suit is academic if it is not related to practical situations of human nature and humanity.” In the Supreme Court case of AKEREDOLU VS. ABRAHAM (2018) 10 NWLR (PT. 1628) PAGE 592 AT 595, it was held per Okoro, JSC that: “it is trite law that courts do not expend valuable judicial time and energy on academic issues or exercise.” Finally, in the Supreme Court case of POPOOLA VS. STATE (2018) 10 NWLR (PT. 1628) PAGE 485 AT 496, it was held per Rhodes-Vivour, JSC that: “it is long settled that courts should not spend precious judicial time engaging in an academic exercise that is best left for the law faculty. Judges are to decide live issues. – Per M. B. Idris, JCA

 

---

CASES CITED

---

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

1. Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended)

2. Evidence Act 2011

3. Electoral Act 2022

4. Election Judicial Practice Direction 2023

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGEMENT