EDWARD NKWEGU OKEREKE V NWEZE DAVID UMAHI & ORS

CORAM

MAHMUD MOHAMMED CHIEF JUSTICE OF NIGERIA

IBRAHIM TANKO MUHAMMAD JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

CHI MA CENTUS NWEZE JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

PARTIES

EDWARD NKWEGU OKEREKE

APPELLANTS

1. NWEZE DAVID UMAHI

2. PEOPLES DEMOCRATIC PARTY (PDP)

3. INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION (1NEC)

RESPONDENTS

AREA(S) OF LAW

ACTION, APPEAL, COURT, EVIDENCE, ELECTION PETITION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The 1st Respondent and Appellant contested for the election into the office of the Governor of Ebonyi State under the platform of their respective parties. At the end of the election, the 3rd Respondent (INEC) declared the 1st Respondent, Nweze David Umahi of Peoples Democratic Party the winner and duly returned candidate for the election, having scored the highest number of votes. Dissatisfied with the declaration, the Appellant and his party the Labour Party, approached the Governorship Election Petition Tribunal challenging the declaration and return of the 1st Respondent as the Governor of Ebonyi State, and sought the following reliefs; a declaration that the election was marred by widespread irregularities and substantial non-compliance with the Electoral Act, 2010, the INEC Guidelines for the conduct of Elections 2015, a declaration that the first Petitioner was duly elected by majority of lawful and valid votes cast, amongst others. At the conclusion of the case, the Tribunal dismissed the petition of the Appellant and also struck out the name of the Labour Party. On appeal to the Court of Appeal, the court also dismissed the Appellant’s appeal hence, a further appealed to the Supreme Court whilst the 3rd Respondent filed a preliminary objection challenging the Appellants’ Ground of Appeal.

HELD

Appeal Dismissed

ISSUES

1. Whether the lower court was correct when it confirmed the decision of the trial Tribunal to the effect that the appellant did not establish the case of non-compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended)?

2. Whether the lower court was right in confirming the decision of the trial Tribunal that exhibits GP2 -GP42 and exhibit GP45 were unavailing to the appellant having been dumped on the trial Tribunal and with no witness who could be cross examined as to their contents?3. Whether the lower court was right in holding that, having regard to the evidence of PW8, exhibit GP 45- the Card Report – was incomplete, unreliable and incapable of proving the appellants allegation of improper accreditation/over -voting?

RATIONES DECIDENDI

FORMULATION OF ISSUE(S) FOR DETERMINATION – WHETHER AN APPELLATE COURT HAS THE DISCRETION TO REFRAME ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION

“Instructively, it is such circumstances, as shown above, that dictated and, indeed, underscore, the utility of the logic of the judicial prescription that an appellate court has the prerogative to reframe the issues where it is of the opinion that those formulated by counsel are not succinct provided that the issues so reframed are covered by the Grounds of Appeal as canvassed by the appellant.

These cases vindicate this position, D. P. C. C. Ltd v B. P. C. Ltd [2008] 4 NWLR (Pt. 1077) 376, 396 -397; 418 – 419; Oloriode v. Oyebi [1984] 1 SCNLR 390; N.P.A, v. Panalpina World Transport (Nig,) Ltd. (1974) 1 NMLR 82; Fabiyi v. Adeniyi [2000] 6 NWLR (pt. 662) 532. I.” – Per NWEZE, JSC