SGT KALEJAIYE OLA V THE STATE
April 11, 2025CSP L.L. ANAGBADO V ALHAJI IDI FARUK
April 11, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (2018-07) Legalpedia (SC) 81311
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
HOLDEN AT ABUJA
Thu Jul 5, 2018
Suit Number: SC.1057/2017
CORAM
PARTIES
HON. BASSEY ETIM APPELLANTS
1. HON. BASSEY ALBERT AKPAN2. PEOPLES DEMOCRATIC PARTY [PDP]3. INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION [INEC] RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
ACTION, APPEAL, COURT, ELECTION, JUDGMENT AND ORDER, JURISDICTION, LAW OF EVIDENCE, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
SUMMARY OF FACTS:
The 2nd Respondent, Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), conducted a primary election in view to nominating its candidate for the Akwa Ibom North East Senatorial seat in the 2015 general election. The Appellant, 1st Respondent and others contested the said primary election, at the end of which the name of the 1st Respondent who had polled the highest vote was forwarded to the 3rd Respondent by the 2nd Respondent as its candidate for the Senatorial Seat. Aggrieved by this, the Appellant commenced an action at the Federal High Court, where he claimed the following declaratory and injunctive reliefs; a declaration that the 1st Defendant lacks competence, vires or authority to ignore, sideline or swap the results of the primary election conducted on the 7th December 2014 for the election of its candidate for Akwa Ibom North East Senatorial District to the prejudice of the Plaintiff who was so elected; an Order of this Honourable Court mandating the 1st Defendant to forward to the 2nd Defendant and for the said Defendant to accept the name of the Plaintiff as the 1st Defendant’s only candidate for the Akwa Ibom North East Senatorial District for the purpose of the 2015 Senatorial elections for that District. At the end of trial, the trial court granted the Appellant’s reliefs except items (e) and (f) of his claim which it adjudged to have been overtaken by events. Aggrieved by the trial court’s judgment, the 1st Respondent appealed to the Court of Appeal, Calabar Division, which set aside the trial court’s decision. Aggrieved by the lower court’s decision, the Appellant has filled the instant appeal before this Honourable court.
HELD
Appeal Dismissed
ISSUES
1. Whether, considering the evidence, oral and documentary, before this Honourable Court, the standard and burden of proof on the Appellant and the provisions of the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended), the 2nd Respondent’s Constitution and Guidelines, the Lower Court was right when it set aside the Trial Court’s Judgment and upheld the 1st Respondent’s victory and nomination at the 2nd Respondent’s Primary Election held on 07 December 2014 in respect of Akwa Ibom North-East Senatorial District?
RATIONES DECIDENDI
ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION – WHETHER APPELLATE COURTS ARE OBLIGATED TO DETERMINE APPEALS ON THE BASIS OF THE ISSUES FORMULATED BY ANY OF THE PARTIES IN AN APPEAL
“It is long settled that the appellate court, particularly this one, is not under any duty to determine the appeal before it on the basis of the issue(s) formulated by the appellant or any of the parties thereto, The court may prefer any issue'(s) formulated by any of the parties or, still, suo motu formulate issue(s) it considers germane for the just and effectual determination of the matter in controversy between the parties. The preferred issue(s) must however evolve from the grounds in the notice of appeal. See Laturide & anbr V. Bella Lajufin (1989) 5 SC 59, Diokpa Francis Onochie V. Feguson Odogwu (2006) 2 SCNJ 96, Edem V. Canton Balls Ltd & anor (2005) LPELR-1007 (SC) (2005) 6 SC (Pt 11) 16.”
DECLARATORY RELIEF – CONDITION FOR THE GRANT OF A DECLARATORY RELIEF
“A declaratory relief is only granted in consequence of a finding of fact made by the court. Thus in the absence of sufficient evidence to make the finding of fact that must precede the grant of the relief, the court will not exercise its discretion to grant the relief.
DECLARATORY RELIEF – WHETHER ADMISSION BY A DEFENDANT WILL BY ITSELF ENTITLE A CLAIMANT TO JUDGMENT IN AN ACTION WHERE DECLARATORY RELIEF IS SOUGHT
“It is also settled that in an action such as the instant one, in which declaratory reliefs are sought, admission on the part of a defendant will not, by itself and independent of the case made out by the claimant, entitle the latter to judgment. Being a discretionary remedy, it is granted only where the court is satisfied that, from his statement of claim and the evidence adduced in support, the claimant has a very strong and cogent case. The claimant must/therefore, satisfy the court that on his own he is fully entitled to the grant of the reliefs. He succeeds wholly on the strength of his case and not or the weakness of the case proffered in defence to his claim. See Kodilinye V. Odu (1935) 2 WACA 336, Bello V. Emeka (1981) 1 SC 101, CBN V. Amao & 2 ors (2010) 5-7 SC (Pt 1) 1 at 31 and Dumez (Nig) Ltd V. Nwakhoba (2008) 12 SCNJ 768. In Utih V. Onoyivwe (1991) 1 NWLR (Pt 166).”
PRIMARY ELECTION – DUTY OF AN APPELLANT TO SUCCEED IN AN ACTION FOR DECLARATORY RELIEFS IN THE CONDUCT OF PRIMARY ELECTION
“For the appellant to succeed, he must establish that he took part in the primary election conducted by the National Working Committee of the 2nd respondent. See Emeka V. Okadigbo (2012) 18 NWLR (Pt 1331) 55, Emenike V. PDP. (2012) NWLR (Pt 1315) 556 at 594, 600, 602 and Senator Abubakar Saddiq Yar’adua & ors V. Senator Abdu Umar Yandoma & ors. (2014) LPELR-(SC)”.
PRIMARY ELECTION – EFFECT OF A FAILURE TO ESTABLISH THE RESULT SHEET OF A PRIMARY ELECTION
“The principle has long been settled that the appellant succeeds on the strength of his case only and not on the weakness of the respondent’s case. Having failed to establish that exhibit 8 is indeed the result sheet of the primary election conducted on the authority of the 2nd respondent’s National Working Committee, his case fails and should have been dismissed by the trial court. See Ogolo V. Ogolo (2006) 2 SC (Pt 1) 61 and Tukur & ors V. Sabi & ors (2013) 3 SCNJ 212”.
REVERSAL OF JUDGMENT – WHETHER IT IS EVERY MISTAKE BY A COURT THAT WILL LEAD TO THE REVERSAL OF ITS JUDGMENT ON APPEAL
“It must be stated at this point that it is not every error or mistake by a court that will lead to a reversal of its judgment on appeal. Only a mistake that occasions miscarriage of justice does. See John Owhonde V. Alphonso Ekpechi (2003) 9 SCNJ 1, and Ukiri V. Geco Prakla Nigeria Ltd (2010) LPELR-3341 (SC).”
ELECTION PETITION – JURISDICTION OF COURT TO DETERMINE PETITION AS TO WHETHER ANY PERSON HAS BEEN VALIDLY ELECTED AS A MEMBER OF THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY
“From the provisions of Section 285(l) (a) of the Constitution 1999, as amended, only the National and State Houses of Assembly Election Tribunal, has original jurisdiction to hear and determine petitions as to whether any person has been validly elected as a member of the National Assembly.”
PRIMARY ELECTIONS – WHO CAN CONDUCT PRIMARY ELECTIONS?
“This is because it has been settled by this court that it is only the National Executive Committee or National Working Committee of a party that has the power to conduct primary elections. See: Emenike Vs P,D.P. (supra): Yar’Adua Vs Yandoma (2014) LPELR (SC)@ 107 A-C”.
CONTRADICTIONS IN EVIDENCE – EFFECT OF CONTRADICTIONS IN EVIDENCE
“Unfortunately, the testimonies, which he, [the appellant], adduced were so evidently contradictory and inconsistent that they could not establish that the said exhibit was the result sheet of a primary election, the conduct of which, was authorized by the National Working Committee of the second respondent as required by law. The effect is that these conflicting versions render his evidence very unreliable and untenable, C D. C. (Nig.) Ltd v SCOA (Nig.) Ltd[2007] 6 NWLR (pt. 1030) 300. This must be so because such contradictions in the evidence of the plaintiff and his witness are disastrous; they, actually, have the effect of destroying the case of the plaintiff, Audu v Guta [2004] 4 NWLR (pt 864) 463”.
CASES CITED
STATUTES REFERRED TO
Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended)
Electoral Act 2010 (as amended)
