GUINNESS NIGERIA PLC v. MUSICAL COPYRIGHT SOCIETY OF NIGERIA (LTD/GTE)
May 30, 2025MAJOR BELLO M. MAGAJI V THE NIGERIAN ARMY
May 30, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (2008) Legalpedia (CA) 76198
In the Court of Appeal
Thu Mar 27, 2008
Suit Number: CA/K/EP/NA/27/07
CORAM
PARTIES
HON. ENGR. BAKO SARAIPEOPLES DEMOCRATIC PARTY APPELLANTS
INUSA HARUNAALL NIGERIA PEOPLES’ PARTYINDEPENDENT NATIONALELECTORAL COMMISSION & 76 ORS RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The Petitioners/Appellants filed a petition against the Respondents at the Election Petition Tribunal sitting in Kano, challenging the return of the 1st Respondent as the winner of the DAWAKIN KUDU/WARAWA Federal constituency in Kano State. The Petitioners/Appellants urged the Election Tribunal to nullify the above election. In the course of proceedings, the 1st, 2nd, 68th – 78th Respondents filed a Notice of Preliminary objection challenging the jurisdiction of the trial Tribunal to entertain the petition on the ground that the said petition was not only signed at the foot of the petition but was also signed in the name of the law office, DIKKO & MAHMOUD” contrary to paragraphs 4 (3) (b) of the First Schedule to the Electoral Act, 2006. The Tribunal upheld the objection and struck out the petition. Dissatisfied with the ruling of the trial tribunal, the Petitioners/Appellants appealed to the Court of Appeal.
HELD
Appeal dismissed
ISSUES
Whether the Election Petition Tribunal sitting in Kano was wrong in holding that the Election petition No EPT/KNS/HR/27/07 was not properly signed in accordance with the provisions of paragraphs 4 (3) (b) of the first schedule to the Electoral Act, 2006, relying on the Supreme Court decision in Okafor Vs. Nweke ALL FWLR (pt. 368) p. 1016 at pp 1025 -1027 paragraphs G-B (distilled from Ground I of the Grounds of Appeal).Whether the Election Petition Tribunal sitting in Kano was wrong in not following its earlier decision in Election Petition No. EPT/KNS/HR/17/07 between BAGWAI & ANOR Vs. GODA & 27 ORS. (unreported) delivered on the 7th day of September, 2007 especially when there was a distinguishing feature between BAGWAI & ANOR Vs. GODA & 78 ORS and the instant case (culled from Ground 2 of the Grounds of Appeal)
RATIONES DECIDENDI
INTERPRETATION OF PARAGRAPH 4 (3) (B) OF THE 1ST SCHEDULE OF THE ELECTORAL ACT- THE ESSENCE OF THE NARROW INTERPRETATION OF PARAGRAPH 4 (3) (B) OF THE 1ST SCHEDULE OF THE ELECTORAL ACT IS TO SERVE AS A CHECK AGAINST PRESENTATION OF PETITION BY PEOPLE WHO
“In the final analysis, let me say that the Electoral Act 2006 does not intend a wide and an open- ended interpretation to paragraph 4 (3) (b) of the Act. Else, it will open a flood gate for people who did not participate in an election to sign election petitions, after all only their signatures can be seen (as in this case) while their identities remain in the realm of conjecture. This is a court of law and of facts, definitely not that of conjecture.” PER J.I. OKORO, JCA
SIGNING OF AN ELECTION PETITION –AN ELECTION PETITION WHICH OUGHT TO BE SIGNED AND IS NOT SIGNED RENDERS ITS AUTHORSHIP AND AUTHENTICITY DOUBTFUL
“The above provision is intended to authenticate a petition that is filed. It is to ascertain the genuiness of the petition. It is mandatory and not discretionary. Thus an election petition which is either not signed at all or is improperly signed, to say the least, is invalid and should be struck out. Any document, election petition inclusive, which ought to be signed and is not signed renders its authorship and authenticity doubtful. See Aiki Vs. Idowu (2006) ALL FWLR (pt 293) p. 361, Nwancho Vs. Elem (2004) ALL FWLR (pt. 225) 107”. PER J. I. OKORO, JCA
POWER OF COURT TO DISTINGUISH CASES – WHETHER THE COURTS HAVE POWERS TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN CASES
“Courts of law are allowed to distinguish where there is need to do so. A court is not a robot that cannot think for itself. It is not a rubber stamp. A court, I would say is an institution for legal activism and as such, a court has the right and capacity to know whether a previous decision is on all fours with the one at hand or not. There is nothing wrong about this. The argument by the Appellants’ counsel that “courts are bound to follow their decision” is not sacrosanct else the court would have been turned into a static institution.” PER J. I. OKORO, JCA
SIGNING OF AN ELECTION PETITION – THE PURPORT OF PARAGRAPH 4 (3) (B) OF THE 1ST SCHEDULE TO THE ELECTORAL ACT 2006 IS TO PREVENT THE PRESENTATION OF PETITIONS BY ANONYMOUS AND UNAUTHORIZED PERSONS
“The purport of paragraph 4 (3) (b) of the 1st schedule to the Electoral Act 2006 is to prevent the presentation of petitions by anonymous and unauthorized persons. It is to ensure that those who sign petitions are identifiable and must be named at the foot of the petition. I think paragraph 4 (3) (b) of the 1st schedule to the Act by my own understanding and interpretation requires that the petition be signed by only persons specified therein and is mandatory. There is no room or option that it could be signed by any other person.” PER J. I. OKORO, JCA
SIGNING OF AN ELECTION PETITION – AN ELECTION PETITION WHICH IS NOT SIGNED CANNOT INVOKE THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT
“An election petition which is neither signed by the Petitioner himself nor by his counsel, is fundamentally defective. It is not a matter in the realm of technicality because a petition which is not signed cannot activate or invoke the jurisdiction of the court”. PER J. I. OKORO, J. C.A.
SIGNING OF AN ELECTION PETITION – PARAGRAPH 4 (3) (B) OF THE FIRST SCHEDULE TO THE ELECTORAL ACT 2006
“Paragraph 4 (3) (b) of the first schedule to the Electoral Act 2006 provides as follows:-
“3. The election petition shall further:
(b) be signed by the petitioner or all petitioners or by the Solicitor, if any named at the foot of the election petition.” PER J. I. OKORO, JCA
FORMULATION OF ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION – DUTY OF COUNSEL IN FORMULATING ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION
“A good issue edifies a brief and is a source of pleasure and inspiration to the owner of the brief. See Tobi: The Brief System in Nigerian Courts 1999 p. 29. Counsel are therefore advised to make their issues simple, concise and clear enough to enable the adverse party and the court to know the trend of the argument in the brief.” PER J. I. OKORO, JCA
SIGNATURE BY AN UNKNOWN PERSON ON BEHALF OF ANOTHER PERSON- A SIGNATURE BY AN UNKNOWN PERSON ON BEHALF OF ANOTHER IS INCOMPETENT
“A signature by an unknown person on behalf of another is an incompetent signature. See Orizu Vs. Uzoegwu (1999) 6 NWLR (pt. 605)32.” PER J. I. OKORO, JCA
CASES CITED
STATUTES REFERRED TO
Electoral Act 2006
