CHIBUZOR N. ZIGGY AZIKE V CHIEF IFEANYI GODWIN ARARUME & ORS
June 10, 2025DR. CHRIS A. TAMUNO & ORS V PROFESSOR EDWARD E. EZEWU
June 11, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (2004) Legalpedia (CA) 10619
In the Court of Appeal
HOLDEN AT PORT HARCOURT
Wed Dec 8, 2004
Suit Number: CA/PH/EPT/147/2004
CORAM
NNAMANI, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT
JOHN AFOLABI FABIYI, JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL
PARTIES
HON. OKOTO FOSTER BRUCE APPELLANTS
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The Petitioner filed a petition against the Respondents at the election tribunal over the election held for the southern Ijaw Federal constituency wherein the 1st Respondent was declared elected and submitted the following issues for consideration; that the result of the election that declared the 1st Defendant was baseless, null and void and of no effect, that the 1st Defendant was not duly elected on the basis of number of valid votes casted on the election day, that the Petitioner was duly elected and ought to and should be returned as winner of the election. Pleading where filed by both parties with Exhibits tendered to the tribunal, wherein it came to a conclusion that the election is inconclusive, because the results of ward 9, 10, 11 was not placed before the tribunal. The tribunal in its judgment hereby nullified the election and order that a fresh election be conducted. Dissatisfied with the judgment of the tribunal, the Petitioner filed an appeal to the Court of Appeal.
HELD
Appeal Allowed
ISSUES
Whether having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the trial Tribunal refusal of the 3rd – 22nd cross appellant application for an extension of time within which to file their reply to the petition was judicious and thus justifiable in law.Whether evidence concerning the senate election was relevant, admissible and ought to have been evaluated by the Trial Tribunal.
RATIONES DECIDENDI
ISSUES – ISSUES ON APPEAL SHOULD DERIVE FROM THE DECISION OF THE LOWER COURT
“It is settled law that issues on appeal should derive from decision made by the court below. An appeal will not be allowed on an issue which was not canvassed and /or covered by the judgment of the court below; except where fresh evidence is allowed by the leave of court.” PER OMAGE JCA
ELECTORAL OFFICER – WHO IS AN ELECTORAL OFFICER – WHEN IS THE CONSENT OF AN ATTORNEY GENERAL REQUIRED BY AN ELECTORAL OFFICER TO TESTIFY ON ELECTION MATTER
“An electoral officer is the person charged with the conduct of an election. Generally before he testifies on an election matter he must by provision of the Electoral Act seek the consent of the Attorney General. See Ike v. Ofokaja (1992) 9 NWLR (Pt 263) 42 at 61. However if an electoral officer testifies in court under a subpoena no such consent is required.” PER OMAGE JCA
RELIEF – DUTY OF COURT NOT TO GRANT A RELIEF NOT ASKED FOR BY PARTIES
“It is settled law that a court will not and should not award to parties relief they have not asked for particularly when the relief granted by the court is not incidental to the prayers before the court.” PER OMAGE JCA
ELECTORAL MALPRACTICE – WHETHER EVERY ELECTORAL MALPRACTICE VOIDS AN ELECTION
‘‘It is trite to note that it is not in every case that there is a discrepancy in a unit vote of a malpractice that an election should be voided or result in cancellation of votes. See Opia v. Ibru (1992) 3 NWLR (Pt 231) 658 at 708 where the shortage of votes cast can still sustain the election; the election should not be set aside.” PER OMAGE JCA
CASES CITED
Bennet Ifediora & 4 Ors v. Ben Ume & Ors (1988) 2 NWLR (Pt 74) 5 at 16Ekpenyong v. Nyong (1975) 2 SC 71 313-317.Labiyi v. Amretiela & Ors (1992) 8 NWLR (Pt 258) 139.Momodu v. Momodu (1991) 1 NWLR (Pt 169) 608.Ogbe v. Esi (1943) WACA 76.Omagbean v. Guinness Nig. Ltd (1995) 2 NWLR (Pt 377) 28 at 206, 268.Opia v. Ibru (1992) 3 NWLR (Pt 231) 658 at 708
STATUTES REFERRED TO
Electoral Act 2002.
