Legalpedia Citation: (2017-03) Legalpedia 74428 (SC)

In the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Fri Mar 10, 2017

Suit Number: SC.149/2016

CORAM

Mary Ukaego Peter-Odili Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Clara Bata Ogunbiyi Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Chima Centus Nweze Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Amina Adamu Augie Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Sidi Dauda Bage Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria

PARTIES

IDU GODWIN EMEKA APPELLANTS

HON LYNDA CHUBA-IKPEAZU

RESPONDENTS

AREA(S) OF LAW

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, ELECTORAL LAW, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, APPEAL, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, EVIDENCE, POLITICAL PARTY PRIMARIES, CANDIDATE NOMINATION, SUBSTITUTION

SUMMARY OF FACTS

This case concerns a dispute over the candidate nomination for the Onitsha North/South Federal Constituency of Anambra State for the 2015 General Election. The 2nd Respondent (Peoples Democratic Party) submitted the name of the 1st Respondent (Hon. Lynda Chuba-Ikpeazu) to the 3rd Respondent (INEC) on December 18, 2014, as its nominated candidate for the House of Representatives. However, the 2nd Respondent also submitted the name of the Appellant (Idu Godwin Emeka) to INEC as its candidate for the same constituency. When INEC published the list of candidates, the 1st Respondent’s name was not included.

The 1st Respondent filed an Originating Summons against the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th Respondents (PDP, INEC, and National Working Committee of PDP respectively), seeking declarations that she was the rightful candidate and that her improper substitution was unlawful. The Appellant was not initially sued but applied and was joined as the 4th Defendant. The Federal High Court found in favor of the 1st Respondent, ordering that she be recognized as the rightful candidate. The Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal, which dismissed his appeal. Dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Supreme Court.

HELD

1. The appeal was dismissed.
2. The Court held that the concurrent findings of the two lower courts were not perverse and there was no reason to disturb them.
3. The Court affirmed that the 1st Respondent was able to prove that her name was improperly substituted by the 2nd and 4th Respondents.
4. The Court upheld the judgment of the Court of Appeal which affirmed the decision of the Federal High Court.
5. No order was made as to costs.

ISSUES

1. Whether upon a proper construction of Rule 10(1) of Rules of Professional Conduct and Order 10 Rule 1 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2011, the Court of Appeal was in error when it held that the appellant’s brief was incompetent.
2. Whether the Court of Appeal was in error when it held that the 1st Respondent was the candidate of the 2nd Respondent for the Onitsha North/South Federal Constituency in the House of Representatives election of 28th March, 2015, and not the appellant.

RATIONES DECIDENDI

SUBMISSION OF CANDIDATE’S NAME TO INEC — EVIDENCE REQUIRED TO PROVE SUBMISSION

The confirmation holds secure especially when reference is made to the fact that the 3rd respondent, who is the appropriate body in law to receive the list of sponsored candidates for election did not deny that the 2nd respondent forwarded the name of the 1st respondent. It is on record, rather that the 3rd respondent was categorical that it received the list of candidates for the election, which included the 1st respondent. — Per CLARA BATA OGUNBIYI, JSC

CERTIFIED TRUE COPIES OF DOCUMENTS — ADMISSIBILITY AND EVIDENTIARY VALUE

I agree with the lower Court when it held therefore that the concerted effort made by the appellant to impugn the authenticity of Exhibits D7 – D17 as having not been signed is in the circumstance futile. This is firmly established when regard is had to Paragraph (m) of the 2nd respondent’s counter affidavit at page 399 of the record of appeal in reaction to the 1st respondent, wherein it only addressed Exhibit 6, D17 and 9 but not D7 to D16 when it deposed thus:- ‘(m) Exhibit 6, D17 and 9 are worthless pieces of paper prepared by the Plaintiff in anticipation of proceedings.’ — Per CLARA BATA OGUNBIYI, JSC

APPELLATE COURT’S APPROACH TO CONCURRENT FINDINGS — WHEN INTERFERENCE IS JUSTIFIED

The law is well established that concurrent findings of the Courts below will not be disturbed ordinarily except where they are tainted with miscarriage of justice or shown to be perverse. The appellant in this appeal has not shown or advances any cogent reason at all why the concurrent findings should be disturbed.” — Per CLARA BATA OGUNBIYI, JSC

RESOLUTION OF CONFLICTING AFFIDAVITS — USE OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE

On the allegation of a seeming conflict on the affidavits of the parties, this, I hold is a mere perception by the appellant and which is instantly resolved when regard is had to the authentic documents presented on behalf of the 1st respondent. While the 1st respondent produced certified true copies of her documents from the custody of INEC, those presented by the appellant did not emanate from the custody of 3rd respondent (INEC).- Per CLARA BATA OGUNBIYI, JSC

PRESUMPTION AGAINST WITHHOLDING EVIDENCE — APPLICATION OF SECTION 167(D) OF EVIDENCE ACT

The minutes of the meeting of the 2nd and 4th respondents dealing with the ratification of a candidate for the election is central and crucial to the just determination of this case, which minutes are under the custody of the 2nd and 4th respondents… In the circumstances of this case, the ratification of the candidate by the 4th respondent can only be proved by production of the minutes or a portion of it. The concomitant effect is that neither the minutes nor portion of it was produced as ordered by Court. — Per CLARA BATA OGUNBIYI, JSC

EFFECT OF NON-APPEAL BY PARTIES DIRECTLY AFFECTED BY JUDGMENT

Therefore what is afoot being an appeal against concurrent findings of the two Courts below, challenged by the appellant… The act of unlawful substitution was brought by the 1st respondent against the 2nd and 4th respondents in which the appellant had no role and so since he had not counter-claimed as the pleadings of the appellant did not mention him, whatever grouse he had and sought to ventilate when he entered as a party interested, that interest remained unattended.” — Per MARY UKAEGO PETER-ODILI, JSC

BURDEN OF PROOF IN CASES OF IMPROPER CANDIDATE SUBSTITUTION

The effect of the foregoing is that the 1st respondent proved the assertion in her affidavit in support of the originating summons that indeed, it was her name that was forwarded by the 2nd respondent to the 3rd respondent as the candidate ratified by the 2nd respondent for the membership of the House of Representatives for member representing Onitsha North/South Federal Constituency of Anambra state. The denial made by the 2nd respondent is of no consequence therefore.” — Per CLARA BATA OGUNBIYI, JSC

JUDICIAL NOTICE OF INEC’S CONFIRMATION — EVIDENTIARY WEIGHT

Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the counter-affidavit of the 3rd respondent to the originating summons are evident as proof as follows:- ‘4. I know that the 1st defendant submitted the Forms CF001 (affidavit in support of personal particulars of persons seeking election to the office/membership of House of Representatives) of the candidates it intended to sponsor for the election to the Membership of the National Assembly in respect of Anambra State to the 2nd defendant including that of the plaintiff for Onitsha North/South Federal Constituency of Anambra State'” — Per CLARA BATA OGUNBIYI, JSC

INTERPRETATION OF ELECTORAL ACT SECTION 31 — REQUIREMENTS FOR CANDIDATE SUBMISSION

By a combined reading of Sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 31 of the Electoral Act, 2010, the submission of the particulars of a candidate sponsored by a Party must be accompanied by the list of the candidates proposed for sponsorship by the party for the elections. Thus, Forms CF002 as well as Form CF001 of all the candidates and documents ‘shall’ be forwarded by 2nd respondent to 3rd respondent.– Per CLARA BATA OGUNBIYI, JSC

BURDEN ON APPELLANT TO JUSTIFY INTERFERENCE WITH CONCURRENT FINDINGS

In this case, the Appellant failed to show any of these lapses in the decisions of the two lower Courts, and there is nothing this Court can do in the circumstances of this case except to dismiss this Appeal.– Per AMINA ADAMU AUGIE, JSC

EFFECT OF JOINDER WITHOUT AMENDMENT OF PLEADINGS

I must also add that the Appellant did not seem to appreciate the irony of his situation in the scheme of things. He applied to be joined as the 4th Defendant to the Suit filed by the 1st Respondent; however, she did not amend her reliefs and questions for determination to make out a case against him, and he has ended up with nothing to stand on. — Per AMINA ADAMU AUGIE, JSC

CERTIFICATION OF PUBLIC DOCUMENTS — REQUIREMENTS AND LEGAL EFFECT

From the phraseology of the italicised clauses of Subsection (2) (supra), a document can only be called a certified copy of a public document if, in addition to the ‘payment of legal fees prescribed in that respect, together with a certificate written at the foot of such copy that it is a true copy.’ [Sub-section 1 supra], it [the certificate] ‘is….. dated and subscribed by such officer with his name and his official title..’– Per CHIMA CENTUS NWEZE, JSC

SCOPE OF SUPREME COURT’S POWER TO REVIEW CONCURRENT FINDINGS OF FACT

The decision of the two lower Courts being concurrent findings of facts, the Appellate Court, and indeed this Court will be loathe to interfere there with to set them aside, they are not being erroneous or perverse. See MOGO CHINWENDU VS NWANEGBO MBAMALI & ANOR (1980) 3/4 S.C.31 at 53, EZEWANI VS ONWORDI (1986) 4 NWLR (Pt. 69) 1, NWAMGBOMU vs THE STATE (1994) 2 NWLR (Pt. 327) 380 at 402.– Per SIDI DAUDA BAGE, JSC

CASES CITED

STATUTES REFERRED TO

1. Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended)
2. Electoral Act 2010 (as amended)
3. Evidence Act 2011
4. Rules of Professional Conduct for Legal Practitioners
5. Court of Appeal Rules 2011
6. Legal Practitioners Act

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT