LAGOS STATE UNIVERSITY & ANOR VS TAIWO ADEGBOYEGA GANIYU
May 30, 2025ABUBAKAR DAN SHALLA VS THE STATE
May 30, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (2007) Legalpedia (CA) 11131
In the Court of Appeal
Wed Nov 21, 2007
Suit Number: CA/C/128/2007
CORAM
PARTIES
INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION & ORS APPELLANTS
1. JAMES INIAMA
2. ACTION CONGRESS
3. BARR. GODSWILL O. AKPABIO
4. PEOPLES DEMOCRATIC PARTY
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
This appeal was instituted by the Respondents/Appellants against the ruling of the Election Petition Tribunal, Akwa Ibom State sitting in Uyo. The Respondent/Appellant had brought a preliminary objection against the petition of the Petitioners/Respondents on the ground that the petition was irregular and incompetent for having referred to certain documents in the petition and not accompanying same. The Respondent/Appellant argued that the Tribunal was robbed of its jurisdiction by failure of the Petitioner/Respondent to comply with the mandatory provisions of Paragraphs 1(1)( c ) and 2 of the Practice Directions 2007. The Tribunal however held that not accompanying the documents pleaded with the petition would only rob the Petitioner/Respondent the opportunity to rely on same during trial and would not render the petition incompetent. The Respondent/Appellant was however dissatisfied with the decision of the Tribunal, thus the instant appeal.
HELD
Appeal dismissed
ISSUES
1. Whether the failure of the petitioners’ petition to comply with the mandatory provision of paragraph 1(1)(c) of the Practice Direction 2007 and Order 6 Rule 8 of the Federal High Court Rules, 2000 did not rob the trial tribunal of jurisdiction by virtue of paragraph 1 sub-paragraph 2 of the Practice Direction 2007.?
2. Whether the five learned Judges of the tribunal were legally right when they resolved to hear the Election Petition No.EPT/AKS/2007 on its “merit” without allowing technicalities to fetter their jurisdiction.
RATIONES DECIDENDI
CONSTRUCTION OF STATUTES – IT IS THE DUTY OF COURTS TO CAREFULLY IDENTIFY WHAT THE REAL INTENTION OF THE LEGISLATURE IS BY PUTTING THE WHOLE STATUTE IN CONSIDERATION.
“We have been admonished by Lord Campbell L.C. in Liverpool Borough Bank v. Turner (1861) 30 LJ. Ch. 379 at p. 380 that as “No universal rule can be laid down for the construction of statutes as to whether mandatory enactments shall be considered directory only or obligatory with an implied nullification for disobedience. It is the duty of courts of justice to try and get at the real intention of the legislature by carefully attending to the whole scope of the statute to be considered.” PER M. A. OWOADE, JCA.
ELECTION PETITION – LIST OF DOCUMENTS TO ACCOMPANY PETITIONS -PARAGRAPH 1(1) (C) AND (2) OF THE ELECTION TRIBUNAL AND COURT PRACTICE DIRECTIONS 2007
“All petitions to be presented before the tribunal or court shall be accompanied by:
(1) Copies or list of every document to be relied on at the hearing of the petition (Italics mine).
(2) A petition which fails to comply with sub-paragraph
(1) of this paragraph shall not be accepted for filing by secretary. ” PER N. S. NGWUTA, JCA
“SHALL” – THE TRUE MEANING OF THE WORD “SHALL” CAN ONLY BE FOUND IN THE CONTEXT OF THE PARTICULAR STATUTE.
“The true meaning of the word “shall” in statutory construction can only be found in the context of the particular statute. This is because, the meaning of the word “shall” in a statute would depend on the consequences of disobedience to the command as provided by the statute itself.” PER M. A. OWOADE, JCA.
ELECTION PETITION – POWER OF COURTS TO DETERMINE THE COMPETENCE OR OTHERWISE OF A PETITION
“The courts are of course at liberty to determine the competence of a petition otherwise than for non-compliance with the provision of sub-paragraph 1 of paragraph 1 of the Practice Direction.” PER M. A. OWOADE, JCA.
EFFECT OF FAILURE TO ATTACH DOCUMENTS TO AN ELECTION PETITION – FAILURE TO ATTACH COPIES OF DOCUMENTS TO BE RELIED ON TO THE PETITION DOES NOT INVALIDATE THE PETITION, BUT WOULD DEPRIVE THE PETITIONER OF ITS USE.
“If the petitioner fails to accompany his petition with a copy of any document he intends to rely on at the trial he is deprived of the use of the document but this does not invalidate his petition.” PER N. S. NGWUTA, JCA.
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE – EFFECT OF FAILURE TO ANNEX A COPY OF DOCUMENT PLEADED
“The omission to annex a copy of document pleaded does not amount to such non-compliance with the rules as to effect the validity of the suit but has only the effect of depriving the plaintiff of the use of the document the copy of each he did not file even though he pleaded same.” PER N. S. NGWUTA, JCA.
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE – ANY DOCUMENT MENTIONED IN THE STATEMENT OF CLAIM AND INTENDED TO BE USED IN EVIDENCE MUST ACCOMPANY THE WRIT.
“A copy of any document mentioned in the statement of claim must accompany the writ except the plaintiff does not intend to use in evidence, the particular document he mentioned or pleaded in the statement of claim.” PER N. S. NGWUTA, JCA.
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IN ELECTION PETITIONS – A PETITIONER WILL BE PRECLUDED FROM RELYING ON A DOCUMENT EXCEPT A COPY OF THE SAID DOCUMENT HAS BEEN PRODUCED OR INCLUDED IN THE LIST OF DOCUMENTS.
“The petitioner will not be allowed to rely on the particular document at the hearing if he fails to provide the said document or include it in the list of documents he seeks to rely on at the hearing.” PER N. S. NGWUTA, JCA.
ELECTION PETITION – MODE OF FILING A PETITION -PARAGRAPHS 1 OF THE PRACTICE DIRECTION 2007
1(1) All petitions to be presented before tribunal or courts shall be accompanied by:
(a) statement indicating the number of witnesses the petitioner intends to call in proof of the petition:
(b) written statements on oath of the witnesses whose identity may be represented by an alphabet or a combination thereof; and
(c) copies or lists of every document to be relied on at the hearing of the petition
2. A petition which fails to comply with sub-paragraph (1) of this petition paragraph shall not be accepted for filing by the Secretary.” PER M. A. OWOADE, JCA
“SHALL” – MEANING OF THE WORD “SHALL”
There is no doubt that both in law and in the English language, the expression “shall” connote a command, a directory. For example, the Compact Edition of the Oxford English Dictionary Vol. II (OUP) (1988) pp. 2764-2766 devoted 29 paragraphs to the different usages of the word “SHALL” paragraph I and II which are of greater relevance for our purpose defines “shall” as
i. “An utterance of the word “shall” a command, promise or determination.
ii. In clauses expressing the purported result of some action or the object of a desire, intention, command or request. ” PER M. A. OWOADE, JCA.
INTERPRETATION OF WORDS – THE WORDS “MUST” AND “SHALL” ADMITS OF NO DISCRETION.
The use of “must” and “shall” in all enactments is prima facie, imperative and admits of no discretion. However, more than a century ago, Colerige C.J. laid down the principle that an absolute enactment must be obeyed or fulfilled exactly, but it is sufficient if a directory enactment be obeyed or fulfilled substantially. – see, Woodward v. Sarsons (1875) L.R. 10 C.P. 733 at p. 746; Alhaji Titilayo Anibi v. Jimoh Shotimehin (1993) 3 NWLR (Pt. 282) 461 at P. 472.” PER M. A. OWOADE, JCA.
FRONT-LOADING –PURPOSE OF FRONT-LOADING
“The general intention of the draftsman in paragraph 1 of the Practice Direction 2007 is to encourage and enforce “front-loading” as a principle of our modern civil procedure system so that a (defendant) would have full knowledge and adequate notice of the case of the (plaintiff) so as to avoid delay in trials and fulfill the objective of speedy administration of justice.” PER M. A. OWOADE, JCA.
CASES CITED
STATUTES REFERRED TO
1. Election Tribunal and Court Practice Directions, 2007 as amended
2. Electoral Act, 2006.
3. Federal High Court Rules, 2000
