CORAM

---

JUMMAI HANNATU SANKEY, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT

ONYEKACHI AJA OTISI, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT

JOSEPH EYO EKANEM, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT

---

PARTIES

---

JOSEPH HEMEN BOKO

APPELLANTS 

---

1. BENJAMIN B. NUNGWA

2. ALL PROGRESSIVES CONGRESS

3. INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION

RESPONDENTS 

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Appellant, a member of the 2nd Respondent, contested the 2nd Respondent’s primary election held on 2/12/2014 for the nomination of its candidate for the Benue State House of Assembly election scheduled for 2015. He contested with other candidates including the 1st Respondent. The Appellant claimed that he scored the highest number of votes at the primary election and was declared the winner of the same. He was thereafter issued with 3rd Respondent’s Forms EC4B(iii) (Form for nomination of Member of State House of Assembly) and CF001 (Affidavit in support of personal particulars of persons seeking election) which he filled and submitted to the 2nd Respondent. The 2nd Respondent transmitted them to the 3rd Respondent. To his surprise, the name of the 1st Respondent was substituted for his name. Consequent upon this action, the Appellant took out an originating summons at the Federal High Court, Makurdi Judicial Division, wherein he sought for a declaration that the Appellant is the lawful and validly nominated candidate of the 2nd Respondent for Kwande West State Constituency, at the February 2015 polls; that the substitution of the name of the 1st Respondent for the name of the Appellant was unlawful and void; an order for the 3rd Respondent to withdraw and erase the name of the 1st Respondent; that the Appellant remain the lawful and valid candidate of the 2nd Respondent for the election; amongst other reliefs. In response, the 1st and 2nd Respondents contended that although Appellant was alleged to have had the highest number of votes by the primary election committee of the 2nd Respondent, the 1st Respondent petitioned against the result on the ground that the Appellant did not have the highest number of lawful votes; and that the 2nd Respondent’s appeal committee upheld the petition of the 1st Respondent, subtracted the unlawful votes resulting in the 1st Respondent scoring the highest number of votes; hence the National Working Committee of the 2nd Respondent accepted and ratified the report; and that the name of the 1st Respondent was forwarded to 3rd Respondent as its candidate. At the end of the trial, the lower Court in its judgment dismissed the case of the Appellant. Aggrieved by the decision, the Appellant has appealed to the Court of Appeal, Makurdi by filing three notices of appeal. The notice of appeal filed on 9/2/2016, which is in the supplementary record is the extant notice of appeal.

 

---

HELD

---

Appeal Allowed

 

---

ISSUES

---

Whether or not Exhibits DK8, DK9 and DK10 attached to the counter affidavit of the 1st respondent and Exhibits 1 and 2 to the counter affidavit of the 2nd respondent were admissible copies of public documents. In alternative to issue one above, whether or not the proceedings in Exhibit DK8 were competent in the absence of the chairman of the purported appeal panel and in the absence of participation by the appellant or any of the persons adversely affected by the proceedings. Whether or not the appellant was the duly nominated candidate of the 2nd respondent from the result of primary election held on 02/12/2014 declared at the venue of the primary election, coupled with the forwarding of the appellant’s name to the 3rd respondent, and if the answer is in the affirmative, whether the subsequent forwarding of the 1st respondent’s name by the 2nd respondent to the 3rd respondent was in violation of Sections 33, 35 and 87 of the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended). Whether or not the 1st respondent had breached a fundamental requirement of a valid nomination in view of his failure to comply with Section 31(2) of the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended) having filed an invalid Form CF001, Exhibit DK12. Whether or not the decision of the lower Court was supported by the weight of evidence tendered in the case.

 

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

CASES CITED

---

Not Available

 

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

Electoral Act 2010 (as amended)

Evidence Act, 2011

Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rule, 2009|

 

---

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT

---