LAM-ADESINA ADEDAPO & ANOR V INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION & ORS

Legalpedia Citation: (2023-12) Legalpedia 36383 (CA)

In the Court of Appeal

Holden At Ibadan

Thu Dec 21, 2023

Suit Number: CA/IB/EP/HR/OY/26/2023

CORAM

Elfrieda Oluwayemisi Williams-Dawodu Justice, Court Appeal

Muhammad Ibrahim Sirajo Justice, Court of Appeal

Abdul-Azeez Waziri Justice, Court of Appeal

PARTIES

LAM-ADESINA ADEDAPO
ALL PROGRESSIVE CONGRESS (APC)

APPELLANTS

INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION
ADIGUN ABASS ADEKUNLE
PEOPLES DEMOCRATIC PARTY

RESPONDENTS

AREA(S) OF LAW

APPEAL, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, ELECTION PETITION, EVIDENCE, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The 1st and 2nd Appellants were the candidate and sponsoring political party for the House of Representatives Election conducted on the 25th February, 2023 and 15th April, 2023 respectively. The 2nd and 3rd Respondents were the candidate and sponsoring political party to the same seat aforesaid held on the 25th day of February and 15th day of April, 2023 respectively. The 1st Respondent was the statutory and constitutional body saddled with the responsibility of conducting elections to various offices in the country.

The 1st Respondent conducted Election for the coveated seat on 25/2/2023, but could not declare an outright winner and a supplementary Election was conducted on the 15th day of April, 2023. At the close of the polls (supplementary election) the 1st Respondent declared and returned the 2nd Respondent as the duly elected member of Ibadan North East/Ibadan South East Federal Constituency.

Unhappy with the outcome of the Election, the Petitioners/Appellants filed a joint petition before the Nationional and State Houses of Assembly Election Tribunal sitting in Ibadan on the grounds that the 2nd Respondent was at the time of the election not qualified to contest the election and was not duly elected by majority of lawful votes cast at the election. They also claimed that the election was invalid by reason of non-compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act, 2022.

In a considered judgment, the Petition was dismissed.

Miffed by the said judgment, the Appellants approached this Court and made the instant appeal.

HELD

Appeal dismissed

ISSUES

Whether the Honourable Court has jurisdiction to entertain this appeal when the said appeal is academic? (Preliminary Objection)
Whether the Honourable Tribunal was not right when it dismissed the Petition on the ground that the sole ground thereof is a pre-election matter and, consequently, statute-barred?
Whether the Honourable Tribunal was not right when it dismissed the Petition, having held that the Petitioners woefully failed to discharge the primary legal burden of proof on them and that the Petition is baseless and lacks merit? (Distilled from Grounds 6-12 of the Grounds of Appeal?
Considering the whole circumstance of the case, is the cost of N500,000.00K only awarded in favour of the 3rd Respondent not a proper exercise of the discretionary powers of the Honourable Tribunal to award costs?

RATIONES DECIDENDI

PRELIMINARY OBJECTION – CONDUCT OF OCURTS WHERE A PRELIMINARY OBJECTION HAS BEEN RAISED

In view of the fact that the 3rd Respondent filed a Notice of Preliminary Objection, the usual practice always is to determine the objection first so as to know which line of action next the Court shall adopt. – Per Abdul-Azeez Waziri, JCA

DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE – DUTY OF A PARTY RELYING ON DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE

The Apex Court in Ladoja vs. Ajimobi {2016)10 NWLR {Pt.1519) 87 SC pp. 145 -146 Paras. H – F held that:

“Documentary evidence no matter its relevance, cannot on its own speak for itself without the aid of an explanation relating its existence. Thus the purpose and work of documents tendered in Court must be demonstrated through a witness. The duty lies on the party who wants to rely on a document in support of his case to produce, tender and link or demonstrate the documents tendered to specific parts of his case.”

The fact that a document was tendered in the course of proceedings does not relieve a party from satisfying the legal duty placed on him to link the document with his case. – Per Abdul-Azeez Waziri, JCA

EVIDENCE – WHETHER A PARTY WHO DIDN’T MAKE A DOCUMENT IS COMPETENT TO LEAD EVIDENCE ON IT – THE STATUS OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IN COURT

A person who is not the maker of a document is not competent to lead evidence on the document. Any evidence so adduced by him as to the contents of those documents would be hearsay and therefore inadmissible. See the case of Ladoja vs. Ajimobi {supra). Documents, bear fluent and articulate testament to the underpinning of what transpired at the polling units and it would be abundantly verified, substantiated, and demonstrated where makers of such documents speak to them. See the case of Aiki vs. Idowu (2006) 9 NWLR (Pt.984) 47@ 65 where it was held thus:

“Documents when tendered and admitted in Court are like words uttered and do not speak for themselves. They are even more reliable and authentic than words from the vocal cord of man because they are neither transient nor subject to distortion and misinterpretation but remain permanent and indelible through the ages. The documents bear eloquent testimony to what transpired”. – Per Abdul-Azeez Waziri, JCA