Legalpedia Citation: (2012) Legalpedia (SC) 84567
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Tue Nov 20, 2012
Suit Number: SC.410/2012
CORAM
CHRISTOPHER MITCHELL JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
CHUKWUMA-ENEH SULEIMAN GALADIMA JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
OLUFUNLOLA OYELOLA ADEKEYE JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
1. MARKUS NATINA GUNDIRI
2. ALHAJI ABDULRAZAK SAAD NAMDAS
APPELLANTS
REAR ADMIRAL MURTALA H. NYAKO & ORS
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
At the end of the Governorship election conducted in Adamawa State, the 1st Respondent was declared winner of the election. Dissatisfied, the Appellants and the political party filed a petition at the Governorship Election Petition Tribunal, Yola. The Tribunal dismissed the petition. On further appeal, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.
HELD
Appeal dismissed
ISSUES
1.Whether their Lordships of the court below were right in upholding the decision of the Tribunal in refusing to give credence to the evidence of those witnesses constituted hearsay evidence in that the witnesses failed to distinguish between what they saw themselves and what they were told by their polling agents quite apart from the fact that some of the depositions made in Hausa language were translated into English language by unidentified persons who failed to sign the jurat to show that the makers of the depositions knew the contents thereof.?
2.Whether their Lordships of the court below were right in upholding the decision of the Tribunal that there was no duty on the respondents to call evidence in rebuttal of what had not been established by the appellants since the non-compliance alleged was not proved and that the petition was predicated largely on criminal allegations which were not established beyond reasonable doubt apart from the fact that both civil and criminal allegations were so intertwined in the pleadings as to make the doctrine of severance inapplicable.?
3.Whether their Lordships of the court below were right when they upheld the decision of the Tribunal rejecting the evidence of PW 66 and his report exhibit 759 on the ground, amongst others, that he was not an expert, had not witnessed the election and had no expert knowledge or any knowledge superior to that of the judges of the tribunal and that his evidence constituted inadmissible opinion evidence.?
4.Whether their Lordships of the court below were right when they ruled that appeals are founded on the ratio decidendi of the judgment and that the complaint that the learned judges of the tribunal preferred the issues formulated by the 3rd respondent to those formulated by the appellant did not arise from any of the decidendi of the judgment of the tribunal and therefore upheld the decision of the tribunal to determine the petition on the basis of issues formulated by the 3rd respondent as opposed to those formulated by the appellant.?
5.Whether their Lordships of the court below were right when they upheld the decision of the tribunal to the effect that forms EC8As, EC8Bs, EC8Cs, EC8Ds and voters registers and other electoral documents tendered from the bar by counsel to the appellants had no evidential value on the ground that they were dumped on the tribunal not having been tied or related to the appellants’ case through witnesses.?
6.Whether the learned justices of the court below erred in law when they dismissed the appeal on the ground that it was completely lacking in merit.?
7.Whether the learned justices of the court below upheld without justification or due consideration the decision of the tribunal refusing to give probative value to the evidence of PW1 – PW65 or whether they did so after due consideration.?
RATIONES DECIDENDI
COURT OF EVIDENCE
“The trial court is a court of evidence and therefore has the advantages of seeing the credibility of witnesses and their demeanours.” Per Ogunbiyi, J.S.C
PRECONDITION TO THE EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION IN A TRIBUNAL
“The law is well settled that as a precondition to the exercise of jurisdiction, the witness statements are to accompany the petition to be filed” Per Ogunbiyi, J.S.C
PARTICULARS TO BE SUPPLIED BY A DEPONENT
“The particulars of the person who supplied the information with the name, address, time, place and circumstance must be stated by the deponent. The deponent must also state his believe in the information to be true.” Per Ogunbiyi, J.S.C
WHERE CIVIL ALLEGATIONS ARE SEVERABLE FROM CRIMINAL ALLEGATION; A PARTY IS ENTITLED TO SUCCEED ON HIS CIVIL ALLEGATION IF PROVED
“The law is trite and well settled that in situation where civil allegations are severable from criminal allegation; a party is entitled to succeed on his civil allegation if proved.” Per Ogunbiyi, J.S.C
WITNESS DEPOSITIONS TO BE INDIVIDUALLY IDENTIFIED WITH THE MAKER
“The law desires that witness depositions are to be individually identified with the maker.” Per Ogunbiyi, J.S.C
APPLICATION OF THE DOCTRINE OF SEVERANCE
“For the doctrine of severance to apply, there must be clear and distinctive compartmentalization or separation of criminal allegations from those which are civil in nature. In other words, while in the civil atmosphere there should be no allusion to criminal assertions, so does it also apply to civil assertions. The two cannot be interwoven or criss-crossing.” Per Ogunbiyi, J.S.C
DUTY ON PETITIONER TO PROVE NON-COMPLIANCE WITH PROVISIONS OF THE ELECTORAL ACT BASED ON POLLING UNIT BY POLLING UNIT
“Where a petitioner complains of non-compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act, he has a duty to prove the non-compliance alleged based on polling unit by polling unit.” Per Ogunbiyi, J.S.C
EFFECT OF SECTION 115 OF THE EVIDENCE ACT VIS-A-VIZ DEPOSITIONS
“By the provision of section 115 of the Evidence Act, the law treats facts derived from personal knowledge differently from those derived from information obtained from some other source(s). The implication is that a deponent ought not to lump facts derived from personal knowledge with those obtained from other sources without distinguishing between the two.” Per Ogunbiyi, J.S.C
ONUS OF EVALUATING EVIDENCE
“It is trite law that the onus of evaluating evidence is stricto senso that of the trial court and the appellate court should not be seen to interfere therewith except where there is evidence of failure by the trial court to properly evaluate or where there is a miscarriage of justice.” Per Ogunbiyi, J.S.C
CASES CITED
Okereke v. Yaradua [2008] 12 NWLR (Pt. 1100) 95FGN V. AICLtd [2006] 4NWLR (Pt. 970) 337Doma v. INEC [2012] ALL FWLR (Pt. 628) 813Ucha Anor. V. Elechi & 1774 Ors [2012] 3SC (Pt. 1) 26Nwobodo v. Onoh [1984] NSCC 1AD v.Fayose [2005] 10 NWLR (Pt. 932) 151
STATUTES REFERRED TO
Evidence Act 2004