CORAM
SOWEMIMO, CHIEF JUSTICE,NIGERIA
BELLO, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT
TAYLOR JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
SOWEMIMO, CHIEF JUSTICE,NIGERIA
BELLO, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT
TAYLOR JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
MR. IKWULEMENZE MAZICO HENRY
1.MR. EXAMPLE BRIGGS (Chairman, Egbema Youths Association Electoral Committee, 2018) 2.HON. VINCENT NNEBUA (Member, Egbema Youths Association Electoral Committee, 2018) 3.MR. AFAM NWARIBE (Member, Egbema Youths Association Electoral Committee, 2018) 4.MR. GIFT NWANOKA (Secretary, Egbema Youths Association Electoral Committee, 2018) 5.MR. ABBAH CITYRESPONDENTS (Member, Egbema Youths Association Electoral Committee, 2018) 6.MR. HOPE ORDINIOHA (Member, Egbema Youths Association Electoral Committee, 2018) 7.MR. GODSTIME AMUGO (Member, Egbema Youths Association Electoral Committee, 2018) 8.MR. OHAGWAZUA STANLEY MADUKA (Purported Presidential Winner of Egbema Youths Association Election of the 22nd December, 2018).
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The Appellant commenced this action through an Originating summons against the Respondents wherein he sought for reliefs against the Respondents mainly on the question of the qualification of the 8th Respondent to contest the election of Egbema Youths Association, 2018; for a declaration that the 8th Respondent did not hold the Senior School Certificate Examination and as such was not qualified to contest the election into the office of the President of Egbema Youths Association held on 22nd December, 2018; and Orders declaring the Appellant the winner of the election. The Respondents filed their Counter Affidavit in Opposition to the Affidavit in Support of the Originating Summons while the 5th – 7th Defendants (Respondents) later opted out of the Counter Affidavit and filed a separate Counter Affidavit. Further affidavit and further Counter affidavit were later filed by the parties. The Appellant’s claim was that the 1st to 7th Respondents as the Electoral Committee acted contrary to the constitution of Egbema Youth Association by allowing the 8th Respondent to contest the 2018 election of the Association when he (8th Respondent) did not possess a valid SSCE (Senior School Certificate Examination) as required by the Constitution of Egbema Youths Association. The 8th Respondent asserted that this claim was wrong and not supported by the constitution of the Association and that he was qualified and eligible to contest the election and was rightly and properly declared the winner of the election which he won. He denied all allegations of certificate forgery. At the end of the trial, the lower Court held that the Appellant’s case was devoid of merit and dismissed same, whereupon the Appellant commenced this appeal through the Notice of Appeal containing eight grounds of appeal. The Respondents filed a Notice of Preliminary Objection in their brief of argument on the ground that the Appellant’s brief of argument is incompetent having been filed out of time without the leave of this Court.
HELD
Preliminary Objection Dismissed, Appeal Dismissed
ISSUES
ISSUES: 1. Whether the lower court, in determining which version of the Egbema Youths Constitution is authentic was right when it abandoned the Constitution of Egbema Youths Association and other documents placed before it as exhibit and relied on a purported Constitution of Egbema Youths Association filed in a different case before him by different parties. 2.Whether the lower court was right when it held that whether or not the 8th Defendant (now Respondent) is a holder of Senior Secondary Certificate Examination (SSCE) is immaterial to his status as a candidate in the election conducted in December, 2018? 3.Whether the lower court was right when it held that there is uncontradicted affidavit evidence before the court that the 8th Defendant(now Respondent) obtained a Senior Secondary School Certificate from Egbema Grammar School, Okwuzi, Okwuzi Egbema in 1994 and then up held his qualification to run for the questioned election. 4.Whether the lower court was right in dismissing the Appellant’s suit for being unmeritorious. 5. Whether the lower court was right in failing to pronounce on the issue of non qualification of the 8th Respondent in terms of age as contended before it by the Appellant?
RATIONES DECIDENDI
PRINCIPLE OF INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES – INTERPRETATION OF PLAIN AND UNAMBIGUOUS WORDS IN A STATUTE
“For the avoidance of any doubt Order 19 Rule 2 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2016 provided that;
“2.The Appellant shall within forty five days of the Record of Appeal from the court below file in the court a written brief, being a succinct statement of his argument in the appeal.”
“It is now well established principle of interpretation of statutes that where the words used in the statute are plain and unambiguous they should be accorded their ordinary meaning except where this may lead to any absurdity. See Olanrewaju V. Gov. Of Oyo State (1992) 11/12 SCNJ 92; Nwakire V. C.O.P (1992) 6 SCNJ1; Egbe V. Yusuf (1992) LPELR-1035 (SC). –
GROUND OF APPEAL – A GROUND OF APPEAL MUST ARISE FROM OR RELATE TO THE DECISION OF THE COURT APPEALED AGAINST
“It is trite that an appeal is a challenge against the decision of a trial court and is never based on what the court has not decided. A ground of appeal must therefore arise from or relate to the decision of the court appealed against. Consequently any ground of appeal that does not relate to the judgment of the lower court as well as the issue based on the ground of appeal is incompetent and must be struck out. See Oredoyin V. Arowold (1989) 4 NWLR (PT.114) 172; Okonobor V. Edegbe Trans. Ltd (2010) 40 NSCQR 331”.-
ACADEMIC ISSUES – COURTS ARE NOT TO EMBARK ON ACADEMIC ISSUES
“On issue five that the lower court did not pronounce on the appellant’s qualification on his age, it is obvious that it will amount to an academic pursuit to again go on with that matter of qualification after the court had decided fully that the 8th Respondent was qualified to contest the election. The law is quite trite that courts do not embark on deciding academic issues. See Attorney General Of The Federation V. ANPP (2003) 18 NWLR (PT.851) 182. –
CASES CITED
Not Available
STATUTES REFERRED TO
Court of Appeal Rules, 2016|