MR. JOSEPH WAYA v. PROF. PRISCILLA DENEN AKAA & ORS

Legalpedia Citation: (2023-07) Legalpedia 56491 (SC)

In the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Mon Mar 6, 2023

Suit Number: SC.CV/147/2023

CORAM

Adamu Jauro JSC

Chima Centus Nweze JSC

PARTIES

1. JOSEPH WAYA

APPELLANTS

PROF. PRISCILLA DENEN AKAA & ORS

RESPONDENTS

AREA(S) OF LAW

APPEAL, EVIDENCE, ELECTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The case claim of the first respondent is that, she, [the first respondent], as well as the appellant herein, participated in the second respondent’s Gubernatorial Primary election to nominate its candidate for the Benue State Governorship Election in the 2023 General Elections. The said primary election was held on May 28th, 2022, wherein the appellant emerged winner. She contended however that on that day, the 2^nd respondent willfully breached the mandatory, statutory provisions and guidelines with respect to the organization and conduct of the office of the Governor of Benue State in the 2023 Governorship Election  by allowing only 321 delegates of the 861 delegates to participate in the election thereby disenfranchising majority of the delegates. The Appellants denied these claims.

The second Respondent took the matter to court before the Federal High court Makurdi Judicial Division (trial court).  The trial Court, by its judgment delivered on November 14th, 2022, dismissed the first respondent’s suit for lacking in merit

The first respondent appealed to the Court of Appeal, Markurdi Judicial Division, and this Court, by its judgment, delivered on January 23rd, 2023, allowed the appeal and nullified the second respondent’s gubernatorial primary election held on May 29th, 2022. Aggrieved, the Appellant brought this appeal before the Supreme Court while the first Respondent raised a preliminary Objection.

HELD

Appeal allowed

ISSUES

Ø Whether or not the lower Court was right when it held that the first respondent proved her case of disenfranchisement of delegates at the second respondent’s Gubernatorial Primary Elections held on May 29th, 2022, by credible uncontroverted evidence?

Ø Whether the lower Court was not wrong in holding that the evaluation of facts done by the trial Court was weak, skewed and set up to demolish the case of the first respondent?

RATIONES DECIDENDI

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION – ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION MUST RISE FROM A COMPETENT GROUND OF APPEAL

By way of prefatory remarks, it may be noted that issues for determination are road maps for any hearing in a Court of law. They draw the attention of the Court, and the parties, to the precise matters which are in dispute. They are, basically, points of disagreement drawn from the material proposition of fact or of law, to which the parties are at variance, Ejowhomu v Edok Eter Mandilas Ltd [1986] 9 SC 41, 102-103; [1986] 5 NWLR (pt 39) 1; Adejumo v Ayantegbe [1989] 3 NWLR (pt 110) 47, 130; Momodu v Momoh [1991] 1 NWLR (pt 169) 608.

​An issue for determination, in an appeal, must arise from a competent ground of appeal. Where a ground of appeal is incompetent, the issue formulated therefrom is, ipso jure, incompetent, Shanu v Afribank (Nig) Plc. [2002] 17 NWLR (pt 795) 181; Ibator v Barakuro ​ [2007] 9 NWLR (pt 1040) 475; James v INEC [2015] 12 NWLR (pt pt 1474) 538.

Since the essence of a ground of appeal is to define the complaint against the decision being appealed against, as far as the ground of appeal gives the respondent the necessary notice of the grudges the appellant has against the decision on appeal and leaves room for no surprises on the issues to be raised on the appeal, the ground of appeal is valid and competent, Dagaci of Dere v. Dagaci of Ebwa [2006] 7 NWLR (pt. 979) 382; Ehinlanwo v. Oke [2008] 16 NWLR (pt. 1113) 357; Ugboaja v. Akitoye-Sowemimo (2008) 16 NWLR (pt. 1113) 278.

​Similarly, when an issue for determination is formulated from both a competent ground of appeal and an incompetent ground of appeal and argued together, both grounds would be struck out as the Court is not invested with the duty of sifting from the arguments so proffered, the ones relating to the competent ground of appeal, Ayisa v. Akanji [1995] 7 NWLR (pt. 406) 129, (1995) 10 SCNJ 55, 62-63; Ogoyi v. Umagba (1995) 10 SCNJ 55, 62-63, [1995] 9 NWLR (pt. 419) 283; Tsokwa Motors Nigeria Ltd. v. Union Bank of Nigeria Ltd. [1996] 9 NWLR (pt. 471) 129, (1996) 9-10 SCNJ 294, 299-300; Mark Kele v. Nwerebere [1998] 3 NWLR (pt. 543) 515, (1998) 3 SCNJ 84, 89; Shuaibu v. Nigeria-Arab Bank Ltd. [1998] 5 NWLR (pt. 551) 582, (1998) 4 SCNJ 109, 118-119; and Agbaka v. Amadi [1998] 11 NWLR (pt. 572) 16, (1998) 7 SCNJ 367, 374. Without a competent ground of appeal, there would be no issue for the determination of an appeal. – Per C. C. Nweze, JSC

ISSUE FOR DETERMINATION – ISSUE FOR DETERMINATION CAN BE DISTILLED FROM MORE THAN ONE GROUND OF APPEAL

It is also the law that an issue can be distilled or formulated from more than one ground of appeal, ENL Consortium Ltd. v. D. B. N Ltd. [2020] 8 NWLR (pt. 1725) 179, 196, paras D-G.

If it was only one issue that was formulated, and that issue did not arise from any of the grounds of appeal filed, then the entire appeal becomes incompetent and must be struck out, Onifade v. Olayiwola [1990] 7 NWLR (pt. 161) 130 at 157 and Momodu v. Momoh [1991] 1 NWLR (pt. 169) 608 at 620- 621; Oniah v. Onyia (1989) 1 NWLR (pt. 99)5 14; and Labiyi v. Anretiola and Ors. [1992] 8 NWLR (pt. 258) 139. – Per C. C. Nweze, JSC.

DISENFRANCHISEMENT – MEANING AND PROOF OF DISENFRANCHISEMENT

Talking about disenfranchisement, a voter is disenfranchised when his right to vote is denied him. This Court in Udom v. Umana (No. 1) (2016) 12 NWLR (pt. 1526) 179, 247, made it clear that the Court would be satisfied on the proof of disenfranchisement of voters when such voters give clear evidence that they were duly registered for the election but were not given the opportunity to cast their votes.

In this regard, it is necessary for such voters to tender in evidence their respective voters’ cards and registers of voters from each affected polling unit to confirm the allegation of non-voting. Most important of all is the need for such disenfranchised voters to give evidence to show that if they had been given the opportunity to vote, the candidate of the political party of their choice would have won the election, Ucha v. Elechi [2012] 13 NWLR (pt. 1317) 330; Oke v. Mimiko (No.2) [2014] 1 NWLR (pt. 1388) 332; Omajali v. David [2019] 17 NWLR (pt. 1702) 438, 446; Ngige v. INEC [2015] 1 NWLR (pt. 1440) 281. – Per C. C. Nweze, JSC

ASSESSMENT OF EVIDENCE – TRIAL COURT’S PRIMARY FUNCTION OF ASSESSMENT OF EVIDENCE

the trial Court, which has the primary function of assessment of evidence, Aminu v Hassan [2014] 5 NWLR (pt 1400) 287; Mbanefo v Molokwu [2014] 6 NWLR (pt 1403) 377, 418; Corporate Ideal Insurance Ltd v Ajaokuta Steel Co Ltd [2014] 7 NWLR (pt 1405)165, 188; Anyafulu v Meka [2014] 7 NWLR (pt 1406) 396, 424, – Per C. C. Nweze, JSC

EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE – APPEALLATE COURT CAN ONLY INTERFERE IF TRIAL COURT FAILED IN EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE

It has long been settled that an appellate Court would only be justified to interfere with the lower Court’s evaluation of evidence if the said Court failed to evaluate, or did not properly evaluate, the material evidence placed before it. Indeed, appellate Courts always advise themselves that they are not permitted to embark upon their own evaluation of the evidence of the parties in a case and proceed to make their own findings thereupon.

​This can only be done when it has been established that the trial Court’s findings on the issues were perverse or otherwise faulty, Okpiri v Jonah (1961) All NLR 102, 104-105; (1961) 1 SCNLR 174; Maja v Stocco (1968) 1 All NLR 141, 149; Woluchem v Gudi [1981] 5 SC 291, 295 and 326; Ikoku and Ors v Ekeukwu and Ors (1995) LPELR-SC.211/1989; [1995] 7 NWLR (Pt 410) 637 etc. – Per C. C. Nweze, JSC

ASCRIPTION OF PROBATIVE VALUE ON EVIDENCE – ASCRIPTION OF PROBATIVE VALUE ON EVIDENCE IS THE FUNCTION OF THE TRIAL COURT

the position of the law of evidence is trite that evaluation of evidence and ascription of probative value to same are the primary functions of the trial Court which saw, heard and assessed the witnesses as they testified, Buhari v INEC (2008) LPELR-814 (SC), it is, therefore, not the business of the appellate Court to substitute its views for those of the trial Court, where that Court, [the trial Court], had unquestionably discharged its functions, as required by law, Ojokolobo v. Alamu [1998] 9 NWLR (pt. 565) 226; Sha v. Kwan (2000) 5 SC 178. – Per C. C. Nweze, JSC

DECLARATORY RELIEFS – DECLARATORY RELIEFS ARE ONLY GRANTED WHEN CREDIBLE EVIDENCE HAS BEEN LED

Above all, declaratory reliefs are not granted as a matter of course and on platter of gold. They are only granted when credible evidence has been led by the plaintiff or person seeking such reliefs, Anyanru v. Mandilas Ltd (2007) 4 SCNJ 288; Chukwuma v. S.P.D.C. (Nig.) Ltd (1993) LPELR- 864 (SC) and Matanmi and Ors v. Dada and Anor (2013) LPELR-19929 (SC). – Per C. C. Nweze, JSC

EVIDENCE – WHEN EVIDENCE HAS BEEN PROPERLY EVALUATED BY TRIAL COURT

I am of the firm view that the trial Court, having evaluated, and rightly so, the evidence before it, the lower Court had no basis to interfere with same having failed to show any impropriety in the evaluation of evidence done by the trial Court, Okpiri v Jonah (supra); Maja v Stocco (supra); Woluchem v Gudi (supra); Ikoku and Ors v Ekeukwu and Ors (supra); Ojokolobo v. Alamu (supra); Sha v. Kwan (supra). – Per C. C. Nweze, JSC

EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE – EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE IS THE PRIMARY DUTY OF TRIAL COURT

The position of the law is well settled that the evaluation of evidence and ascription of probative value to evidence are the primary duties of the trial Court which had the advantage of seeing and assessing the credibility of the witnesses. Where the Court of first instance has properly evaluated the evidence, the appellate Court which only appraises the cold facts on the printed record has no business substituting its own views for those of the trial Court. The appellate Court may only interfere if it finds that the finding of the trial Court is not supported by evidence adduced or some dereliction of duty in the evaluation of evidence by the trial Court. See Musa vs. State (2019) LPELR- 46350(SC); Jolayemi & Ors. vs. Alaoye & Anor. (2004) 12 NWLR (Pt.887) 322; Federal Republic of Nigeria vs. Iweka (2011) LPELR-9350 (SC); Nagogo vs. CPC & Ors. (2012) LPELR-15521 (SC). – Per J. I. Okoro, JSC

DECLARATORY RELIEFS – PLIANTIFF MUST PROVE AND SUCCEED ON STRENGTH OF HIS CASE TO BE GRANTED DECLARATORY RELIEFS

I wish to further reiterate the already well-established position that declaratory reliefs are not granted even on admission by the defendant. The plaintiff who sought for such relief must prove and succeed on the strength of his case and not rely on the weakness of the defence. Where the Plaintiff has been unable to lead credible evidence to establish his entitlement to the declaratory relief sought, he must fail even if the defendant’s defence is weak. See Emenike vs. PDP (2012) 50 NSCQR 94 at 130; C. P. C. vs. INEC (2012)1 NWLR (Pt.1280)106 at 131; Mohammed vs. Wammako & Ors. (2017) LPELR- 42667 (SC); Onyero & Anor. vs. Nwadike (2011) LPELR – 8147 (SC). – Per J. I. Okoro, JSC

BURDEN ON PROOF – BURDEN OF PROOF IS ALWAYS INITIALLY ON PLAINTIFF IN CIVIL CASES

In all civil cases, the initial duty is always on the Plaintiff to prove his case and it is not until that has been done that the burden shifts to the Defendant. See IHEANACHO V. CHIGERE (2004) 17 NWLR (PT. 901) 130; ITAUMA V. AKPE-IME (2000) LPELR – 1557 (SC); COP & ANOR V. OGUNTAYO (1993) LPELR- 886 (SC). – Per Adamu Jauro, JSC

BURDEN TO DISPROVE – BURDEN TO DISPROVE ARISES WHEN SAME HAS BEEN PROVED

The burden to rebut or disprove a piece of evidence only arises when same has been proved. – Per Adamu Jauro, JSC

DECLARATORY RELIEF – GRANT OR REFUSAL OF DECLARATORY RELIEFS IS AT THE DISCRETION OF THE COURT

Furthermore, the 1st respondent sought for the grant of a declaratory relief and an injunctive relief which was dependent on the grant of the declaratory relief. The grant or refusal of declaratory reliefs is at the discretion of the Court acting judicially and judiciously. A Plaintiff seeking the grant of declaratory reliefs must succeed on the strength of his own case and not on the weakness of the Defendant’s case. See ADAMU V. NIGERIAN AIRFORCE & ANOR (2022) LPELR – 56587 (SC); AJI V. C.B.D.A. (2015) 16 NWLR (PT. 1486) 554; EMENIKE V. PDP & ORS (2012) LPELR – 7802 (SC). – Per Adamu Jauro, JSC

CASES CITED

STATUTES REFERRED TO

1. Electoral Act, 2022,
2. INEC Regulations and Guidelines for the Conduct of Political Parties Primaries
3. Guidelines for the Conduct of Primaries of APGA
4. Evidence Act 2011

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT