CORAM
PARTIES
1.MRS OLVADE BEMA MADAYI 2.ALL PROGRESSIVES CONGRESS (APC) APPELLANTS
KWAMOTI BITRUS LAORI & ORS RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The 1st Appellant was a candidate of the 2nd Appellant at the election into the Federal House of Representatives for the Demsa/Numan/Lamurde Federal Constituency held on 23rd February, 2019. The 1st Respondent contested the election on the platform of the 2nd Respondent. Eleven other candidates contested the election under various political parties and the 1st Respondent was declared winner of the election by the 3rd Respondent. The Appellants were dissatisfied with the declaration of the 1st Respondent as winner of the election and approached the National and State Houses of Assembly Election Petition Tribunal sitting at Yola, Adamawa State for redress. The Appellants sought for the following declarations that the election of the 1stRespondent as Honourable Member representing Demsa/Numan/Lamurde Federal Constituency was invalid by reason of corrupt practices; was invalid by reason of substantial non compliance with the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended); that the 1st Respondent, Kwamoti Bitrus Laori was not duly elected as Honourable Member representing Demsa/Numan/Lamurde Federal Constituency by majority of lawful votes cast at the election held on the 23rd February 2019; an order mandating the 3rd Respondent to withdraw the Certificate of Return handed to the 1st Respondent, the election into the Demsa/Numan/Lamurde Federal Constituency held on the 23rd day of February, 2019 having been marred by corrupt practices and non-compliance with the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended); an order mandating the 3rd Respondent to conduct a fresh election in the nullified/affected polling units, wards and/or Local Government Area for the Demsa/Numan/Lamurde Federal Constituency election held on the 23rd day of February,2019 amongst other reliefs. The Appellant called a number of witnesses and tendered a sea of document from the bar, while the Respondent testified in his own defence and called no witness, stating in his defence that the election was conducted in substantial compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended).The 2nd and 3rd Respondents did not defend the action. After considering the evidence adduced before it and written addresses of learned counsel for the parties, the Tribunal dismissed the petition. Dissatisfied with the Tribunal’s decision, the Appellants have proceeded to this court by a Notice of Appeal contending that the Tribunal acted in error when it held that the Appellant did not prove any act of non-compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act.
HELD
Appeal Dismissed
ISSUES
Whether the Tribunal was right when it held that the Appellants failed to prove the allegations of non-compliance with the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended) which they made in their Petition. Whether the Tribunal failed to evaluate the evidence of the witnesses called by the parties and erred in holding that the evidence of PW2, PW3, PW4, PW7 was hearsay evidence.
RATIONES DECIDENDI
NON-COMPLIANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE ELECTORAL ACT – DUTY OF A PETITIONER WHO ALLEGES NON-COMPLIANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE ELECTORAL ACT
“The Supreme Court has noted that proof of non compliance with provisions of the Electoral Act in the conduct of an election which rests squarely on the petitioner is a herculean task and the decision of a petitioner to file a petition seeking the nullification of an election on grounds of non compliance is not a decision to be taken lightly. This is because the results declared by INEC are prima facie correct and the onus is on the petitioner to prove the contrary. Where a petitioner complains of noncompliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act (as amended), he has a duty to prove it polling unit by polling unit, ward by ward and the standard required is proof on the balance of probabilities and not minimal proof. He must show figures that the adverse party was credited with as a result of the non compliance, necessary Form and election materials not stamped/signed by Presiding Officer. He must establish that non compliance was substantial and that it affected the result of the election. It is only then that the Respondents are to lead evidence. See Ngige V. I.N.E.C (2015) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1440) 281 at 313 F-H, Emmanuel V. Umana (2016) 2 SCNJ 371 at 682 and Ucha V. Elechi (2012) 13 NLWR (Pt. 1317) 330 at 359” –
ELECTION PETITION – INGREDIENTS A PETITIONER MUST PROVE IN AN ACTION CHALLENGING THE RETURN OF A CANDIDATE IN AN ELECTION FOR REASON OF CORRUPT PRACTICES OR NON-COMPLIANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE ELECTORAL ACT
“Where the ground for challenging the return of a candidate in an election is for reason of corrupt practices or non compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act, the petitioner must prove:
That the corrupt practice or non compliance took place and
That the corrupt practices or
Non compliance substantially affected the result of the election. See Nyesom V. Peterside (2016) (supra). –
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE – DUTY OF A PARTY TENDERING DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IN COURT
“It is the law that when a document or documents is/are tendered in court, the person tendering the document must in open court guide the court by oral evidence on the purpose it is tendered or what it relates to. As Muhammed JSC in Maku V. Al-Makura (2016) 1 SCNJ 481at 509 put it:
“All facts that entitled the party to the courts’ indulgence must be demonstrated in open court to ensure that in arriving at its decision on the matter the court is as detached and neutral as anyone could easily see. The examination of exhibits outside the court and behind the litigants certainly stands in the way of these necessary and laudable traits.”
The law requires that the petitioner must call eye witnesses. Those who were present when the documents were made. See Abubakar V. Yar’adua (2008) 19 NWLR (Pt. 1120) 1 at 155, Andrew V. INEC (2018) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1625) 507 at 557 and Okereke Umahi (2016) 11 NWR(Pt. 1524) 438 at 4951. No witness/es was/were called to demonstrate in open court the purpose of the documents tendered from the bar. The Tribunal could not therefore touch any of them –
DECLARATORY RELIEFS – BASIS FOR THE GRANT OF DECLARATORY RELIEFS
“Learned counsel ought to have known that the Appellants were seeking for declaratory reliefs which are not granted as a matter of course and on a platter of gold. They are not granted even on admission. They are only granted where the party seeking the declaratory relief proves to the satisfaction of the court that he is entitled to the declaration. See Chukwumah V. S.P.D.C. (Nig.) Ltd (1993) LPELR 864 SC and Commissioner of Police Taraba State &Anor V. Daboh&Anor (2019) LPELR- 47215 CA. –
CASES CITED
Not Available
STATUTES REFERRED TO
Court of Appeal Rules, 2016|Electoral Act, 2010 (As Amended)|
CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT