CORAM
ABIMBOLA OSARUGUE OBASEKI-ADEJUMO JUSTICE. COURT OF APPEAL
AMINA ADAMU AUGIE JUSTICE OF THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NIGERIA
CHINWE EUGENIA IYIZOBA JUSTICE OF THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NIGERIA
AMINA ADAMU AUGIE JUSTICE OF THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NIGERIA
ABIMBOLA OSARUGUE OBASEKI-ADEJUMO JUSTICE. COURT OF APPEAL
AMINA ADAMU AUGIE JUSTICE OF THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NIGERIA
ABIMBOLA OSARUGUE OBASEKI-ADEJUMO JUSTICE. COURT OF APPEAL
PARTIES
1. MUYIDEEN ABDUL-RAHEEM TEJUMADE2. PEOPLES DEMOCRATIC PARTY (PDP) APPELLANTS
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
ACTION, APPEAL, CIVIL LAW, COURT, ELECTORAL LAW, LAW OF EVIDENCE, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
HELD
Appeal Dismissed
ISSUES
1.Whether the trial Tribunal was right to hold that the Appellants failed to discharge the burden of proof that, at the time of the election conducted on 11/4/2015, the 1st Respondent was not qualified to contest the election for the seat of Ojo Constituency II of the Lagos State House of Assembly?
2.Whether the trial Tribunal was not justified in striking out paragraphs 2, 3, 4, 5, 7 and 12 of the Appellant’s Reply and paragraphs- 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 19 of the 1st Petitioner’s further witness statement as amounting to amendment or adding new facts to the Petition filed by the Appellants; ?and-
3.Whether the Appellants had discharged the burden of proof entitling them to be declared winner of the election or the Tribunal can nullify the said election and order a fresh election upon allegation of irregularity and corrupt practices?
RATIONES DECIDENDI
HOSTILE WITNESS – APPROPRIATE TIME FOR MAKING AN APPLICATION TO TREAT A WITNESS AS A HOSTILE WITNESS
“The decision may be that of the Court, but it is settled that an application to treat a witness as hostile should be made as soon as it is obvious that he is hostile or his testimony will be adverse to the interest of the party. Thus, a party who fails to take such steps will be bound by the evidence of such witness, and will not be allowed to complain on appeal – see Odi v. Iyala (2004) 8 NWLR (Pt. 875) 283 SC, where Tobi, JSC observed-
“The Evidence Act anticipated this type of situation and made provision in the Act for a party to treat his own witness as hostile in relevant cases. – – In my view, the Appellants had all the opportunity to take advantage of Section 207 (Section 230) of the Evidence Act Since they did not take advantage of the provisions of the Evidence Act, they cannot repair the damage done at the trial in this Court. This Court has not the mechanical tool to effect any repairs.” PER A. A. AUGIE, J.C.A
ELECTION – APPROPRIATE PARTY TO GIVE EVIDENCE OF WHAT TRANSPIRED AT A POLLING UNIT DURING AN ELECTION
“It is the law that the best evidence of what happened at a polling unit during an election is the evidence of a polling agent [or presiding officer] who was physically present at the polling unit and who saw what transpired at the election. [Gundiri v. Nyako [2014] 2 NWLR (Pt.1391) 211]”. PER A. A. AUGIE, J.C.A –
DOCUMENT – DUTY OF A PARTY IN PLEADING THE CONTENT OF A DOCUMENT WHERE SAME IS MATERIAL
“The law is clear that where contents of a document are material, it is sufficient in any pleadings to avert to the effect thereof as briefly as possible without setting out the document unless the precise words of the document or any part thereof are material to the case – see Aminu v. Hassan (supra).” PER A. A. AUGIE, J.C.A
IMPEACHING THE CREDIT OF A WITNESS – WAYS OF IMPEACHING THE CREDIT OF A WITNESS
Section 210 of the same Evidence Act further provides as follows –
“The credit of a witness may be impeached in the following ways by any party other than the party calling him or with the consent of the Court by the party who calls him –
(a) By the evidence of persons who testify that they, from their knowledge of the witness, believe him to be unworthy of credit;
(b) By proof that the witness has been bribed, or has accepted the offer of a bribe, or has received any other corrupt inducement to give his evidence;
(c) By proof of former statements inconsistent with any part of his evidence which is liable to be contradicted”. PER A. A. AUGIE, J.C.A
COURT – THE COURT IS OBLIGED TO CONSIDER ALL CORRESPONDENCE BEFORE IT TO DETERMINE THE RELATIONSHIP
“It has been settled that in the consideration of a relationship where series of correspondences have been written, it is the duty of the court to consider all the correspondence in order to decipher the relationship, see Udeagu v. Benue Cement Co. (2006) 2 NWLR (Pt. 965) 600. In the same vein, where more than one document govern a relationship, no single document should be considered in isolation or be the sole determinant”. PER A. A. AUGIE, J.C.A
CASES CITED
STATUTES REFERRED TO
1.Electoral Act, 2010
2.Evidence Act 2011