CORAM

---

    JUSTICE. COURT OF APPEAL

AMINA ADAMU AUGIE    JUSTICE. COURT OF APPEAL

 TIJJANI ABUBAKAR    JUSTICE. COURT OF APPEAL

---

PARTIES

---

1. OLOMOWEWE H. BOLAJI2. PEOPLES’ DEMOCRATIC PARTY (PDP) APPELLANTS

---

RESPONDENTS

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Petitioner filed a petition at the National and State House of Assembly Election Petition Tribunal (Panel), Lagos seeking for some declarations amongst which are a declaration that 1st Respondent being the candidate of the 2nd Respondent in the election conducted by the 5th Respondent for the Mushin 1 constituency of the Lagos State House of Assembly on the 11th April 2015 was not on the ballot and did not participate in the said election as the notice of the party’s primaries which produced the 1st Respondent as candidate of the 2nd Respondent fell short of the period of at least 21 days required by Section 85 (1) of the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended), an order nullifying the declaration and return of the 1st Respondent as winner in the election conducted by the 5th Respondent. The Tribunal after considering the evidence of both parties dismissed the petition, the Petitioners not satisfied with the decision filed an appeal contesting same.

---

HELD

---

Appeal Dismissed

---

ISSUES

---

1.Whether the tribunal was right when it held that the 2nd Respondent complied with the provision of section 85(1) of the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended)?-

2.Whether the tribunal was right in holding that only a candidate at a primary election can complain on the conduct of the primary election?

 

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

INTERPRETATION OF STATUTE -DUTY OF THE COURT IN INTERPRETING A STATUTE

---

“I must say that the duty of a court is to interpret a statute or provision thereof by giving them their plain, ordinary and literal meaning except where such an interpretation will lead to a manifest absurdity. See Abubakar V Yaradua EPR 1 AT 95; National Assembly V President Federal Republic Of Nigeria [2003] 9 NWLR (Pt 824) 104; Ray V Maduabu [2006] ALL FWLR (Pt 310) 1637.” PER. A. O. OBASEKI-ADEJUMO, J.C.A

---

INTERPRETATION OF DOCUMENT- CARDINAL PRINCIPLE IN THE INTERPRETATION OF DOCUMENT

---

“In Nika Fishing Co Ltd V Lavina Coporation [2008] 16 NWLR (Pt 114) 509, Tobi JSC held to the effect that when construing documents in dispute between the two parties, the proper course is to discover the intention or contemplation of parties and not import into the contract ideas not patent on the face of the document. In Union Bank V Nwaokolo [1995] 6 NWLR (Pt 400) 127, IGUH JSC stated thus:
“It is trite that in the construction of document, the cardinal principle is that the parties are presumed to intend what they have in fact said or written down. Accordingly the words employed by them will be so construed and should be given their ordinary and plain meaning unless of course, circumstances, such as trade usage or the like, dictate that a particular construction ought to be applied in order to give effect to the particular intention envisaged by the parties.”.” PER A. O. OBASEKI-ADEJUMO, J.C.A

---

COMPUTATION OF TIME- MODE OF COMPUTATION OF TIME WITHIN WHICH TO APPEAL

---

“In calculating the length of time, it is from the date on the first notice which is about 60 days and the revised date still took it to a period still outside 21 days. To count from the 19/11/2014 would amount to saying that the first notice has been cancelled or is non-existent; this cannot be the case and would stretch the cannons of interpretation beyond reason and imagination leading to a radical and irrational interpretation of the provision. This court cannot shut its eyes to the existence and purport of Exhibit D2. To do this will be a grave miscarriage of justice.” PER A. O. OBASEKI-ADEJUMO, J.C.A

---

CASES CITED

---

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

1.Electoral Act 2010 (as amended)

2.Evidence Act 2011

 

---

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT