Legalpedia Citation: (2009) Legalpedia (CA) 51221
In the Court of Appeal
Wed Jun 17, 2009
Suit Number: CA/IL/EP/SA/21/2008
CORAM
OLU ARIWOOLA JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL.
CHIMA CENTUS NWEZE JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL.
PARTIES
ONIWARA B. IBRAHIM APPELLANTS
1. ISHOLA BALOGUN FULANI2. PEOPLES DEMOCRATIC PARTY3. INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION4. RESIDENT ELECTORAL COMMISSIONER, KWARA STATE5. THE ELECTORAL OFFICIAL, ILORIN-SOUTH L.G.A. RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The Petitioner/Appellant contested for a seat into the Ilorin South Constituency of the Kwara State House of Assembly under the platform of the Democratic People’s Party [DPA] in the election conducted by the 3rd – 5th Respondents on April 15, 2007. The 1st Respondent was declared and returned winner of the election. The Appellant being dissatisfied with the outcome of the election filed this petition at the lower tribunal which was subsequently dismissed. Dissatisfied with the decision of the Tribunal, the Appellant appealed to this court and the 1st Respondent raised a preliminary objection to the competence of the appeal.
HELD
Appeal Dismissed
ISSUES
Whether the provisions of sections 1 and 15 (2) (a) of the Interpretation Act and Order 23 rule 1 of the Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules are applicable in the computation of time for filing an election petition under section 141 of the Electoral Act, 2006Whether the decision in Yusuf v Obasanjo (2003) 16 NWLR (pt 849) 554 is binding on this court in the interpretation of section 141 of the Electoral Act, 2006
RATIONES DECIDENDI
PROVISIONS OF AN ENACTMENT – COURTS ARE ENJOINED TO READ ALL SECTIONS OF AN ENACTMENT HOLISTICALLY TO BE ABLE TO DECIPHER ITS INTENDMENT
“The rationale of all binding authorities is that mutually-related provisions of an enactment must be conflated for a proper appreciation of the intendment of the draftsperson, that is, courts are enjoined to read all sections of an enactment holistically to be able to decipher its intendment, Adeleke and Ors v Oyo State House of Assembly and Ors (2006) 16 NWLR (pt 1006) 608; Tukur v Govt of Gongola State (1989) 4 NWLR (pt 91) 517, 579”. PER C. C.NWEZE, J.C.A
RATIO DECIDENDI – RATIO DECIDENDI AS DISTINCT FROM OBITA DICTUM
“Where a single Judge presides, the situation does not admit of any difficulty; the judgment of that court is what may be discerned as the ratio decidendi or rationes decidendi of that case in contrast to the passing remarks, otherwise referred to as obiter dictum or obiter dicta made by the court in the course of preparing the judgment”. PER C. C. NWEZE, J.C.A
PRELIMINARY OBJECTION –WHERE A PRELIMINARY OBJECTION IS UPHELD BY THE COURT, THE PROCEEDINGS IN WHICH IT WAS RAISED TERMINATES
“It has long been settled that where a preliminary objection succeeds and is upheld by the court, it brings the proceedings in which it was raised to an end as there would no longer be any other competent live issue in the case, Kotoye v Saraki (1991) 8 NWLR (pt 211) 638; Goji v Ewete (2001) 15 NWLR (pt 736) 273; Odu v Agbor-Hemeson (2003) 1 NWLR (pt 802) 624; Ngige v Obi (2006) All FWLR (pt 330) 1041; (2006) 14 NWLR (pt 9990 1; Onyemeh v. Egbuchulam (1996) 5 NWLR (pt 448) 225; NEPA v Ango (2001) 15 NWLR (pt 737) 627; Reider-Jacks v. INEC (2009) All FWLR (pt 464) 1636, 1642”. PER C. C.NWEZE, J.C.A
INTERPRETATION OF WORDS AND EXPRESSION IN A STATUTE – DUTY OF COURT TO EMPLOY THE EXPRESSIONS USED IN A STATUTE IN A MANNER CONSISTENT WITH THEIR MEANING
“Words and expressions employed in a statute communicate the intention of the lawmaker. So, courts are enjoined to primarily employ the expressions used in a statute in a manner consistent with their popular usage or meaning. To this end, a Judge must be meticulous about the grammar or syntax which underscores the construction of the enactment”. PER C. C. NWEZE, J.C.A
ELECTION MATTERS –ELECTORAL MATTERS SHOULD BE ATTENDED TO WITH ALL DILIGENCE
“Election matters constitute a special class of proceedings that should be attended to with all diligence”. PER C. C. NWEZE, J.C.A
PRESENTATION OF ELECTION PETITION – TIME FRAME WITHIN WHICH AN ELECTION PETITION MAY BE PRESENTED
“An election petition “shall be presented within thirty (30) days from the date the result of the election is declared. PER C. C. NWEZE, J.C.A
PRINCIPLE OF INTERPRETATION –WORDS SHOULD BE GIVEN THEIR ORDINARY MEANING WHERE SUCH WORDS ARE CLEAR AND UNAMBIGUOUS
“It is settled that in interpreting statutes that contain lucid, precise and unambiguous provisions, no interpretative guides are required. The court has only one duty, namely, to give effect to the ordinary meaning of the words employed in the statute. I now, most respectfully, invite Kutigi JSC (as he then was) to settle this point. In A.G. Ondo State v A.G. Ekiti State (2001) 10 SCNJ at pages 117-146, His Lordship intoned very categorically:
It is certainly a cardinal principle of interpretation that where in their ordinary meaning the provisions are clear and unambiguous effect must be given to them without resorting to any aid internal or external. It is the duty of the court to interpret the words of the lawmakers as used”…PER C. C. NWEZE, J.C.A
DUTY OF THE COURT WHERE IT RAISES AN ISSUE SUO MOTU –WHERE A COURT RAISES AN ISSUE SUO MOTU IT IS INCUMBENT ON THE COURT TO HEAR FROM THE PARTIES BEFORE RESOLVING THE ISSUE
“It is incumbent on any court that raises an issue suo motu to hear from the parties before resolving such an issue. The cases on this point are many: so many that only a handful will be referred to here, Bhojsons Plc v Daniel-Kalio (2006) 5 NWLR (pt 973) 330; Kuti v Balogun (1978) 1 SC 53; Aermacchi S.P.A v A.I.C. Ltd (1986) 2 NWLR (Pt 23) 443; Iriri v Erhurhobara (1991) 2 NWLR (pt 173) 252; Ndiwe v Okocha (1992) 7 NWLR (pt 252) 129; Abimbola v Abasan (2001) 4 SC (pt 1) 64, 73 and 74; Ugo v Obiekwe (1989) 1 NWLR 9pt 99) S56, 581; Okafor v Nnaife (1972) 3 ECSLR 261; Oje v Babalola (1991) 4 NWLR (pt 185) 267, 280; Cookey v Fomabo (2005) 5 SC (pt 11) 102, 112”.PER C. C. NWEZE, J.C.A
RATIO DECIDENDI – RATIO DECIDENDI CONSTITUTES THE AUTHORITY FOR WHICH A CASE STANDS
“It is the ratio or the rationes contained in the leading judgment that constitutes or constitute the authority for which the case stands. All other expressions contained in the concurring judgments, particularly those not addressed in the leading judgment are obiter dictum or dicta”. PER C. C.NWEZE,J.C.A
LANGUAGE OF A STATUTE –EXPERTISE OF A JUDGE IN CONSTRUING THE GRAMMAR AND SYNTAX IN A STATUTE
“It is a well-known fact that words are the tools which a Judge utilizes in the application of his professional expertise. Hence, nobody can justifiably impugn his ability to construe the grammar and syntax in a statute. In effect, every Judge is an expert in the grammar and syntax of the language of statutes, See, Ugwu v Ararume (2007) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1048) 367, 438”.PER C. C. NWEZE, J.C.A
TIME FRAME IN PRESENTING ELECTION PETITION – AN ELECTION PETITION PRESENTED AFTER THE TIME STIPULATED BY THE ELECTORAL ACT IS STATUTE BARRED
“Section 141 (supra) finds firm anchorage on the intendment of the law maker who designed the special enactment called the Electoral Act: an Act which brooks no dissipation of time! That explains why it erected an inexorable time frame; by calendaring the permissible period for consummating or accomplishing the process of presentation of an election petition. Thus, any petition presented outside that time frame is statute barred, Agbai v INEC (2009) All FWLR (pt 449) 594, 608-609; Balogun v Odumosu (1989) 2 NWLR (pt 582) 590,599”.PER C. C.NWEZE, J.C.A
ACCESS TO COURT – A LITIGANT MUST SATISFY THE GATE KEEPER THAT HE HAS A GENUINE CAUSE TO BE ABLE TO GAIN ACCESS TO COURT
“To be able to gain access to the temple [that is, the court], a prospective litigant must satisfy the gate keeper that he has a genuine cause to be allowed ingress. Where he fails to convince the gate keeper, he will be denied access to the inns of the temple. The gate keeper, as vigilant as he is always, will readily intercept and query all persons who intrude in his domain”. PER C.C. NWEZE, J.C.A
JURISPRUDENCE – MEANING OF JURISPRUDENCE
“Jurisprudence is not as abstruse as it is often presented. Surely, it is a living subject which permeates the entire gamut of our corpus juris and actually shapes, and will continue to shape, legal reasoning in Nigeria”. PER C. C. NWEZE, J.C.A
RATIO DECIDENDI – DETERMINATION OF THE RATIO DECIDENDI OF A CASE
“In determining the ratio decidendi of a case, it is safer to consider the claim before the court and the issue which the court was called upon to decide. Thus, the reasons given by the court for deciding the claim before it is the ratio decidendi which the court is obliged to follow in subsequent cases and will not lightly depart from unless to avoid the perpetuation of errors. ….Accordingly, opinions in the judgment which are not part of the material facts even where relevant to the determination of the case do not constitute part of the ratio decidendi and are not binding”. PER C. C. NWEZE, J.C.A
HEARING OF AN ELECTION PETITION –AN APPEAL ARISING FROM AN ELECTION PETITION MUST BE GIVEN ACCELERATED HEARING
“An election petition and an appeal arising there from under this Act shall be given accelerated hearing and shall have precedence over all other cases or matters before the Tribunal or Court”. PER C. C. NWEZE, J.C.A
CASES CITED
STATUTES REFERRED TO
Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999,Electoral Act 2006 (as amended)Electoral Act, 2002 (as amended)Federal High Court RulesInterpretation Act