ATIKU ABUBAKAR & ANOR V. INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION (INEC) & ORS
April 3, 2025LANRE OKUNLOLA & ANOR V OLATUNJI ABIOLA SHOYINKA & ANOR
April 3, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (2019) Legalpedia (CA) 36111
In the Court of Appeal
HOLDEN AT ABUJA
Tue Sep 10, 2019
Suit Number: CA/A/EPT/742/2019
CORAM
SALIHU M. A .BELGORE JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
SALIHU M. A .BELGORE JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
PEOPLES DEMOCRATIC PARTY (PDP APPELLANTS
ALL PROGRESSIVES CONGRESS (APC) RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The 3rd Respondent herein (INEC), conducted an election into the House of Representatives in respect of Potiskum/ Nangere Federal Constituency Yobe State, on the 23rd of February 2019. After the election, the 3rd Respondent returned the 1st Respondent herein, as winner of the election. Being dissatisfied, the Appellants who was the Candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party, presented a Petition at the National Assembly and State Houses of Assembly Election Petition Tribunal, Yobe, challenging the return of the 1st Respondent on the ground that he was not qualify to contest the election for presenting a false declaration or information to the 3rd Respondent. The Trial Tribunal after hearing the Petition dismissed same. Dissatisfied with the Tribunals decision, the Appellants appealed to the Court of Appeal. The 1st Respondent however, raised preliminary objection as to the competence of grounds 1, 2, 3, 7 and 8 of the Appellant’s notice of appeal for failure to relate same to any particular finding of the Tribunal.
HELD
Appeal Dismissed
ISSUES
Whether the Tribunal was right when it held that the Exhibit PI (Certified True Copy of the 1st respondent’s Form CF001) obtained by the Appellants was an afterthought and therefore jettisoned it.
RATIONES DECIDENDI
GROUND OF APPEAL- GROUNDS OF APPEAL MUST RELATE TO THE DECISION OF THE COURT APPEALED AGAINST
“The law is clear. A ground of appeal must relate to and arise from the decision complained of. It must also arise from the ratio decidendi of the decision. Where it does not, the ground of appeal will be incompetent and a court is without jurisdiction to entertain or adjudicate upon an incompetent ground- Jim -Jaja V COP Rivers (Supra) at 253 and Ugwu V State (Supra). Oguebego V PDP (2016) 4 NWLR (pt 1503) 446; Nsirim V Amadi (2016) 5 NWLR (pt 1504) 42 and F. B. N. PLC V Nwadialu & Sons Ltd (2016) 18 NWLR (pt 1543).”
EVIDENCE – WHETHER REFERENCE TO A DICTIONARY BY A COURT AMOUNTS TO “EVIDENCE LED BY THE BENCH”
“If a court cannot make reference to a Dictionary in the course of writing judgments, I do not know what it can refer to. The contents of a Dictionary made use of by a court, cannot by any stretch of the imagination, amount to “evidence led by the bench.”
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE- DUTY OF THE COURT TO INTERPRET DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE BEFORE IT
“Again, a Court of Law is expected to interpret documentary evidence admitted before it, to make findings on them. In interpreting the documents, the court is permitted to make recourse to dictionaries or consult authorities or text books. They are aids to interpretation and not evidence led by the bench.”
FINDING OF FACT- DUTY OF A TRIAL COURT TO MAKE FINDING FROM EVIDENCE LED BY PARTIES
“It is the primary duty of a Court of trial, to make a finding of fact from evidence led. Fulani V State (2019) 1 NWLR (pt 1653) 237 at 254G. It was therefore for the Tribunal, to make a finding of insanity or unsound mind of the 1st respondent. It is not bound to accept a Medical Certificate just because it was tendered. It had to make a finding on the document, just as there are several ways of proving insanity”.
PROOF OF INSANITY- WAYS OF PROVING INSANITY
“In Onyekwe V The State (1988) LPELR – 2732 (SC), the Supreme Court stated five ways of proving insanity- evidence of past history of the afflicted; evidence of his conduct immediately preceding the killing of the deceased, evidence of prison warders or others keeping him in custody, evidence of medical officers who examined him and evidence of relatives concerning his behaviour and the reputation for sanity or insanity.”
FINDINGS OF FACTS – CIRCUMSTANCE WHEN AN APPELLATE COURT WILL NOT INTERFERE WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACTS OF A TRIAL COURT
“The duty of making findings of facts on the evidence led, lies squarely on the trial Tribunal. Once it does so, properly without any perversity an appellate Court cannot interfere-Blessing V F. R. N. (2015) 13 NWLR (pt 1475) 1 and F.R.N. V Dairo (2015) 6 NWLR (pt 1454) 141.”
ARGUMENT BY COUNSEL- CONSEQUENCE OF ARGUING MORE THAN ONE ISSUE AT A TIME
“It is not the duty of a court to begin to find out which arguments of counsel, relate to which issue, if they are argued together. It is of course within the competence of counsel to argue more than one issue together. When they are competent. But it is a risky venture, because when one of the issues is declared incompetent by a court, then the competent issues become tainted, having been argued together with the incompetent issue. The issues would have to be struck out as the court will not descend into the arena and begin to identify which arguments relate to which issue. See Afolabiv State (2016) LPELR 40300 (SC) and Geo-Source V Biargban (1997) 5 NWLR (pt 506) 607”
CERTIFICATION OF DOCUMENT- WHETHER OR NOT THE DATE A DOCUMENT IS CERTIFIED IS SAME AS THE DATE IT WAS MADE
“I agree with learned counsel for the Appellants, that a date certifying a document is not necessarily the same as the date the document was made and that no party raised the issue of admissibility of Exhibit PI, the certified true copy of the 1st respondent’s Form CF001. I also agree with the learned counsel for the Appellants, that since there was a pleading at paragraph 3 of the Petition of Form CF001, it could not be an afterthought.”
CASES CITED
Not Available
STATUTES REFERRED TO
Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended)|Electoral Act 2010|
