VRATI S. NZONZO & ANOR V. MYANASA BAUNA & ORS
April 3, 2025ALHAJI UMAR ADAMU SARANYI v. ALHAJI MARAFA JIBRILLA
April 3, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (2019) Legalpedia (CA) 16640
In the Court of Appeal
HOLDEN AT YOLA
Thu Nov 21, 2019
Suit Number: CA/YL/EPT/AD/SHA/201/2019
CORAM
PARTIES
PETER DA’APEPEOPLES DEMOCRATIC PARTY (PDP) APPELLANTS
IRAHIM MUSAAFRICAN DEMOCRATIC CONGRESSINDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION (INEC) RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The Appellants filed a petition at the National and State Houses of Assembly Election Petition Tribunal of Adamawa State, holden at Yola, against the Ist Respondents for a declaration that the return of the 1st Respondent as elected member of Mayo-Belwa State Constituency by the 3rd Respondent is null and void by reason of the fact that the 1st Respondent was not qualified to contest the said election. The Appellants further alleged that the 1st Respondent did not resign from his place of work at least thirty days before 9th March, 2019 when the election was held and even received salaries up to 31st January, 2019 and 28th February, 2019. In defence of the petition, the 1st Respondent stated that he voluntarily retired from the service of the Local Government on 18th June, 2018 and his resignation with effect from 1st July was approved and the approval letter dated 20th September, 2018 was given to him. After his retirement, his salaries for five (5) months from July, 2018 to November 2018 were wrongly paid into his account at First Bank because salaries of Local Government staff were not paid as and when due but that he refunded the purported salaries. That in December 2018, January 2019 and February 2019 salaries were erroneously credited to his First Bank Account and he again informed the Local Government Service Commission about the erroneous lodgments. The Ministry directed him to refund by paying the money into Skye Bank, Yola the account of the Ministry. The Ministry then issued him an acknowledgement letter dated 8/3/2019 evidencing the refund of the salary for the three months. After considering evidence adduced by both parties, and addresses of learned counsel for the parties, the Tribunal dismissed the petition hence this appeal.
HELD
Appeal Dismissed
ISSUES
Whether the Appellants placed before the lower Tribunal cogent, convincing and believable evidence to prove that the 1st Respondent did not resign, withdraw or retire from service before contesting the election which held on the 9th day of March, 2019. Whether the lower Tribunal was right to have accorded probative value to Exhibits RES A, RES B, RES C and RES D considering the peculiar nature and fatal defects associated with them? Whether upon a calm evaluation of the totality of evidence adduced by the Petitioners/Appellants and that elicited from the 1st and 3rd Respondents’ witnesses under cross – examination, can it be said that the lower trial Tribunal was right to have held that the Petitioners/Appellants petition lacked merit and ought to be dismissed?
RATIONES DECIDENDI
RECORD OF APPEAL – WHETHER AN APPEAL CAN BE HEARD ON INCOMPLETE RECORD OF APPEAL
“No Court is permitted to hear an appeal on incomplete record. It is a legal sacrilege for an appellate Court to adjudicate upon an appeal in the face of an incomplete record of appeal. The appellate Court must be wary of hearing an appeal upon incomplete record and must not hear an appeal on incomplete record. Such a record carries a death wound. See Gavoh & Ors vs. Akwai (2019) LPELR-46441.”
ACTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
DECLARATORY RELIEFS –CONDITIONS FOR THE GRANT OF DECLARATORY RELIEFS “Declaratory reliefs are not granted as a matter of course and on a platter of gold. They are only granted when credible evidence has been led by the person seeking the declaratory relief. A declaratory relief will be granted where the party seeking it is entitled to the relief in the fullest meaning of the word. The person seeking the declaratory relief must plead and prove the claim for declaratory relief without relying on the evidence called by the defendant. However, there is nothing wrong in a plaintiff taking advantage of any evidence adduced by the defence which tends to establish the Plaintiff’s claim. See Anyanry vs. Mandillas Ltd (2007) 4 SCNJ 288, Chukwumah vs. S.P.D.C. (Nig) Ltd (1993) LPELR-864 SC page 64 – 65, Matanmi & Ors vs. Dada & Anor (2013) LPELR-19929, Oguanuhu vs. Chiegboka (2013) 2 SCNJ 693, Akinboni & Ors vs. Akintope & Ors (2016) LPELR-40184 CA and Mbodan vs. Dabai (2019) LPELR-46739 CA.”
SPECULATION – WHETHER COURTS ACT ON SPECULATIONS
“The court does not act on suspicious or speculations but on evidence before it. See cases of Ivienagbo vs. Bazuaye (1999) NWLR (Pt. 620) 552 at 661; PDP vs. Umana (No. 2) (2016) SC (Pt. 1) 140 at 143 – 144”.
ARGUMENT OF COUNSEL – WHETHER ARGUMENT OF COUNSEL CAN TAKE THE PLACE OF EVIDENCE
“The parties have all in their briefs made beautiful arguments in support of their cases. But such does not take away concrete and believable evidence presented before the court. Evidence remains and counsel’s submissions and arguments remain what they represent. Such can only guide and aid evidence that is cogent, compelling and believable and not to take its place. See cases of AC vs. Lamido (2012) 2 LRECN 208.”
ADDRESS OF COUNSEL-WHETHER ADDRESS OF COUNSEL IS A SUBSTITUTE FOR COMPELLING EVIDENCE
Address of counsel is never a substitute for compelling evidence. See Ogunsanya vs. The State (2011) LPELR-2347 SC page 47 – 48.”
CASES CITED
Not Available
