CORAM

---

SAMUEL CHUKWUDUMEBI OSEJI    JUSTICE. COURT OF APPEAL

SAMUEL CHUKWUDUMEBI OSEJI    JUSTICE. COURT OF APPEAL

AMINA ADAMU AUGIE    JUSTICE,  COURT OF APPEAL

SAMUEL CHUKWUDUMEBI OSEJI    JUSTICE. COURT OF APPEAL

AMINA ADAMU AUGIE    JUSTICE,  COURT OF APPEAL

---

PARTIES

---

1. ROBERT OBHAFUOSO2. PEOPLE DEMOCRATIC PARTY APPELLANTS

---

RESPONDENTS

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Appellants before the Lagos State National and State Houses of Assembly Tribunal filed a petition challenging the competence and validity of the sponsorship of the 2nd Respondent as candidate of his party (APC) the 3rd Respondent to contest the election. The Appellants sought a declaration that the 2nd Respondent was not qualified to contest the election to the Lagos State House of Assembly as he was not validly nominated as the candidate of the 3rd Respondent for the election, that the votes allocated to the 2nd Respondent be declared invalid, null and void, that the return of the 2nd Respondent should be set aside and the certificate of return issued to him by the 1st Respondent be withdrawn and that the 1st Petitioner be declared winner of the election. The Tribunal in dismissing the appeal held that the 2nd Respondent was the duly elected representative of Ikeja Constituency at the Lagos State House of Assembly. Dissatisfied with the judgment of the tribunal, the Appellants have lodged the instant appeal. The 2nd Respondent filed a notice of preliminary objection challenging the competence of the Notice of Appeal and the Appellants’ Brief of Argument same having being filed without the seal/stamp of the Legal Practitioner who signed them.

---

HELD

---

Appeal Dismissed

---

ISSUES

---

–    Whether the Tribunal was right when it held that the 3rd Respondent gave sufficient notice as required by section 85 (1) of electoral act 2010 as amended to 1st Respondent.”

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

INTERPRETATION OF DOCUMENT- CARDINAL PRINCIPLE IN THE INTERPRETATION OF DOCUMENTS

---

“In Nika Fishing Co Ltd V La Vina 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<foo< p=””></foo<>

---

NOTICE OF APPEAL – IMPORTANCE OF A NOTICE OF APPEAL

---

“As earlier noted, the notice of appeal is the foundation upon which an appeal stands. In First Bank Of Nigeria Plc V T.S.A Industries Ltd [2010] 15 NWLR (Pt 1216) 247 SC; (2010) LPELR- SC Adekeye, JSC held:
“A notice of appeal in the process of appeal is a very important document, as it forms the foundation of the appeal if it is defective the appellate court must strike it out on the ground it is incompetent, …. it touches on jurisdiction of the appellate court, if no notice has been filed, then there is no appeal for the court to entertain.” PER A.O.OBASEKI-ADEJUMO, J.C.A

---

INTERPRETATION OF STATUTE – DUTY OF A COURT IN INTERPRETING THE PROVISIONS OF A STATUTE

---

“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 STATUTE – GUIDING PRINCIPLES TO BE OBSERVED BY THE INTERPRETATIVE JURISDICTION OF A COURT

---

“In Malam Abubakar & Ors V Nasamu & Ors (2012) LPELR 7826 SC, the Supreme Court held:
“In its interpretative jurisdiction a court must abide by certain rules and principles as follows: (1) The intention of the legislative should be sought (2) The intention of the legislation is to be ascertained from the words of the statute alone and not from the words of other sources. (3) The words used are to be given their ordinary and unambiguous meaning that is the legislative to be pressured not to have put a special meaning on the word.” PER A.O.OBASEKI-ADEJUMO, J.C.A

---

CASES CITED

---

.

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

Court of Appeal Practice Direction 2011Electoral ActEvidence ActRules of Professional Conduct for Legal Practitioners 2007,

---

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT