BULUS HAMMAN V AMINU UMAR BABA
April 3, 2025UMAR MUSA BORORO & ANOR V. HON. YAKUBU MUSA DIRBISHI & ORS
April 3, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (2019) Legalpedia (CA) 15184
In the Court of Appeal
HOLDEN AT YOLA
Thu Nov 21, 2019
Suit Number: CA/YL/EPT/AD/SHA/196/2019
CORAM
PARTIES
SHUAIBU MUSAALL PROGRESSIVE CONGRESS (APC) APPELLANTS
SULEIMAN YAHAYAPEOPLES DEMOCRATIC PARTYINDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION (INEC) RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The Petitioner/ 1st and 2nd Respondents filed a petition in the National and State Houses of Assembly Election Petition Tribunal holden in Yola, against the Appellants and the 3rd Respondent who were Respondents at the Tribunal. The grounds upon which the petition was brought to the Tribunal is that the 1st Appellant was not qualified to contest for the seat of member representing Mubi North Constituency in the Adamawa State House of Assembly, on the allegation that he presented forged certificates to the 3rd Respondent in his application accompanying the INEC Form seeking for election, that the certificate of return issued to the 1st Appellant be withdrawn, that the 3rd Respondent be ordered to issue the 1st Respondent with a certificate of return. After considering evidence led by the 1st and 2nd Respondents as well as the 1st and 2nd Appellants, and addresses of learned counsel for the parties, the Tribunal entered judgment in favour of the 1st and 2nd Respondents. The 1st and 2nd Appellants were not satisfied with the judgment and immediately proceeded to this Court on appeal. The 1st and 2nd Respondents filed a notice of preliminary objection that the appeal Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the appeal because the record of appeal is not complete.
HELD
Preliminary Objection Overruled, Appeal Allowed
ISSUES
Whether the tribunal was right when it admitted Exhibit C3 in evidence and whether the tribunal was not in error when it attached weight and ascribed probative value to Exhibit C3? Whether the tribunal was right when it held that the 1st Appellant did not join issues with the 1st and 2nd Respondents/Petitioners on the allegation that 1st Appellant presented forged certificates to the 3rd Respondent (INEC)? Whether the tribunal was not in error when it held that the 1st and 2nd Respondents/Petitioners proved as required by law, the allegation that the 1st Appellant presented forged certificates to the Respondent?
RATIONES DECIDENDI
RECORD OF APPEAL-WHETHER COURTS ARE PERMITTED TO HEAR AN APPEAL ON INCOMPLETE RECORD
“No Court is permitted to hear an appeal on incomplete record. This Court in Appeal No. CA/J/201/2016 in Okwara vs. Okwara delivered on 12th February, 2018 per Omoleye JCA (unreported) adroitly stated the position of the law thus:
“It is without equivocation that I reiterate again sequel to my above elucidation that, it is a legal sacrilege for an Appellate Court to adjudicate upon an appeal in the face of an incomplete record of appeal for such an appeal in that situation can best be described as inchoate.”
The Supreme Court per Tobi JSC in Okochi vs. Animkwoi (2003) 18 NWLR (Pt. 851) 1 stated thus:
“As appellate Court hears an appeal on the records before it, it must ensure that records are complete as settled by the parties. An appellate Court must be wary to hear an appeal on incomplete records and must not hear an appeal on incomplete records.”
See also Gavoh & Ors vs. Akwai (2019) LPELR-46441 CA page 6.”
PUBLIC DOCUMENT- WHEN IS A PUBLIC DOCUMENT CERTIFIED?
“A public document is certified if: (a) It is paid for; (b) there is an endorsement/certificate that is it a true copy of the document in question; (c) The endorsement/certificate must be dated and signed by the officer responsible for certification with his name and official title. See Jimoh vs The Hon. Minister, Federal Capital Territory & Ors (2018) LPELR-46329 SC at page 20 – 22 and Section 104 (1) and (2) of the Evidence Act. Exhibit C3 has two stamps.”
CASES CITED
Not Available
STATUTES REFERRED TO
