ACTION CONGRESS OF NIGERIA (ACN) VS REAL ADMIRAL MURTALA H. NYAKO & ORS

CORAM

NIKI TOBI,, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT.

CHRISTOPHER MITCHELL CHUKWUMA-ENEHJUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

MARY PETER-ODILI JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

PARTIES

ACTION CONGRESS OF NIGERIA (ACN) APPELLANTS

 REAL ADMIRAL MURTALA H. NYAKO & ORS

RESPONDENTS 

AREA(S) OF LAW

SUMMARY OF FACTS

Aggrieved by the return of the 1st and 2nd Respondents herein as the Governor and Deputy Governor of Adamawa State respectively by the 4th Respondent, the Appellant, whose candidates in the election were the 6th and 7th  Respondents challenged the return.

HELD

Appeal dismissed.

ISSUES

1. Whether the Court of Appeal did not misdirect itself when, at pages 3916-3917 of vol. viii of the record, it endorsed the decision of the Tribunal castigating the evidence of the appellant witnessed based on three particular paragraphs of their witness statement and the inclusion of the illiterate jurat and, therefore, rejected the evidence of the said witness(s).?

2. Whether the testimonies of the appellant’s witness who were supervisors could be regarded as hearsay simply because they did not mention the names of their polling agents and because they did not distinguish between what they saw and what the polling agents told them moreso that the witnesses testified that what they saw and what their agents later related to them were one and the same thing against which evidence the respondents did not call any evidence to challenge.?

3. Whether the Court of Appeal was right when it held at pages  3937 and 3938 of vol. viii of the record that PW66 admitted on cross-examination that he was not an expert when there was no such admission on record and concluded that the evidence of PW66 on the documents he analysed is an opinion evidence simply because PW66 did not participate in or witnessed the conduct of the election and that multiple voting can only be proved for (by) biometric evidence .?

RATIONES DECIDENDI

NECESSARY WITNESS TO ESTABLISH SUBSTANTIAL IRREGULARITIES IN ELECTION PETITION

“In an election the crucial place to be x-rayed is the polling unit and a situation as the case in hand where the Appellants failed to call the polling agents at those units who saw, heard or took part in the transaction on which sych a witness is testifying has no substitute if the Appellant is serious about establishing substantial non-compliance or irregularities or malpractices. Such direct testimonies are essential and failure could be interpreted that the Appellants case would have been jeopardized if such witnesses testified or that the allegations which the Appellants are handing on did not take place.”
Per Mary Ukaego Peter-Odili J.S.C.

WHERE A DOCUMENT IS WRONGLY ADMITTED IN EVIDENCE

“The law is trite that where a document is wrongly admitted as an exhibit, the court owes it a duty to expunge same from its record in its judgment.”
Per Clara Bata Ogunbiyi J.S.C.

CASES CITED

Buhar v Obasanjo (2003) 17 NWLR (part 850) 587 at 635Salami v Mohammed (2000) 9 NWLR (part 469)Adesanoye v Adewole (2000) 9 NWLR (part 671) 127Doma v INEC (2012) ALL NWLR (part 628) 813 at 829Agballah v Chime (2009) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1122) 373 a 433-434Ucha v Elechi (2012) 3 SC (Pt.1) 26 at 71

STATUTES REFERRED TO

Section 246(1)(c)(ii)  of the 1999 Constitution Section 318 of the 1999 Constitution

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT