AKEREDOLU & ANOR VS MIMIKO & ORS

CORAM

WALTER SAMUEL NKANU ONNOCHEN    JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

CHRISTOPHER MITCHELL CHUKWUMA-ENEH    JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

JOHN AFOFABI FABIYI    JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

MARY UKAEGO PETER-ODILI      JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

STANLEY SHENKO ALAGOA    JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

PARTIES

OLUWAROTIMI O. AKEREDOLU, ESQ, SANACTION CONGRESS OF NIGERIA (CAN)? APPELLANTS

MIMIKO & ORS

RESPONDENTS 

AREA(S) OF LAW

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Petitioner/Appellant contested an election conducted by the 3rd Respondent where the 1st Respondent was declared the winner of the election having scored the highest number of lawful votes. The Petitioner/Appellant was not happy with the outcome of the election and challenged the election result at Election Petition Tribunal. The basis of his contesting the outcome of the election result was that the 3rd respondent in active connivance with the 2nd Respondent manipulated the voter’s register in favour of the 1st Respondent by injecting more names into the voter’s register to gain undue advantage over other contestants. The Tribunal dismissed the petition. The petitioner aggrieved with this decision appealed to the Court of Appeal which also dismissed the appeal hence the Petitioner/Appellant has lodged an appeal before this court. ?

HELD

Appeal and cross-appeal dismissed

ISSUES

1. Whether the learned Appellate Justices were right in holding that the Tribunal properly evaluated the evidence of PW34, PW35, their reports and Exhibits P52(A & B, P55 and P57 and the evidence of other witnesses before dismissing same as unreliable?

2. Whether it was open to the lower Court to substitute or rely on its own views outside the records and use same to discredit the evidence of PW35 which was not challenged or controverted by the Respondents?

3. Whether or not the Tribunal had jurisdiction to entertain matters relating to alleged injection of names in the Voters Register used for the election?.

RATIONES DECIDENDI

ELECTORAL ACT 2010- PURPORT OF SECTION 139

“It is basic that for a petition to succeed on non-compliance with the provision of the Electoral Act, the petitioner must prove not only that there was non-compliance with the provisions of the Act, but also that the non-compliance substantially affected the result of the election”. PER J.A. FABIYI JSC

INCOMPETENT GROUND OF APPEAL-EFFECT OF

“An incompetent or invalid ground of appeal cannot give rise to a valid issue for determination as an appeal”. PER NWALI SYLVESTER NGWUTA, JSC

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION-FORMULATION OF-PURPOSE OF

“The main purpose of the formulation of issues for determination is to enable the parties to narrow the issues in controversy in the grounds of appeal filed in the interest of accuracy, clarity and brevity”. PER NWALI SYLVESTER NGWUTA, JSC

CASES CITED

Sha v. Kwan (2000) 78LRCN 1645 at 1664Ogbu Inyinya & Ors v. Obi Okudo & ors (1990) 34 NWLR (Pt.146) 551 at 568Buhari v. INEC (2008) 19 NWLR (Pt.1120) 246 at 435Buhari v. Obasanjo (2005) 13 NWLR (Pt.941)1 at 80Madukolu & Ors V. Nkemdilim (1962) 1ANLR 587Abubakar v. Yar’adua (2009) All PWLR (Pt. 457) 1 SC ?

STATUTES REFERRED TO

None

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT