CONGRESS FOR PROGRESSIVE CHANGE V. INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION & ORS.

CORAM

MAHMUD MOHAMMED, J.S.C. (Presided)

CHRISTOPHER MITCHELL CHUKWUMA”ENEH’ J-S-C. (Read the Leading

MUHAMMAD SAIFULLAHIMUNTAKA-COOMASSIE J S C

JOHN AFOLABI FABIYI, J.S C

ASEME, JUSTICE J.S C

PARTIES

CONGRESS FOR PROGRESSIVE CHANGE APPELLANTS

INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION & ORS.

RESPONDENTS 

AREA(S) OF LAW

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Petitioner/Appellant, (Congress for Progressive Change) and the 3rd Respondent (Peoples Democratic Party) as political parties sponsored the election of one Engineer Ahmed Yusuf and the 2nd Respondent respectively as candidates for the position of the Governor of Taraba State. The 3rd Respondent was then returned as the winner of the election after been declared so by the 1st Respondent. The Petitioner/Appellant not satisfied with the result of the election challenged the election at the Governorship Election Petition Tribunal of Taraba State on the ground of non- compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended) amongst other grounds.

The trial Tribunal dismissed the Petitioner/Appellant’s petition. Aggrieved, the Petitioner/Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal where his appeal was also dismissed for lack of merit. The Petitioner/Appellant hence, appealed to the Supreme Court.

HELD

Appeal dismissed

ISSUES

1.Whether there is the want of jurisdiction to deliver the decision of the lower court pursuant to Section 285(8) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) i.e. to elaborate same at a later date as stated in the said judgment?

2.Whether upon the upholding of the findings of the trial Tribunal that the appellant (as petitioner before the trial tribunal) has failed to discharge the burden of proof placed on it  to link by evidence the documentary evidence i.e. exhibits P1-P201 with any particularity to the relevant facts as pleaded in the petition?

3.Whether declaratory reliefs as claimed in this petition can be granted where there is no oral evidence in support thereof?

RATIONES DECIDENDI

APPEALS FROM DECISIONS OF ELECTION TRIBUNALS – FINAL APPEALS FROM THE DECISION OF THE NATIONAL AND STATE HOUSES OF ASSEMBLY ELECTION TRIBUNAL ENDS AT THE COURT OF APPEAL.

‘‘The final appeals from the decision of the National and State House of Assembly Election Tribunal and the Governorship Election Tribunal terminate at the Court of Appeal as the final Court. This position is so as gathered from combined reading of the provision of Section 285(8), 246(1)(b) & (C).’’ PER C. M. CHUKWUMA-ENEH, J. S. C.

“DECISION” – MEANING OF “DECISION” – SECTION 318 OF THE 1999 CONSTITUTION – WHETHER THE TERMS “DECISION” AND JUDGMENT” HAS THE SAME MEANING

‘‘Also Section 318 of the 1999 Constitution has defined the word “Decision”, it means in relation to a court, any determination of that court and includes “judgment”, “decree”, “order” “conviction sentence or recommendation.” See Garuba & Ors. v. Omokhodion & Ors. (2011)6/7 SC (Pt.V) 89 at 138,(2011) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1269) 145. I make bold to hold that the words decision and judgment in my considered opinion mean the same thing and are interchangeable in terms in relation to court matters.’’ PER C. M. CHUKWUMA-ENEH, J. S. C.

DECLARATORY RELIEFS- WHETHER THE COURT GRANTS DECLARATORY RELIEFS ON ADMISSIONS BY THE DEFENDANT WITHOUT THE ORAL TESTIMONY OF THE PLAINTIFF

‘‘The rule is so fundamental that the court does not grant declaratory reliefs on admissions by the defendant without the oral testimony of the plaintiff; so that the plaintiff will succeed in case on the strength of his case no more less. See C.B.N v Amao(2010) 16 NWLR (pt.1219) 271 at 298; Ali Pinder Kwajaffa & Ors v Bank of the North (2004) 13 NWLR (Pt.889) 146 at 172.’’ PER C. M. CHUKWUMA-ENEH, J.S.C.

COURT OF APPEAL – WHEN CAN THE COURT OF APPEAL INVOKE THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 285(8) OF THE 1999 CONSTITUTION

“Decisions of the Court of Appeal are final when the matter arises from National and State Houses of Assembly election petitions. In such cases, the Court of Appeal can invoke the provisions of Section 285(8). Where on the other hand, decisions of the Court of Appeal are not final as in this case/appeal, the Court of Appeal cannot invoke Section 285(8) of the Constitution.” PER B. RHODES-VIVOUR, J.S.C.

CASES CITED

STATUTES REFERRED TO

Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended)

Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended)

Evidence Act

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT