May 19, 2025
Legalpedia Citation: (2011) Legalpedia (CA) 22138 In the Court of Appeal Thu Oct 13, 2011 Suit Number: CA/C/NAEA/223/2011v CORAM SAMSON ODEMWINGIE UWAIFO JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL (Read […]
CORAM
SAMSON ODEMWINGIE UWAIFO JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL (Read the Leading Judgment)
SUNDAY AKINOLA AKINTAN JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL
UZO. I. NDUKWE-ANYANWU JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL
SUNDAY AKINOLA AKINTAN JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL
UZO. I. NDUKWE-ANYANWU JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL
PARTIES
1. LAWRENCE IBANGA UBEH
2. ACTION CONGRESS OF NIGERIA
APPELLANTS
1. KUFRE BASSEY ETUK
2. THE PEOPLES DEMOCRATIC PARTY
3. THE INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION (INEC)
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The 1st Petitioner/Appellant and the 1st Respondent/Respondent were both contestants in the election held by the 3rd Respondent on the 26th day of April 2011 into the Uruan state constituency seat of Akwa Ibom State House of Assembly. The 1st Respondent/Respondent was declared the winner of the election and duly returned. The Petitioners/Appellants were dissatisfied by the result of the election and thereby filed an election petition before the National and State House of Assembly Election Tribunal sitting at Uyo.
The Respondents having received the petition did not file their reply within the time allowed by the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended). The 1st to 2nd Respondents however filled their reply out of time with the leave of the tribunal, the 3rd Respondents however brought an application by way of motion on notice seeking for an order to extend the time within which to file its reply to the petition, the petition was however transferred to a newly established Tribunal called Tribunal No. 2. In view of the state of the pleadings, the Petitioners/Appellants however failed to apply for issuance for hearing notice based on the ground that the 3rd Respondent had a pending application before the Tribunal; the Petitioners/Appellants however brought an application to issue hearing notices on the parties out of time. The tribunal held that it did not have the jurisdiction to grant the application of the Petitioners/Appellants, thus stating that the Petitioners/Appellants had abandoned their petition and dismissed the petition. Aggrieved by the Tribunals decision, the Petitioners/Appellant filled an appeal at this court.
HELD
Appeal Dismissed.
ISSUES
1.Whether the Tribunal (No. 2) was not bound by the decision of the court of Appeal in FBN V. Isokwa (2004) 5 NWLR (pt. 866) 271?
2.Whether the Tribunal was right to have dismissed the petition on the ground that it has been abandon (sic) when there was a pending motion by the 3rd Respondent to be let in?
RATIONES DECIDENDI
STARE DECISIS – MEANING OF THE DOCTRINE OF STARE DECISIS.
“The doctrine of stare decisis is simply that when an issue or point or principle of law has been decided by a court that is higher in the judicial hierarchy, a court that is lower in the same hierarchy must stand by, or abide by that decision when confronted with the same or similar facts or issues or points with those upon which the principle, issues or points had been established.” PER I. O. AKEJU, J.C.A.
DISCRETION OF THE COURT – AN APPELLATE COURT CAN ONLY SUBSTITUTE ITS OWN DISCRETION FOR THAT OF THE LOWER COURT WHERE SUCH DISCRETION WAS WRONGLY EXERCISED
“An appellate court is not at liberty to substitute its own discretion for that exercised by the lower court except where it is clear that the lower court had wrongly exercised the discretion by giving consideration to irrelevant factors or by not considering relevant matters. See Enekebe V. Enekebe (1964) 1 All NLR 102; Solanke V. Ajibola (1968) All NLR 46.” PER I. O. AKEJU, JCA.
ELECTION PETITION – NATURE OF ELECTION PETITION MATTERS
“An election petition matter is sui generis and so is quite distinct and separate from civil proceedings. The proceedings in an election petition are governed by the provisions of the law specially made therefor. See Awuse V. Odili (2004) All FWLR (Pt. 213) 1611; Ajadi V. Ajibola (2004) 31 WRN 134, (2004) 16 NWLR (Pt. 898) 91.” PER I. O. AKEJU, J.C.A.
STARE DECISIS – STARE DECISIS IS APPLICABLE WHERE THERE ARE SIMILARITIES BETWEEN THE FACTS OF BOTH CASES.
“It is however, the law that precedent or stare decisis is applicable in a situation where there is similarity between the facts of the case being, considered and the case earlier decided. See Osakue V. FCET (2010) 42 (2) NSCQR 981.” PER I. O. AKEJU, J.C.A.
RATIO DECIDENDI – IT IS THE FACTS OF EACH CASE THAT DETERMINE THE RATIO DECIDENDI OF A CASE
“It is the law that cases are decided on the facts before the court and in the light of the enabling law. The ratio decidendi of a case is thus determined on the basis of the facts of the case. See Idoniboye Obu V. NNPC (2003) 4 MJSC 131; Inakoju V. Adeleke (2007) 4 NWLR (pt. 1025) 423.” PER I. O. AKEJU, J.C.A.
CASES CITED
STATUTES REFERRED TO
Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended)Electoral Act 2010 (as amended)
CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT