NWOYE TONY OKECHUKWU VS INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION (INEC) & ORS

CORAM

MAHMUD MOHAMMED – JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

OYEBISI FOLAYEMI OMOLEYE (PJ), JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL

OYEBISI FOLAYEMI OMOLEYE (PJ), JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL

NWALI SYLVESTER NGWUTA – JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

OLUKAYODE ARIWOOLA – JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

KUMAI BAYANG AKA’AHS – JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

IBRAHIM TANKO MOHAMMAD JCA

PARTIES

NWOYE TONY OKECHUKWU  APPELLANTS

INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION (INEC) & ORS

RESPONDENTS 

AREA(S) OF LAW

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Petitioner/Appellant filed a petition jointly and severally against the Respondents at the trial Tribunal challenging the return of the 25th Respondent, Chief Willy Maduabuchi Obiano, as the winner of the Governorship Election of Anambra State, held in November, 2013 on the grounds that the 25th Respondent was not qualified to contest the election and that the said election was invalid by reason of corrupt practices or non-compliance with provisions of the Electoral Act in addition to the fact that 25th Respondent was not elected by majority of lawful votes of the election.The trial Tribunal dismissed the Petitioner/Appellant’s case. Dissatisfied with the judgment of the trial Tribunal, the Petitioner/Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal where the appeal was dismissed thus culminating into a further appeal to the apex Court.

HELD

Appeal Dismissed

ISSUES

1. Whether the Court of Appeal correctly resolved that the 25th respondent was not involved in double/multiple registration as a Voter and thereby was qualified to contest the Governorship Election within the contemplation of S.182(l) of the 1999 Constitution?

2. Whether the Court of Appeal correctly resolved that the election was not conducted with an invalid Voters Register?

3. Whether the Court of Appeal acted on the correct principles and rightly resolved that the appellant failed to prove that the various allegations of non compliance substantially affected the conduct and outcome of the Anambra State Governorship Election?

RATIONES DECIDENDI

IMPOSSIBILITY OF ELECTIONS BEING PERFECT- THE LAW DOES NOT REQUIRE ELECTION TO BE PERFECT BUT TO SUBSTANTIALLY COMPLY WITH REQUIREMENTS OF THE ELECTORAL LAW

“It must be noted that there can never by a perfect election anywhere. What the law requires is substantial compliance with the requirements of the Electoral law and Procedure.” PER ARIWOOLA, J.S. C

HOW ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION ARE DERIVED- ISSUE FOR DETERMINATION MUST RELATE TO THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL

“This court on several occasions has stated that an issue for determination in an appeal must not only arise from and relate to the grounds of appeal filed, and no more, but also they must be such a proposition of law or of fact or of both law and fact, so cogent, weighty and compelling that a decision on it in favour of a party to the appeal will entitle him to the judgment of the court. See; Chukwu ObiekwP & Anor (1989) 1 NWLR (Pt.99) 566 at 580;  Dredging & Construction V Katoncrest NIHs a (1986) 5 NWLR (Pt.44) 791 at 799; Okoye Vs. N.C.F. Co. Ltd. (1991) 6 NWLR (Pt.199) 501.” PER ARIWOOLA, J.S. C

PROOF OF MULTIPLE VOTERS CARDS- ALLEGATION OF MULTIPLE VOTERS CARDS IS A CRIMINAL OFFENCE WHICH REQUIRES PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT

“For instance, the allegation of multiple registrations or carrying of multiple voters cards against and by the 25 respondent as earlier discussed, corrupt practice is a criminal offence which requires proof beyond reasonable doubt. Nwobodo Vs. Onoh (1984) All MLR 1 at 16.” PER ARIWOOLA, J.S. C

POWER OF COURT TO FORMULATE ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION- A COURT CAN REFRAME OR EVEN REFORMULATE ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION OF AN APPEAL

“However, a court itself is entitled to reframe or even reformulate issues for determination of an appeal for the purpose of narrowing down the issues in controversy in the interest of clarity and brevity, as long as the reformulated issues are anchored on the grounds of appeal as filed in the Notice of Appeal. See; Unity Bank Pic & Anor Vs. Bouari (2008) 2 SCM 193 at 210 Musa Sha (Jnr) & Anor Vs. Da Ray Kwan & 4 Ors. What is more, an appellate court is generally not under a regimental duty to take ail the Issues canvassed by the parties in the appeal.” PER ARIWOOLA, J.S. C

THE GUIDING PRINCIPLE ON FORMULATION OF GROUNDS OF APPEAL: THE GUIDING PRINCIPLE ON FORMULATION OF GROUNDS OF APPEAL IS THAT ISSUES IN A GROUND OF APPEAL SHOULD NOT BE SPLIT

This court has always frowned at and viewed with disfavour the proliferation of issues for determination said to be distilled from the grounds of appeal. The guiding principles on the formulation of issue for determination is that a number of grounds could where appropriate be formulated into a single issue running through them. It is patently undesirable to split the issue in a ground of appeal. See; Dokun Aiayi Labivi & Qrs Vs Moberuagba Anretiola & Drs (1992) NWLR (Pt. 258) 139; (1992) 10 SCNJ 1.” PER ARIWOOLA, J.S. C

WHAT CONSTITUTES A COMPETENT GROUND OF APPEAL- GROUND OF APPEAL MUST DISCLOSE REASONABLE COMPLAINT AGAINST A RATIO DECIDENDI IN THE DECISION SOUGHT TO BE APPEALED AGAINST

“In the same vein, a ground of appeal to be competent must disclose reasonable complaint against a ratio decidendi in the decision sought to appeal as opposed to an obita dictum. In other words, a ground of appeal must be directed at the decision of the court below. See; Egbe Vs. Alhaji (1990) 1 NWLR (Pt.128) 546; A.G. Oyo State Vas Fair Lakes HotPl (1988), 5 NWLR (Pt.92) 1, Prof. Olufeagba & Ors Vs. Prof. Abdur-Raheed & Ors (2009) 11-12 (Pt.l) SCM 125 at 147; (2009) 18 NWLR (Pt.1173) 384.” PER ARIWOOLA, J.S. C.

OBJECT OF FORMULATION OF ISSUES- THE OBJECT OF THE FORMULATION OF ISSUES IS TO CONSIDER THEM IN RELATION TO GROUNDS OF APPEAL SO AS TO ENABLE THE COURT DETERMINE THE APPEAL

“It has also been held that the object of the formulation of issues is to consider a number of associated and related grounds of appeal within the issues to which they are related in the determination of the appeal. This approach facilitates determination of the appeal before the court and renders the appeal more ineligible and comprehensible. See; Raphael Agu Vs. Christian Ozurumba Ikewibi Mqqi^ NWLR (Pt.180) 385; (1991) 4 SCNJ 56; (1991) 4 SC 1.

CERTAINTY OF GROUND OF APPEAL- GROUND OF APPEAL MUST BE CERTAIN AND NOT VAGUE OR ARGUMENTATIVE

“A ground of appeal must be precise and certain; but must not be vague or argumentative. A ground of appeal may be vague where it is couched in a manner which does not provide any explicit standard for its being understood, or when what is stated is so uncertain that it is not susceptible of being understood. It may also be considered vague when the complaint in the ground is not defined in relation to the subject or it is particularised or the particulars are clearly irrelevant. See; Central Bank of Nigeria & Anor Vs. Aite Okojie & Ors (2002) 5 SCM 165; Atueve Vs Ashamu (1987) NSCC (Vol.18) (Pt. 1) 117.” PER ARIWOOLA, J.S. C.

GROUND OF APPEAL- MEANING OF GROUND OF APPEAL

“As a legal terminology, a ground of appeal has been described as the error of law or facts which are alleged by an appellant as the defect in the judgment appealed against upon which reliance has been placed to set it aside. In other words, a ground of appeal is said to be the reason(s) why the decision is considered wrong by the aggrieved party. See; Olaleve Vs. The State (1991) 1 NWLR (Pt.170) 708 at 718; Azatse Vs Zeecor (1994) 5 NWLR (Pt.342) 76 at 83; Idika Vs. Erisi (1988) 2 NWLR (Pt.78) 503 at 578 Chief A. Akpan Vs. Effiong Bob & Or (2010) 10 SCM 1, (2010) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1223) 421.” PER ARIWOOLA, J.S. C.

PROOF OF NON-COMPLIANCE WITH ELECTORAL PROVISIONS-PETITIONER MUST PROVE THAT THE SUBSTANTIAL NON-COMPLIANCE BY AN ELECTORAL BODY HAS AFFECTED THE RESULT OF THE ELECTION

“It is the duty of the Petitioner to establish to the satisfaction of the court, not only that in the conduct of the election there was substantial non-compliance but also that such non-compliance affected the result of the election. See Buhari v. Obasanio 2005 2 NWLR Pt.910 p.241; Buhari v. INEC 2008 19 NWLR Pt. 1120 p.246
The Petitioner must prove that:
Non-compliance took place, and
That the non-compliance substantially affected the result of the election.” RHODES-VIVOUR, JSC

IMPROPRIETY OF A PERSON BEING AT DIFFERENT POLLING UNITS AT SAME TIME- A PERSON CANNOT TESTIFY TO THE EFFECT THAT HE WAS AT MORE THAN MORE THAN ONE POLLING UNITS AT THE SAME TIME

“At least not being a magician who can do “abraka dabra” “the more you look, the less you see” and claim to be in more than one place at the same time – as done by late magician of International recognition – Professor Peller – a Polling agent or even the appellant himself can only testify on what transpired that he saw in his own Polling Unit. Being a human being, he can only be physically present at only one Polling Unit at a given time. See; Chief Oke & Anor Vs. Dr. Mimiko & Ors (No.2) (2014) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1388) 332 at 376.” PER ARIWOOLA, J.S. C

CONCURRENT FINDINGS OF FACTS BY LOWER COURTS- APPELLATE COURT SHOULD NOT DISTURB CONCURRENT FINDINGS OF LOWER COURTS EXCEPT THERE IS MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE

“It is already very well settled, that this court will ordinarily not disturb the findings of facts of two courts below unless there is manifest error which leads to some miscarriage of justice, or a violation of some principles of law or procedure. See; Adaku Amadi Vs Edward N- Nwosu (1992) 6 NLR (Pt.241) 273; (1992) 6 SCNJ 59.” PER ARIWOOLA, J.S. C

COMPUTATION OF ACT TO BE DONE WITHIN 5 DAYS- AN ELECTION MATTER IS TIME – BOUND AN ACT THAT IS TO BE DONE WITHIN FIVE DAYS REQUIRES NO INTERPRETATION

“Election petitions are distinct from ordinary civil proceedings. See Obih V Mbakwe (1984) 1 SCNLR 192 at 200. An election matter is time-bound and any provision relating to time must be strictly applied. It does not permit a resort to Interpretation Act. In any case, a phrase as clear as “within 5 days of service…” does not require any aid in its interpretation.” PER SYLVESTER NGWUTA, JSC

CASES CITED

STATUTES REFERRED TO

Interpretation ActElectoral Act, 2011.

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT