SENATOR JULIUS ALIUCHA & ANOR VS CHIEF MARTIN NWANSCHO ELECHI & ORS

CORAM

PARTIES

SENATOR JULIUS ALIUCHAALL NIGERIA PEOPLES PARTY (ANPP) APPELLANTS

CHIEF MARTIN NWANSCHO ELECHI & ORS

RESPONDENTS 

AREA(S) OF LAW

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The 1st petitioner and the 1st respondent contested the gubernatorial elections for Ebonyi state. The 3rd respondent which is the regulatory body that handles election in Nigeria declared the 1st respondent the winner. The appellant as petitioner filed a petition to challenge the result of the election. In the judgment delivered, the 1st respondent was returned as the duly elected governor of Ebonyi state due to the fact that the petitioners failed to lead cogent evidence to sustain all the grounds upon which they questioned the declaration. Not satisfied with this judgment, the petitioners appealed to the court of appeal. The court of appeal dismissed the appeal saying that the appeal was unmeritorious. Still not satisfied with the decision of the court of appeal, the petitioners further appealed to the Supreme Court.

HELD

The appeal was dismissed due to lack of merit.

ISSUES

1. Whether the lower court was perverse in not discountenancing the 2nd and 3rd to 1772 respondents briefs of argument as incompetent.?

2. Whether the lower court was perverse in not upturning the verdict of the trial tribunal refusing to apply minimal proof in favor of the appellants in view of the discredited respondents’ evidence on record.?

RATIONES DECIDENDI

WHEN A PARTY DECIDES TO RELY ON DOCUMENTS TO PROVE HIS CASE.

“When a party decides to rely on documents to prove his case there must be a link between the document and the specific area/s of the petition. He must relate each document to the specific area of his case for which the document was tendered.” Per Bode Rhodes-Vivour, JSC

DUTY OF A PETITIONER TO PROVE THE COMPLAINT OF NON-COMPLIANCE WITH PROVISIONS OF THE ELECTORAL ACT

“Where a petitioner complains of non-compliance with provisions of the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended) he has a duty to prove it polling unit by polling unit, ward by ward and the standard required is proof on the balance of probabilities and not on minimal proof. He must show figures that the adverse party was credited with as a result of the non-compliance.” Per Bode Rhodes-Vivour, JSC

THE STANDARD OF PROOF ON GROUNDS OF CRIMINAL AND CIVIL NATURE IN ELECTION PETITION TRIALS.

“In Election Petition trials the standard of proof is proof beyond reasonable doubt where the petition is brought on grounds of a criminal nature. Where on the other hand the ground is of a civil nature, the standard of proof is preponderance of evidence and balance of probabilities.” Per Bode Rhodes-Vivour, JSC

A BRILLIANT ADDRESS IS NO SUBSTITUTE FOR EVIDENCE.

“I must point out that a brilliant address is no substitute for evidence. Counsel Submission no matter how brilliant and alluring cannot take the place of legal proof.” Per Bode Rhodes-Vivour, JSC

ARGUMENTS ON PRELIMINARY OBJECTION

“It is long settled that arguments on preliminary objection can be incorporated in briefs of argument thereby obviating the need to file separate Notice of Preliminary objection.” Per Bode Rhodes-Vivour, JSC

CASES CITED

Buhari v. Obasanjo 2005, 13 NWLR pt. 941 p.1
Awolowo v. Shagari 1976-9SC p.51
Akinfosile v. Ijose 1960 SCNLR p.447
ANPP v. INEC 2010 13 NWLR pt.1212 p.549
Ishola v. Ajoboye 1998 1 NWLR pt.532 p.74
Chukujekwu v. Olarere 1992 2 NWLR pt.221 p.86
Sorunke v. Odebunmi 5 FSL OR 1960 SCNLR p.44

STATUTES REFERRED TO

NONE

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT