ALHAJI ZANNA BUKAR UMORU MANDARA V ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE FEDERATION
July 24, 2025OBIH V CHIEF S. O. MBAKWE
July 24, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (1984) Legalpedia (SC) 82441
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Fri Jan 20, 1984
Suit Number: SC 109/1983
CORAM
PARTIES
APPELLANTS
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
Both parties were candidates in a senatorial election. The respondent, Ukpabi, was declared elected. The appellant contended that the commission inserted and changed the figures in front of the score of the respondents party, NPN in 3 constituencies
HELD
The Court allowed the appeal, re-instating the judgment of the trial court which declared Mr. Torti, elected.
ISSUES
Are exhibits A, A1 to A19 and C admissible and were they properly admitted?
Was the standard of proof required to establish the petition or the facts alleged in the petition against the 1st respondent/respondent one of proof beyond reasonable doubt or one of preponderance of evidence?
Was it proper for the 1st respondent to have raised the issue of falsification in the Federal Court of Appeal when no allegation of falsification was made against him either in the petition or in
the evidence before the trial court when the 3rd respondent against whom the issue was raised did not appeal?
On the evidence accepted by the trial court did the appellant have a majority of votes entitling him to be declared duly elected or returned as Senator for the Umuahia Senatorial District?
RATIONES DECIDENDI
STANDARD OF PROOF IN CIVIL PROCEEDINGS
The standard of proof required to resolve this issue is one of the balance of probabilities, the burden of proof being one arising in civil cases. Per Obaseki, JSC
MEANING OF PROPER CUSTODY OF DOCUMENT
What, after all, is meant by the expression proper custody of a document? It means no more than its deposit with a person and in a place where, if authentic, it might naturally and reasonably be expected to be found and proof of production from proper custody is required not as a ground for reading the document but to afford the Judge reasonable assurance of its being what it purports to be. Per Eso, JSC
ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE
If a document is inadmissible, the fact of production from proper custody will not make it admissible. A document must be relevant to be admissible. Its production from proper custody goes to weight to be attached to the piece to evidence. If it is from proper custody, it is presumed to be genuine if evidence of execution and identity is not available. If this evidence of execution and identity is available, the evidence of proper custody adds nothing to the weight to be attached to the piece of evidence and if absent, cannot adversely affect the admissibility of the document. Per Obaseki, JSC
CASES CITED
Ogbunyiya v. Okudo (1979) 3 LRN 318;(1979) 6-9 S C 32;(1979) All NLR 105
Kuruma, Son of Kaniu v. The Queen (1955) A.C 197 at page 203,
A. R. Mogaji and Ors. v. R. Odofin and Ors. (1978) 4 S.C 91 at 93
Chief Omoboriowo v. Chief Ajasin SC. 98/1983;(2003) 50 WRN 132;(1984) 1 SCNLR 108
STATUTES REFERRED TO
The Electoral Act, 1982
Evidence Act
