GUARANTY TRUST BANK PLC V YUNANA SOLOMON
April 25, 2025OKON ETIM AKPAN V THE STATE
April 25, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (2016) Legalpedia (SC) 13141
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Mon Feb 15, 2016
Suit Number: SC.1/2016
CORAM
PARTIES
UDOM GABRIEL EMMANUEL APPELLANTS
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The 4th Respondent INEC conducted election into the office of the Governor of Akwa Ibom State on April 11, 2015, wherein the Appellant as candidate of the 3rd Respondent- Peoples Democratic Party, and the 1st Respondent as candidate of the 2nd Respondent, All Progressive Congress contested alongside other candidates sponsored by various political parties. At the conclusion of the Polls, INEC declared the Appellant the winner and accordingly returned him as having been duly elected. The 1st and 2nd Respondents being aggrieved by that declaration approached the Governorship Election Tribunal with their Petition on grounds that the election was invalid by reason of corrupt practices and/or non-compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended), and also that the Appellant was not duly elected by majority of lawful votes cast at the election. The Petitioner further sought for a declaration that the 1st Respondent now Appellant, was not duly elected or returned by the majority of lawful votes cast at the election, a declaration that the said Governorship election of April 11, 2015 and the return of the 1st Respondent are void/invalid by reason of corrupt practices, non-compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act, and a declaration that the 1st Respondent, did not score and could not have scored majority of lawful votes cast in the said election. The Tribunal in its judgment nullified the results of the said election in eighteen out of the thirty one Local Government Areas of the said State on grounds that the voters in these LGAs were disenfranchised, and ordered re-run elections there. It, however, upheld the election results in thirteen LGAs of the State. Dissatisfied with the said trial Tribunal’s order which nullified results in eighteen LGAs, the Appellant unsuccessfully appealed to the Court of Appeal which in addition to the trial Tribunal’s nullification of election in the eighteen LGAs ordered the nullification of the entire results of the election. Further dissatisfied with the outcome of the appeal, the Appellant has appealed to the Supreme Court.
HELD
Appeal Allowed.
ISSUES
1. Whether the Court of Appeal was right in holding that the ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ standard of proof enunciated and settled by this Honourable court, was not applicable to the criminal allegations made in the Petition, and/or by the first and second respondents?
2. Whether the decision of the Court of Appeal affirming the judgment of the Tribunal that nullified the results of the election in eighteen LGAs of Akwa Ibom State and ordering rerun elections thereat on the ground that the voters in the said LGAs were disenfranchised is not perverse and in breach of the appellant’s right to fair hearing and liable to be set aside by this Honourable court?
3. Whether the Court of Appeal was right in holding that there was over-voting in the election and that the alleged over-voting justified the finding of the Tribunal in regard to purported disenfranchisement of voters and the consequent nullification of the results of the election in the eighteen LGAs?
4. Whether the decision of the lower court affirming the nullification of the results in the eighteen LGAs is not perverse having regard to the fact that the Court relied heavily on legally inadmissible documentary evidence, the makers of which did not testify before the Tribunal?
RATIONES DECIDENDI
NOTICE OF APPEAL – IMPORTANCE OF A NOTICE OF APPEAL
“For it is now trite that a Notice of Appeal is the basic foundation and backbone of every appeal. No Appellate Court can go outside it and dabble with issue not placed before it. See Ralph Nwazurike & Ors v Attorney General Of The Federation (2007) 2 SCNJ. 369; Egholgbin Oketie & Ors V Ambrose Olughor & 6 Ors (1995) 5 SCNJ 217”. PER S. GALADIMA,J.S.C
STANDARD OF PROOF IN AN ELECTION PETITION – REQUISITE STANDARD OF PROOF IN AN ELECTION PETITION WHERE THERE EXIST ALLEGATIONS OF CRIME
“Although election petitions are species of civil cases that are sui generis, where allegations of crime form the fulcrum of the claim in them, the requisite standard is that of proof beyond reasonable doubt. PER C. C. NWEZE, J.S.C.
ELECTION PETITION – DUTY OF A PETITIONER IN PROVING DISENFRANCHISEMENT
“It is no longer open to any disputation that this court has, consistently, maintained that, in order to prove disenfranchisement, a Petitioner must scale the Trinitarian tests enunciated in such cases like Ngige v INEC(2015)1 NWLR (pt 1440) 281, 326; Ucha v Elechi and Ors [2012] 13 NWLR (pt 1317); Oke v Mimiko{No 2) (2014) 1 NWLR (pt 1388) 332. In effect, such a Petitioner should summon disenfranchised voters from each Polling Unit/boot or station to testify, Audu v INEC (No 2) (2010) 13 NWLR (pt 1212) 456, 523; Kakih v PDP [2014] 15 NWLR (pt 1430) 374 etc”. PER C. C.NWEZE, J.S.C.
DUMPING OF EVIDENCE – EFFECT OF DUMPING OF EVIDENCE
“Apart from these facts, the act of dumping exhibits on the Trial Tribunal, without more, is not good enough. It places a great hurdle to the court and prevents it from utilizing such documents for the proper adjudication. See Ucha v Elechi (2012) 13 NWLR (PT. 317) 330; Omisorb v Aregbesela (2015) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1482] 202, 232; Jalingo v Nyame (1992} 3 NWLR (PT. 231) 538.” PER S. GALADIMA,J.S.C
FAIR HEARING – BASIS OF FAIR HEARING
“Yes, as this court explained in Dawodu v Olugundudu [1986] 4 NWLR (pt. 33)104, 114:
…certain features of our adversary system of administration of justice carry with them some implications of inevitable delay. The audi alteram partem rule, (which together with the rule nemo judex in causa sua form the twin pillars upon which fair hearing is based), carry with it the need to give to all parties due notice of hearing and the opportunity to be heard and to cross-examine every witness called by ones adversaries. Generally, a breach of the rule, save in a few statutory exceptions wll invalidate the proceedings because it is breach of not only the right to fair hearing entrenched in our Constitution but also a breach of rule of natural law”. PER C. C .NWEZE, JSC.
ELECTION -DUTY OF A PETITIONER WHO ALLEGES THAT AN ELECTION IS INVALID BY REASON OF NON COMPLIANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE ELECTORAL ACT
“Where a petitioner alleges that the election is invalid because of non-compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act he has the burden of showing that the non-compliance substantially affected the result of the election. Section 139(i) of the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended) provides that:-
“An Election shall not be liable to be invalidated by reason of noncompliance with the provisions of this Act if it appears to the Election Tribunal or Court that the election was conducted substantially in accordance with the principles of this Act and that the noncompliance did not affect substantially the result of the election”. PER K.B.AKAAHS, J.S.C
CONCURRENT FINDINGS OF LOWER COURTS –INSTANCES WHERE THE APPELLATE COURT WOULD UPSET CONCURRENT FINDINGS OF LOWER COURTS
“As it is well-known, this court will, readily, upset concurrent findings of lower courts where there are exceptional circumstances, such as, where the findings are perverse; where there was a miscarriage of justice or where a principle of Law or procedure was not followed, Ogbu v. State [1992] 8 NWLR (pt. 295) 255; Igago v State [1999] 14 NWLR (pt. 637) 1; Adeyemi v The State [1991] 1 NWLR (pt. 170) 679; Adeyeye v The State (2013) LPELR -19913 (SC) 46; Akpabo v State [1994] 7 NWLR (pt 359) 635; Ejikeme v Okonkwo [1994] 8 NWLR (pt 362) 266.” PER C. C.NWEZE, J.S.C.
PERVERSE DECISION – WHEN IS A DECISION SAID TO BE PERVERSE
“A decision is said to be perverse when, inter alia, it ignores, overlooks or does not follow a principle of Law or procedure which is binding, Ogbu v. State (supra); Igago v State (supra); Adeyemi v The State (supra); Adeyeye v The State (supra); Akpabo v State (supra); Ejikeme v Okonkwo (supra).” PER C. C.NWEZE, J.S.C.
APPLICATION OF PRINCIPLE OF LAW – EFFECT OF WHERE A PRINCIPLE OF LAW IS WRONGLY APPLIED TO THE FACTS OF A CASE
“There is no doubt that where a principle of law is wrongly applied to the facts of a case, the decision arising therefrom would be said to be perverse and would not be allowed to stand. See: Nobis-Elendu Vs INEC (2015) LPELR-25127 (SC): Ebba Vs Ogodo (1984) 1 SCNLR 372: Adeyemi Vs The State (1991) 1 NWLR (Pt.170) 635.” PER K.M.O KEKERE-EKUN,J.S.C
DUMPING OF EVIDENCE – EFFECT OF DUMPING OF EVIDENCE
“Apart from these facts, the act of dumping exhibits on the Trial Tribunal, without more, is not good enough. It places a great hurdle to the court and prevents it from utilizing such documents for the proper adjudication. See Ucha v Elechi (2012) 13 NWLR (PT. 317) 330; Omisorb v Aregbesela (2015) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1482] 202, 232; Jalingo v Nyame (1992} 3 NWLR (PT. 231) 538.” PER S. GALADIMA,J.S.C
AVERMENTS IN PLEADINGS – STATUS OF AVERMENTS IN PLEADINGS UNSUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE
“This is the rationale for the long line of authorities that averments in pleadings, which are unsupported by evidence, are unavailing to the pleader as they go to no issue, and so must be discountenanced, Odutola v Papersack Nig Ltd [2006] 18 NWLR (pt 1012) 470 etc. The explanation is very simple. An averment in a pleading is not evidence and cannot be substituted for evidence. Such an averment does not, therefore, amount to proof unless it is admitted, Aake and Anor v Akun [2003] 14 NWLR (pt 840) 311; (2003) LPELR -72 (SC) 9, paragraph G; Ajuwon v Akanni and Ors [1993] 9 NWLR (pt 316) 182, 200; Magnusson v Koiki and Ors [1993] 9 NWLR (pt 317) 287.” PER C. C .NWEZE, J.S.C.
JUDGMENT OF COURT – DUTY OF COURT TO ENSURE ITS JUDGMENT IS CONFINED TO THE ISSUES RAISED BY THE PARTIES
“It is, always, advisable for a court to ensure that its judgment is confined to the issues raised by the parties, Commissioner for Works Benue State v. Devcon Development Consultants Ltd [1988] 3 NWLR (pt .83) 407; Nigerian Housing Development Society Ltd. v Mumuni [1977] 2 SC 57; Adeniji v. Adeniji [1972] 1 AN NLR (pt.l) 278; Alli v. Alesinloye [2000] 6 NWLR(pt.660) 177, 211- 212. PER C. C.NWEZE, J.S.C.
NOTICE OF APPEAL – IMPORTANCE OF A NOTICE OF APPEAL
“For it is now trite that a Notice of Appeal is the basic foundation and backbone of every appeal. No Appellate Court can go outside it and dabble with issue not placed before it. See Ralph Nwazurike & Ors v Attorney General Of The Federation (2007) 2 SCNJ. 369; Egholgbin Oketie & Ors V Ambrose Olughor & 6 Ors (1995) 5 SCNJ 217”. PER S. GALADIMA,J.S.C
APPLICATION OF PRINCIPLE OF LAW – EFFECT OF WHERE A PRINCIPLE OF LAW IS WRONGLY APPLIED TO THE FACTS OF A CASE
“There is no doubt that where a principle of law is wrongly applied to the facts of a case, the decision arising therefrom would be said to be perverse and would not be allowed to stand. See: Nobis-Elendu Vs INEC (2015) LPELR-25127 (SC): Ebba Vs Ogodo (1984) 1 SCNLR 372: Adeyemi Vs The State (1991) 1 NWLR (Pt.170) 635.” PER K.M.O KEKERE-EKUN,J.S.C
CROSS EXAMINATION- DUTY OF A COURT WHERE EVIDENCE FAILS TO PASS THE TEST OF CROSS EXAMINATION
“What is more, there is, even, authority for the view that as “cross examination plays a vital role in the truth -searching process of evidence procured by examination-in-chief it relates to authenticity or veracity of the witness, a court of law is entitled not to place probative value on evidence which does not pass the test of cross-examination…, “Buhari v INEC [2008] 19 NWLR (pt 1120) 246, 414 -415; Shinkafi and Anor v. Yah and Ors.” PER C. C .NWEZE, J.S.C.
ELECTION – MODE OF PROVING DISENFRANCHISEMENT
“The only mode of proving disenfranchisement, as shown above, is by calling, at least, one registered voter Polling Unit by Polling Unit etc as enunciated in the cases I had referred to before now, Ucha v Elechi and Ors. supra); Ngige v INEC (supra); Kakih v PDP (supra) etc” PER C. C .NWEZE, J.S.C.
CROSS EXAMINATION- DUTY OF A COURT WHERE EVIDENCE FAILS TO PASS THE TEST OF CROSS EXAMINATION
“What is more, there is, even, authority for the view that as “cross examination plays a vital role in the truth -searching process of evidence procured by examination-in-chief it relates to authenticity or veracity of the witness, a court of law is entitled not to place probative value on evidence which does not pass the test of cross-examination…, “Buhari v INEC [2008] 19 NWLR (pt 1120) 246, 414 -415; Shinkafi and Anor v. Yah and Ors.” PER C. C .NWEZE, J.S.C.
ELECTION PETITION – NATURE OF AN ELECTION PETITION
“It is well settled that an election petition is a proceeding, which is sui generis, being of its own kind, possessing an individualistic character, which is unique and like only to itself. It is unlike ordinary civil proceedings and governed by its own unique Constitutional and statutory provisions. See: Buhari Vs Yusuf (2003) 14 NWLR (Pt.841) 446: Hassan Vs. Aliyu (2001) 17 NWLR (Pt.1223) 547: Enuwa Vs. O.S.I.E.C. (2006)10 NWLR (Pt.1012) 544”. PER K.M.O KEKERE-EKUN, J.S.C
STARE DECISIS – DOCTRINE OF STARE DECISIS
“By the doctrine of stare decisis a point of law that has been settled by a superior court must be followed by a lower court. See: Chukwuma Ogwe & Anr. Vs I.G.P. (2015) LPELR-SC 214/2013: Royal Exchange Assurance Nig, Ltd. Vs Aswani Textiles Ind. Ltd. (1991) 2 NWLR (Pt.176) 639 @ 672”. PER K.M.O KEKERE-EKUN,J.S.C
ELECTION -DUTY OF A PETITIONER WHO ALLEGES THAT AN ELECTION IS INVALID BY REASON OF NON COMPLIANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE ELECTORAL ACT
“Where a petitioner alleges that the election is invalid because of non-compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act he has the burden of showing that the non-compliance substantially affected the result of the election. Section 139(i) of the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended) provides that:-
“An Election shall not be liable to be invalidated by reason of noncompliance with the provisions of this Act if it appears to the Election Tribunal or Court that the election was conducted substantially in accordance with the principles of this Act and that the noncompliance did not affect substantially the result of the election”. PER K.B.AKAAHS, J.S.C
PLEADINGS – INSTANCE WHERE A PETITIONER CAN SUCCEED IN HIS CLAIM WITHOUT PROVING AN ALLEGATION OF CRIME IN HIS PLEADINGS
“The law has, long, been settled that where a Petitioner makes an allegation of crime in his pleadings but, nonetheless, can succeed in his claim without proving the crime it cannot be said that the alleged crime was in issue or directly in issue, Nwobodo v Onoh [1984] 75 NSCC 7,76; Military Administrator of Imo State v Nwauwa [1997] 2 NWLR (pt 490) 675, 708; Omoboriowo v Ajasin [1984] 1 SCNLR 108, 152.” PER C. C.NWEZE, J.S.C.
STARE DECISIS – DOCTRINE OF STARE DECISIS
“By the doctrine of stare decisis a point of law that has been settled by a superior court must be followed by a lower court. See: Chukwuma Ogwe & Anr. Vs I.G.P. (2015) LPELR-SC 214/2013: Royal Exchange Assurance Nig, Ltd. Vs Aswani Textiles Ind. Ltd. (1991) 2 NWLR (Pt.176) 639 @ 672”. PER K.M.O KEKERE-EKUN,J.S.C
ELECTION PETITION – NATURE OF AN ELECTION PETITION
“It is well settled that an election petition is a proceeding, which is sui generis, being of its own kind, possessing an individualistic character, which is unique and like only to itself. It is unlike ordinary civil proceedings and governed by its own unique Constitutional and statutory provisions. See: Buhari Vs Yusuf (2003) 14 NWLR (Pt.841) 446: Hassan Vs. Aliyu (2001) 17 NWLR (Pt.1223) 547: Enuwa Vs. O.S.I.E.C. (2006)10 NWLR (Pt.1012) 544”. PER K.M.O KEKERE-EKUN, J.S.C
CASES CITED
STATUTES REFERRED TO
1. Electoral Act, 2010 (As amended)
