(2019) LPELR-47432(CA)lawpavilionpersonal.com/ipad/books/47432.pdf · 2019. 6. 26. · OMOLU v....
Transcript of (2019) LPELR-47432(CA)lawpavilionpersonal.com/ipad/books/47432.pdf · 2019. 6. 26. · OMOLU v....
OMOLU v. DAVID & ORS
CITATION: (2019) LPELR-47432(CA)
In the Court of AppealIn the Benin Judicial Division
Holden at Benin
ON MONDAY, 15TH APRIL, 2019Suit No: CA/B/123/2019
Before Their Lordships:
CHIOMA EGONDU NWOSU-IHEME Justice, Court of AppealPHILOMENA MBUA EKPE Justice, Court of AppealMOORE ASEIMO ABRAHAM ADUMEIN Justice, Court of Appeal
BetweenEZE OMOLU - Appellant(s)
And1. MR. OCHONOGOR CHUKWUKA DAVID2. INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORALCOMMISSION3. ALL PROGRESSIVES CONGRESS
- Respondent(s)
RATIO DECIDENDI
(201
9) LP
ELR-47
432(
CA)
1. ELECTORAL MATTERS - POLITICAL PARTY PRIMARY: Who can institute an action incourt to complain about the conduct of a political party primaries"To begin with, the Appellant asserts that the 1st Respondent had no locus standi toinstitute the action as plaintiff at the lower Court. The question here is whether the 1stRespondent has sufficient legal interest that is being threatened. To establish this fact, it istherefore pertinent to examine his statement of claim which in the present case is theaffidavit in support of the originating summons. In paragraph 8 of the affidavit in support ofthe originating summons it is clearly thus stated ...8. The names of those who participated in the primary election and their respective scoresare as follows:a. EMEKA OSSAI ....... 23 VOTESb. ADOH DUKE OGOCHUKWU DAVID .... 98 VOTESc. OCHONOGOR CHUKWUKA DAVID ..... 98 VOTESd. EZE OMOLU ........ 2 VOTESe. VOID VOTES ...... NILf. TOTAL VOTES CAST ....... 146 VOTES.It is clearly stated in paragraph 9, that the 1st Respondent polled the highest number ofvotes cast and was accordingly declared and returned as the winner of the primary election.The said hand written copy of the result was tendered as exhibit B. In the case ofEKHAGUERE V IGBINOMWANHIA (2010) LPELR this Court stated:"The term locus standi ..... has been defined as denoting legal capacity to institute actionsin a Court of law. It is not dependent on the success or merit of a case, it is a conditionprecedent to adjudication by a Court to determine a case on the merits."Going by the undisputed facts in the instant case at the lower Court, it generally borders onthe nomination of candidates and the duty of the 2nd Respondent (INEC) to accept or rejectthe candidate with the highest votes. If the 1st Respondent was an aspirant, rightly orwrongly then he has an interest to protect and thus has the locus standi to institute anaction whether or not he stands to win at the end."Per EKPE, J.C.A. (Pp. 11-13, Paras. D-B) -read in context
(201
9) LP
ELR-47
432(
CA)
2. ELECTORAL MATTERS - PRE-ELECTION MATTERS: Proper time to institute pre-electionmatters: how to determine the date of accrual of cause of action"S. 285 (9) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) thus provide:"Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Constitution, every pre-election mattershall be filed not later than 14 days from the date of the occurrence of the event, decisionor action complained of in the suit." By the words of the Constitution as aforestated, onecan only read the ordinary grammatical meaning to the said words. By a literalinterpretation to the above S. 285 (9) of the Constitution (as amended), it follows that everypre-election matter, case, cause or action ought to be filed within 14 days from the date ofthe occurrence of the action or event complained of. It follows therefore that in order todetermine whether a pre-election matter was filed within the stipulated 14 days as perSection 285 (9) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) the Court should examine theoriginating process of the claimant's suit to determine "the date of the event, the decisionor action complained of in the suit". In general legal parlance, an action shall not becommenced outside the time so prescribed by statute. In other words a suit must becommenced by an aggrieved party within the statutory period otherwise the said action willbe statute-barred. When an action is statute barred, the following legal consequences willfollow: to wit. 1. The party will lose the right of action 2. The Party would lose the right ofenforcement 3. The party would also irretrievably lose the right to judicial relief.See also the following authorities:SOSAN V. ADEMUYIWA (1986) 3 NWLR (Pt.27) 241; NIG. PORTS AUTHORITY PLC V. LOTUSPLASTICS LTD. & ANOR. (2005) 19 NWLR 158.The period of limitation in respect of any case runs from the date the cause of action occursand to determine such a date, one has to look at the writ of summons and the averment inthe claim as well as the evidence adduced in Court. The cause of action would occur when itbecomes complete, such that the aggrieved party can begin and maintain his claim. See ITFV. NRC (2007) 3 NWLR (1020) 28.In the instant case, the 1st Respondent contended that the cause of action arose on the 6thday of October 2018 when the primary election to the House of Assembly for Ukwuani StateConstituency was conducted and in line with Section 285 (9) of the 1999 Constitution (4thAlteration) as amended and that thePlaintiff/Appellant had 14 days within which to file this suit. It is my view as well as that heldby the lower Court, that the 1st Respondent did not complain about the conduct of theprimary election for Ukwuani State Constituency but that he became aware of this on the10th day of November 2018 and thus he became a Plaintiff and time began to run fromthereon. In the case of WILLIAMS V. WILLIAMS (2008) 10 NWLR (Pt.1095) 369 para A-C. Theapex Court clearly thus stated: "Time therefore begins to run when there is in existence aperson who can sue and another who can be sued and all facts have happened which arematerial to be proved to entitle the Plaintiff to succeed." From the above summation, the1st Respondent became aware of the omission of his name published by the 2ndRespondent on the 10/11/2018 i.e. the 10th day of November 2018 and the suit was filed onthe 21/11/2018. It follows therefore that the suit was filed within the limitation period andtherefore not statute barred. In other words, the action arose on the 10/11/2018 when the1st Respondent discovered that his name was not published by INEC as the candidate of the2nd Respondent/Appellant for the House of Assembly, Ukwuani State Constituency since thenomination form published did not carry his name as a candidate. See paras 12-15 of the1st Respondent's affidavit in support of the originating summons. I reiterate the fact thatSection 285(9) of the Constitution (4th Alteration No.21) of 2017 provides as follows:"Every pre-election matter shall be filed not later than 14 days from the date of theoccurrence of the event, decision or action complained of in the suit."Per EKPE, J.C.A. (Pp.13-17, Paras. F-C) - read in context
(201
9) LP
ELR-47
432(
CA)
PHILOMENA MBUA EKPE, J.C.A. (Delivering the
Leading Judgment): This appeal emanates from the
decision of the Federal High Court Asaba, delivered on the
26th Day of February 2019.
The brief facts of the case are as follows:
The Appellant, the 1st Respondent and other
members of the 3rd Respondent party contested the
primary election of the A.P.C. for the Ukwuani State
Constituency for the 2019 general elections into the
Delta State House of Assembly. The story line of the
Appellant is that he had emerged as winner of the
said elections and was consequently chosen by his
party the 3rd Respondent as its candidate for the
constituency for the general elections into the Delta
State House of Assembly.
The 1st Respondent however filed an Originating
Summons at the Federal High Court, Asaba Division
claiming a number of reliefs which included a
declaration that having regards to Section 87(4) (c) of
the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended), the 1st
defendant acted illegally, improperly, unfair and
unjustly to have accepted from the 2nd defendant and
consequently published the nomination form filed by
the 3rd
1
(201
9) LP
ELR-47
432(
CA)
defendant as the candidate of the 2nd defendant in
the forthcoming House of Assembly Elections in
Ukwuani State Constituency.
The Appellant hereinafter filed a preliminary objection to
the suit. The said preliminary objection and the originating
summons were taken together by the lower Court and
Judgment was delivered on the 26th day of February, 2019.
A notice of Appeal was filed on the 6th day of March 2019
and the Appellant raised the following issues for
determination:
1. Whether the 1st respondent had the locus standi to
challenge the choice of candidate of the 3rd
respondent for Ukwuani State Constituency in the
2019 general election into Delta State House of
Assembly. GROUND 1, 4 and 5.
2. Whether the trial Court had the jurisdiction to
entertain the 1st respondent’s suit not being
justiceable. GROUND 2.
3. Whether the 1st respondent’s suit was not
statute barred. GROUND 3.
4. Whether exhibits B and D exhibited by the 1st
respondent do not contradict themselves and if they
do whether the effect is not to reject both. GROUND
7.
5. Whether exhibit B the hand written result by the
2
(201
9) LP
ELR-47
432(
CA)
1st respondent is the result of the primary election
conducted by the 3rd respondent for Ukwuani State
Constituency. GROUND 6.
6. Whether the 1st respondent proved his case from
the evidence before the Court. GROUND 8 AND 9.
The 1st Respondent on his part also raised the following
issues for determination:
i. Whether the 1st Respondent had the locus standi to
institute the suit at the lower Court? (Grounds 1, 4
and 5)
ii. Whether in the circumstance of this case, the suit
of the 1st Respondent is justiciable (Ground 2)
iii. Whether the lower Court was right when it held
that the case of the 1st Respondent is not statute
barred (Ground 3)
iv. Whether the lower Court was right in the
circumstance of this case to rely on Exhibits B and D
exhibited by the 1st Respondent (Ground 7)
v. Whether from the totality of the circumstance of
the case, the lower Court was right to exercise its
discretion in favour of the 1st Respondent (Ground 6,
8 and 9).
I shall adopt the issues as raised and couched by the
Appellant to be used in this discourse.
On Issue One, Whether the 1st respondent had the
locus
(201
9) LP
ELR-47
432(
CA)
3
(201
9) LP
ELR-47
432(
CA)
standi to challenge the choice of candidate of the 3rd
respondent for Ukwuani State Constituency in the
2019 general election into Delta State House of
Assembly. Ground 1, 4 and 5. Learned counsel for the
Appellant argued that nobody including members of a
political party can challenge the choice of candidate of a
political party. He stated that the right granted by S. 87 (9)
of the Electoral Act 2011 specifies that the nomination of a
candidate is within the domestic affairs of that political
party. He cited the cases of:
1. UFOMBA VS INEC
2. FALEKE VS. INEC
That an aspirant under S. 87 (9) of the Electoral Act has the
right only to challenge the process of a primary election
only for the purpose of securing damages if any
wrongdoing against the party is proved.
Learned counsel for the Appellant further stressed the
point that the 1st Respondent did not participate in the said
primary election. That exhibit D bears the name David
Ochonogo as the participant while the 1st Respondent’s
name as shown in the suit is Mr. Chukwuka David. He
concluded that the 1st Respondent not being an aspirant in
4
(201
9) LP
ELR-47
432(
CA)
the primary election lacks the locus standi to institute the
action.
On Issue Two, counsel submitted that the trial Court had no
jurisdiction to entertain any suit under S. 87(8) of the
Electoral Act for the purpose of delving into the choice of
candidates of the political party.
On Issue Three, whether the 1st respondent’s suit was
not statute barred. Ground 3. Learned counsel for the
Appellant opined that the suit of the 1st Respondent was
statute barred. That the cause of action in the suit arose
before the 15th October 2018 while the action of the 1st
Respondent was filed at least 37 days after the event
occurred.
On Issue 4, whether exhibits B and D exhibited by the
1st respondent do not contradict themselves and if
they do whether the effect is not to reject
both. Ground 7.
Learned counsel for the Appellant canvassed the main point
of argument by submitting that there are contradictions in
exhibit D between 140 delegates registered and 146 votes
cast as exhibited in Exhibit D.
On Issues 5 and 6:
5. Whether exhibit B the hand written result by the
1st respondent is the result of the primary
(201
9) LP
ELR-47
432(
CA)
5
(201
9) LP
ELR-47
432(
CA)
election conducted by the 3rd respondent for
Ukwuani State Constituency. Ground 6.
6. Whether the 1st respondent proved his case from
the evidence before the Court. Ground 8 and 9.
Learned counsel for the Appellant argued both Issues in
one fell swoop by first submitting that the only authentic
result of the election should emanate from the General
Onoja’s Committee. That the 1st Respondent merely
annexed exhibit B, a handwritten result which did not bear
any insignia of the A.P.C. party. That it was merely the
result of the Delta State Chapter of the 3rd Respondent
(APC). That as rightly held by the trial Court earlier, only
the National Executive Committee can conduct a party
primary and not a state chapter of a party. See ETIM V
AKPAN (2019) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1654) 451 Ratio 1.
Learned counsel then concluded that the so called decision
of the National Appeal Committee of APC nailed the case of
the 1st Respondent by first confirming that the suit was
filed not less than 30 days after the cause of action arose.
In reply, the 1st Respondent’s counsel argued that he had
sufficient legal
6
(201
9) LP
ELR-47
432(
CA)
interest to institute this action. That from the affidavit in
support of the originating summons, the 1st respondent
detailed how he contended and won the primary elections
of the party (APC) but the forms published in respect of the
3rd Respondent’s candidate for Ukwuani State
Constituency was that of the appellant. That it is on record
that the 1st Respondent was an aspirant/candidate at the
primary election concluded by the 3rd Respondent in
respect of Ukwuani State Constituency. Learned
Respondent’s Counsel further argued that the name
“OCHONGOR CHUKWUKA DAVID" is one and the same
name as “DAVID OCHONOGOR” and that the institution of
the wrong name amounts to dwelling on technicality which
the Courts have long moved away from.
Learned Respondent’s counsel surmised that by virtue of S.
87 (9) of the Electoral Act, the 1st Respondent who
complained that he polled the highest votes in the primary
election and was not recognized as the lawful candidate of
the Political Party by the 2nd Respondent can maintain a
justiciable suit in the High Court. To buttress this
assertion,
7
(201
9) LP
ELR-47
432(
CA)
the case of AGHEDO V ADENOMO (2019) 13 NWLR
(Pt. 1636) 264.
On the issue of the suit being statute barred, the 1st
Respondent’s counsel further submitted that it is settled
law that in determining whether a suit is statute barred,
the only process open to the Court’s consideration is the
plaintiff’s originating process and the affidavit in
support. That the time limited by virtue of S. 285 (9) of the
4th Alteration to the Constitution is 14 days. That the
evaluation of evidence on this issue is the exclusive
preserve of the trial Court and the appellate Court can only
interfere where the decision of the trial Court is seen to be
perverse.
On the issue of Exhibits B and D being contradictory,
learned counsel opined that the lower Court had evaluated
the evidence and found that the number of votes allotted to
the candidates both on Exhibits B and D tally, and therefore
relied on same. That the contradictions should only be on
material facts for the Court to doubt such evidence.
He concluded that the lower Court was right to rely and
ascribe evidential weight to the said exhibits B & D.
8
(201
9) LP
ELR-47
432(
CA)
On the issue of the Court’s exercise of discretion in favour
of the 1st Respondent, learned counsel for the 1st
Respondent submitted that a party claiming a declaration
of a right must provide ample evidence. See BELLO V
EWEKA (1981) NSCC (Vol. 12) 48. That the claim of the
1st Respondent before the lower Court was that he polled
the highest scores at the primary of the 3rd Respondent but
that the appellant was in his stead recognized. That to
prove the above assertion, the 1st Respondent then
rendered exhibit B which is the handwritten result of the
primary election. See pages 9 & 10 of the record. 1st
Respondent further argued that of all the aspirants, the 1st
Respondent scored the highest votes and won the primary
of the 3rd Respondent thus producing Exhibit H which is
the report of 3rd Respondent’s appeal committee, declaring
1st Respondent winner of the said election.
Learned Respondent’s counsel then concluded that a party
asking for a declaratory relief should succeed on the
strength of his case and the burden then shifts to the other
party to disprove the case of the plaintiff. He further
concluded that the appellant as the
9
(201
9) LP
ELR-47
432(
CA)
defendant at the lower Court failed to discharge that
burden and urge the Court to dismiss the appeal.
RESOLUTION:
The 1st Respondent as plaintiff in the lower Court prayed
for the following reliefs:
1. A DECLARATION that having regards to Section 87
(4) (c) of the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended), the
Plaintiff is the lawful candidate of the 2nd Defendant
in the forthcoming House of Assembly Elections in
Ukwuani State Constituency.
2. A DECLARATION that having regards to Sections
87 (4) (c) of the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended), the
1st Defendant acted illegally, improperly, unfairly and
unjustly to have accepted from the 2nd Defendant and
Consequently published the nomination form filled by
the 3rd Defendant as the candidate of the 2nd
Defendant in the forthcoming House of Assembly
Elections in Ukwuani State Constituency.
3. AN ORDER DIRECTING AND COMPELLING the 1st
Defendant either by herself, agents, servants, privies,
surrogates, staff or any person acting through the
Defendant to recognize forthwith the Plaintiff as the
lawful candidate of the 2nd Defendant in the
forthcoming House of Assembly Elections in Ukwuani
State Constituency.
10
(201
9) LP
ELR-47
432(
CA)
The gravamen of the case of the appellant is that having
regards to S.87(4) of the Electoral Act 2010 (as
amended) the 1st Defendant/2nd Respondent acted illegally
and unjustly to have accepted and published the
nomination form filed by the 1st Respondent/2nd Defendant
in the forth coming House of Assembly Elections in
Ukwuani State Constituency. The Appellant then prays for
an order directing and compelling the 1st Defendant/2nd
Respondent to recognize forthwith the Plaintiff/Appellant as
the lawful candidate of the 2nd Defendant/3rd Respondent
in the forthcoming House of Assembly Elections in the
Ukwuani State Constituency.
To begin with, the Appellant asserts that the 1st
Respondent had no locus standi to institute the action as
plaintiff at the lower Court. The question here is whether
the 1st Respondent has sufficient legal interest that is
being threatened. To establish this fact, it is therefore
pertinent to examine his statement of claim which in the
present case is the affidavit in support of the originating
summons.
In paragraph 8 of the affidavit in support of the originating
summons it is clearly thus stated …..
11
(201
9) LP
ELR-47
432(
CA)
8. The names of those who participated in the primary
election and their respective scores are as follows:
a. EMEKA OSSAI ……. 23 VOTES
b. ADOH DUKE OGOCHUKWU DAVID …. 98 VOTES
c. OCHONOGOR CHUKWUKA DAVID ….. 98 VOTES
d. EZE OMOLU …….. 2 VOTES
e. VOID VOTES …… NIL
f. TOTAL VOTES CAST ……. 146 VOTES.
It is clearly stated in paragraph 9, that the 1st Respondent
polled the highest number of votes cast and was
accordingly declared and returned as the winner of the
primary election. The said hand written copy of the result
was tendered as exhibit B. In the case of EKHAGUERE V
IGBINOMWANHIA (2010) LPELR this Court stated:
“The term locus standi ….. has been defined as
denoting legal capacity to institute actions in a Court
of law. It is not dependent on the success or merit of
a case, it is a condition precedent to adjudication by a
Court to determine a case on the merits.”
Going by the undisputed facts in the instant case at the
lower Court, it generally
12
(201
9) LP
ELR-47
432(
CA)
borders on the nomination of candidates and the duty of
the 2nd Respondent (INEC) to accept or reject the
candidate with the highest votes. If the 1st Respondent was
an aspirant, rightly or wrongly then he has an interest to
protect and thus has the locus standi to institute an action
whether or not he stands to win at the end.
The next point to be considered is whether the trial Court
had the jurisdiction to entertain the suit of the 1st
Respondent. There is no gainsaying the fact that the lower
Court is indeed clothed with the jurisdiction to entertain
the suit at the lower Court being an election petition ……
resolved by an Election Tribunal manned by either the
State High Court or the Federal High Court.
Again, the Appellant argued that the suit of the Plaintiff/1st
Respondent at the lower Court is statute barred. I have
indeed ploughed through the record of appeal and the
briefs of the various parties also paying specific attention to
the legal authorities cited by the contending parties. S. 285
(9) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria
(as amended) thus provides:
13
(201
9) LP
ELR-47
432(
CA)
“Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this
Constitution, every pre-election matter shall be filed
not later than 14 days from the date of the
occurrence of the event, decision or action
complained of in the suit."
By the words of the Constitution as aforestated, one can
only read the ordinary grammatical meaning to the said
words. By a literal interpretation to the above S. 285 (9) of
the Constitution (as amended), it follows that every pre-
election matter, case, cause or action ought to be filed
within 14 days from the date of the occurrence of the
action or event complained of. It follows therefore that in
order to determine whether a pre-election matter was filed
within the stipulated 14 days as per Section 285 (9) of the
1999 Constitution (as amended) the Court should examine
the originating process of the claimant’s suit to determine
“the date of the event, the decision or action
complained of in the suit”. In general legal parlance, an
action shall not be commenced outside the time so
prescribed by statute. In other words a suit must be
commenced by an aggrieved party within the statutory
period otherwise the said action will be statute-barred.
14
(201
9) LP
ELR-47
432(
CA)
When an action is statute barred, the following legal
consequences will follow: to wit.
1. The party will lose the right of action
2. The Party would lose the right of enforcement
3. The party would also irretrievably lose the right to
judicial relief.
See also the following authorities:
SOSAN V. ADEMUYIWA (1986) 3 NWLR (Pt.27) 241;
NIG. PORTS AUTHORITY PLC V. LOTUS PLASTICS
LTD. & ANOR. (2005) 19 NWLR 158.
The period of limitation in respect of any case runs from
the date the cause of action occurs and to determine such a
date, one has to look at the writ of summons and the
averment in the claim as well as the evidence adduced in
Court. The cause of action would occur when it becomes
complete, such that the aggrieved party can begin and
maintain his claim. See ITF V. NRC (2007) 3 NWLR
(1020) 28.
In the instant case, the 1st Respondent contended that the
cause of action arose on the 6th day of October 2018 when
the primary election to the House of Assembly for Ukwuani
State Constituency was conducted and in line with Section
285 (9) of the 1999 Constitution (4th Alteration) as
amended and that the
15
(201
9) LP
ELR-47
432(
CA)
Plaintiff/Appellant had 14 days within which to file this
suit. It is my view as well as that held by the lower Court,
that the 1st Respondent did not complain about the conduct
of the primary election for Ukwuani State Constituency but
that he became aware of this on the 10th day of November
2018 and thus he became a Plaintiff and time began to run
from thereon. In the case ofWILLIAMS V. WILLIAMS
(2008) 10 NWLR (Pt.1095) 369 para A-C. The apex
Court clearly thus stated:
“Time therefore begins to run when there is in
existence a person who can sue and another who can
be sued and all facts have happened which are
material to be proved to entitle the Plaintiff to
succeed.”
From the above summation, the 1st Respondent became
aware of the omission of his name published by the 2nd
Respondent on the 10/11/2018 i.e. the 10th day of
November 2018 and the suit was filed on the 21/11/2018. It
follows therefore that the suit was filed within the
limitation period and therefore not statute barred. In other
words, the action arose on the 10/11/2018 when the 1st
Respondent discovered that his name was not published by
INEC as the candidate
16
(201
9) LP
ELR-47
432(
CA)
of the 2nd Respondent/Appellant for the House of
Assembly, Ukwuani State Constituency since the
nomination form published did not carry his name as a
candidate. See paras 12-15 of the 1st Respondent’s
affidavit in support of the originating summons. I reiterate
the fact that Section 285(9) of the Constitution (4th
Alteration No.21) of 2017 provides as follows:
“Every pre-election matter shall be filed not later
than 14 days from the date of the occurrence of the
event, decision or action complained of in the suit.”
The next point to be considered is whether Exhibits B and
D exhibited by the 1st Respondent do not contradict
themselves and ought to have been rejected. To begin this
discourse, Exhibit B is the hand written result of the
primary election given to the 1st Respondent by his agent.
(See page 9 & 10 of the record). Also Exhibit B is the report
of INEC (2nd Respondent) of the primary election. No
doubt the Appellant herein has made heavy weather of the
fact that the above named exhibits are contradictory and
ought to have been jettisoned by the lower Court.
It is on record that the lower Court went
17
(201
9) LP
ELR-47
432(
CA)
through the gamut of evaluating the entire evidence before
it and arrived at the conclusion that the discrepancies in
the two pieces of exhibits are not material as alleged. In
fact the lower Court held that both exhibits tally and that
the facts therein are not material enough to be discarded or
jettisoned.
It is noteworthy that the 1st Respondent polled the highest
votes at the said primary election and also the fact that 2nd
Respondent (INEC) monitored the said elections of the
Appellant and 1st Respondent. It is my humble view
therefore that the lower Court was right to rely and ascribe
evidential weight to Exhibit B and D as evidence
admissible, relevant and credible. We cannot therefore
gloss over the report of INEC who monitored the elections
and produced the result as well as the report of the Appeals
panel of the Gen. Onoje.
In the final analysis, and from the totality of all of the above
summation, I hold the view that the Appellant has failed to
prove his case to sway the mind of the Court in his favour.
This appeal has no scintilla of merit, it fails and is hereby
dismissed. Accordingly the Judgment of the lower Court
18
(201
9) LP
ELR-47
432(
CA)
delivered on the 28th Day of February 2019 by Justice T.B.
ADEGOKE in Suit No. FHC/ASB/CS/95/2018 is hereby
affirmed.
Cost of N200,000.00 (Two hundred thousand naira) is
awarded in favour of the 1st Respondent against the
Appellant.
Appeal Dismissed.
CHIOMA EGONDU NWOSU-IHEME. J.C.A.: I read in
draft the judgment of my learned brother P. M EKPE, JCA
just delivered.
My learned brother has comprehensively dealt with the
issues identified for determination in this appeal. I agreed
with his reasoning and conclusion.
For the reasons advanced in my learned brother's lead
judgment, I also dismiss this appeal and affirm the
judgment of the trial Court.
MOORE ASEIMO ABRAHAM ADUMEIN, J.C.A.: I read
before now the Judgment of my learned brother,
PHILOMENA MBUA EKPE, JCA, just delivered. I agree that
the appeal lacks merit and I hereby dismiss it.
I abide by the order as to costs.
19
(201
9) LP
ELR-47
432(
CA)
Appearances:
F. A. Onuzulike, Esq. with him, C.U. Igwe ForAppellant(s)
Habeeb Lawal and Izuchukwu Anyadike ForRespondent(s)
(201
9) LP
ELR-47
432(
CA)