Adegboyega Isiaka Oyetola & Ors v. Independent National Electoral Commission (Inec) & Ors (2023)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report – SUPREME COURT

EMMANUEL AKOMAYE AGIM, JSC (Delivering the leading judgment)

This appeal No. SC/CV/508/2023 was commenced on 5-4-2023 when the appellants herein filed a notice of appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal delivered on 24-3-2023 in appeal No. CA/AK/EPT/GOV/01/2023 allowing the appeal to it against the judgment of the Osun State Governorship Election Tribunal delivered on 27-1-2023 in petition No. EPT/OS/GOV/01/2022 granting the petition of the appellants against the election of the 2nd and 3rd respondents and holding that the petition was proved and that 1st appellant and not the 2nd respondent won the election of Governor of Osun State.

The Court of Appeal set aside the said judgment and restored the election of the 2nd respondent, holding that the appellants failed to prove their petition against the 2nd respondent’s election as Governor of Osun State on 16-7-2022.

A notice of cross-appeal was equally filed on 6th April, 2023 against the judgment of the Court of Appeal dismissing the cross-appeal to it against the judgment of the tribunal.

The parties filed, exchanged and adopted their respective briefs as follows – appellants’ brief, 2nd respondent’s brief, 3rd respondent’s brief, appellants’ reply brief to 3rd respondent’s brief, cross-appellant’s brief and cross-respondent’s brief.

The appellants’ brief raised the following questions for determination:

“1. Whether on a proper consideration of the materials in the record and relevant applicable decisions of the Supreme Court, the lower court was right when it held that the tribunal did not determine on the merit, the preliminary objection raised by the 2nd respondent against the petition. Ground 1.

2. Whether in the light of the pleadings, the evidence led and the applicable law, the lower court was not wrong in the view it took of exhibit 2R. RW4, and its resolution of the issue regarding the non-qualification of the 2nd respondent to contest the Osun State Governorship election held on 16th July, 2022. Grounds 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6
3. Whether the lower court was not wrong in its consideration and determination of the appeal of the 2nd respondent when it raised the question whether the appellants led admissible evidence in support of their pleadings which question was not warranted by the grounds of appeal ofthe 2nd respondent to the lower court. Ground 7.
4. Whether on a proper consideration of the pleadings and the evidence in the records, section 137 and paragraph 46(4) of the Electoral Act, 2022 and the judgment of the trial Tribunal, the lower court was not wrong in holding that the appellants did not prove their petition. Grounds 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20 and 22.
5. Whether in the light of the grounds of appeal of the 2nd respondent to the lower court, the court was not wrong when it held that the evidence of PW1 was inadmissible on the ground that he did not proffer proof of his qualifications before the lower tribunal and did not deny his membership of APC which made him a person interested in the petition. Ground 14.
6. Whether delivery of two conflicting decisions by the same panel of the lower court on the same issue in the three appeals which are now on appeal before the Supreme Court should not render the judgments in the three appeals unreliable to merit their setting aside. Ground 21.
7. Whether in the determination of an appeal, it is open to the lower court as it did in arriving at its decision on the appealof the 2nd respondent, to rely on its own private knowledge of facts concerning the BVAS machine, not borne out by the evidence in the record of appeal which bind the court and the parties. Ground 16.”

The 2nd respondent’s brief raised the following issues for determination:

“1. Whether the Court of Appeal was correct to hold that the tribunal failed to determine the merit and to pronounce on the objections to the hearing of the petition, raised by the 2nd respondent. Ground 1.

2. Whether the Court of Appeal was correct to hold that exhibit 2R. RW4 (the judgment of the Court of Appeal) was properly before the tribunal for consideration, in determining the issue of the qualification of the 2nd respondent. Grounds 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6.
3. Whether the Court of Appeal was correct to consider the appellants’ pleadings and the evidence led in support in determining the appeal, having regard to the grounds of appeal filed by the 2nd respondent. Ground 7.
4. Whether having regard to section 137 of the Electoral Act and paragraph 46(4) of the First Schedule thereof, the pleadings and evidence led, the Court of Appeal was correct to hold thatthe appellants failed to prove that the 2nd respondent was not duly elected as the Governor of Osun State. Grounds 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 and 22.
5. Whether the decision in the judgment which gave rise to this appeal to the effect that the appellants failed to prove substantial non-compliance is vitiated by a pronouncement made in another judgment, subsequently delivered by the Court of Appeal. Ground 21.”

The 3rd respondent’s brief raised the following issues for determination:

“1. Whether the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal were right when they held that the ruling of the trial tribunal on the preliminary objection did not address the issues raised in the 2nd respondent’s preliminary objection? (Distilled from ground 1 of the notice of appeal).

2. Whether the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal rightly found that the learned trial tribunal wrongly rejected exhibit 2R.RW4, the Certified True Copy of the Judgment of the Court of Appeal in CA/A/362/2019 Adekele v. Raheem & Ors and is bound to take judicial notice of the said judgment and abide by same? (Distilled from grounds 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the notice of appeal).
3. Whether the learned Justices of the court were right when they held that the appellants herein failed to prove the allegations in their petition and that the trial tribunal was wrong to have granted the declaratory reliefs sought by the appellants herein in the petition? (Distilled from grounds 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 of the notice of appeal)”

The cross-appellant’s brief raised the following issues for determination:

“1. Whether or not the lower court was right to hold that the judgment of the trial tribunal was valid when member II did not render an opinion while the Chairman allowed the petition and member I dismissed the petition. (Ground 1).

2. Whether or not the lower court ought to have set aside the entirety of the proceedings at the trial tribunal after finding that trial tribunal breached the cross- appellant’s right to fair hearing. (Ground 2).
3. Whether the lower court was right to hold that the decision of this honorable court in Sokoto v. INEC (2022) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1818) 577 was not applicable to this case (Ground 3).
4. Whether or not the lower court was right to hold that there was no evidence of bias against the cross-appellant in the decision of the chairman of the trial tribunal. (Grounds 4 and 5).
5. Whether or not the lower court ought to have dismissed the 1st and 2nd cross-respondents’ petition when same was incompetent. (Grounds 1 and 6).”

The cross-respondent’s brief raised the following issues for determination: