Apc & Anor V. Obaseki & Ors (2021)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

EMMANUEL AKOMAYE AGIM, J.S.C. 

This appeal No. SC/CV/376/2021 was commenced on 30-3-2021 when the appellant herein filed a notice of appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal in Appeal No. CA/A/71/2021 delivered on 18-3-2021 dismissing the applicant’s appeal to it against the judgment of the Federal High Court delivered on 9-1-2021 in suit No. FHC/B/CS/74/2020 and affirming the said judgment.

The notice of appeal contains 24 grounds for the appeal.

The 1st respondent to this appeal, on 31-3-2021 filed a notice of cross appeal against the said judgment of the Court of Appeal. The notice of Cross Appeal contains two grounds for the Cross Appeal.

In respect of the appeal, the following briefs were filed – appellant’s brief, 1st respondent’s brief, 2nd respondent’s brief and appellant’s replies to the 1st and 2nd respondent’s brief.

Learned counsel for the 3rd Cross-Respondent stated that the 3rd respondent filed no brief.

​In respect of the cross appeal, the following briefs were filed – Cross-Appellant’s brief, 1st and 2nd Cross-Respondent’s brief and Cross-appellant’s reply brief.

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

1. Whether on a proper consideration of the appellants’ pleadings, and the evidence led in support, the lower Court did not misconstrue the case of the appellants and thereby arrive at conclusions which are contrary to the case of the appellants against the respondents. Covers ground 1, 9 and 17.
2. Whether on a proper consideration of the appellants case as presented in the pleadings, supported by credible evidence and guided by applicable decisions of the Supreme Court, the lower Court was not wrong when it held that appellants did not prove their case. Covers grounds 2 3 4 5 6, 8, 10, 13, 16, 21, 23 and 24.
3. Whether having regard to settled rules of interpretation, the lower Court did not err by reading into Sections 31(5) and (6) of the Electoral Act, 2010 as amended what was not enacted therein, thus putting on the appellants a burden of proof not justified by the language of Section 31(5) and (6) of the Electoral Act, 2010 as amended. Covers ground 7.
4. Whether having regard to the wordings of Sections 31(5) of the Electoral Act, 2010 ​and Section 182(1)(j) of the 1999 Constitution as amended, the lower Court was right when it held that to prove the allegations against the 1st respondent, the appellants have to prove all elements of forgery and falsification of documents alleged. Covers grounds 6, 11 and 15.
5. Whether the lower Court was right when it held that the evidence of DW1 was not hearsay. Covers grounds 12, 14 and 18.
6. Whether the complaint of the appellants to the effect that the trial Court failed to consider the objection raised by the appellants against some of the documents tendered by the 1st respondent was properly addressed and resolved by the lower Court in the light of the circumstances of this case and the applicable law. Covers grounds 19 and 20.
7. Whether it was right and in keeping with the tenets of justice for the appellate lower Court to speculate and adduce its own reasons or grounds for the finding made by the trial Court which the Court failed to justify by reference to the pleadings and/or the evidence before the Court. Covers ground 22.

​The 1st respondent’s brief raised for determination the following issues:

Whether the Court below misconceived the appellants’ case as set out in their Statement of Claim, misconceived the burden of proof applicable to Section 31(5) and (6) of the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended) and Section 182(1)(j) of the 1999 Constitution and thereby came to a wrong conclusion that the appellants did not prove their case. (Combination of appellants issues (1) — (iv) and (vii)) Grounds 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 13, 15, 16, 17, 21, 22, 23 and 24).

2. Whether the Court below was right when it held that the evidence of DW1 was not hearsay. Grounds 12, 14 and 18.
3. Whether the Court below was right when it held that in the circumstances of this case the failure of the trial Court to rule on the appellants’ objection to the admissibility of some documents did not occasion any miscarriage of justice to the appellants. Grounds 19 and 20.

The 2nd respondent’s brief adopted and argued the issues raised for determination in the appellant’s brief.

​The Cross-Appellant’s brief raised a sole issue for determination as follows:

Whether by the provisions of Section 285(10) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (Fourth Alteration, No. 21) Act, 2017 ​ the justices of the Court of Appeal were in error when they dismissed the cross-appellant’s motion on notice which challenged the competence of grounds of appeal in which the complaint of the 1st and 2nd Cross Respondents was that the trial High Court failed to consider and determine their case. (Grounds 1 and 2 of the Notice of Appeal).

The 1st and 2nd Cross-Respondent’s brief raised one issue for determination as follows: