Hon. (Prince) Bassey Akpan Willie V. Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) & Ors (2013)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

UZO I. NDUKWE-ANYANWU, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

This is a motion filed on 16th April, 2013 praying the court for the following reliefs:

i. AN ORDER extending time within which the 1st respondent may file his 1st Respondent’s brief of argument and further evidence which time had since lapsed.

ii. AN ORDER of this Honourable Court receiving further evidence, (being certified true copy of the judgment of this Honourable Court in Appeal No. CA/C/NAEA/236/2011 and INEC form EC8E (1) Declaration of (Result of Election Form) filed by the 1st Respondent.

iii. An Order deeming the 1st Respondent’s brief and further evidence herein filed as having been properly filed and served, appropriate fees having been paid.

iv. Any further order or other orders as this Honourable Court may deem fit to make in the circumstances of this case.

There are ten grounds upon which this application was brought. In support is a 22 paragraphs affidavit sworn to by one William Umo. Also attached is a judgment of this court as Exhibit I and INEC Form EC8E as Exhibit J.

The learned counsel to the Appellant’s David Okokon Esq. also filed a written address on 7th August, 2013 but deemed properly filed and served on 18th September, 2013. The 3rd Respondent filed its written address on 5th September, 2013 but deemed properly filed and served on 18th September, 2013 supporting the 1st Respondent’s position.

The 2nd Respondent filed no processes for this motion. The Appellant/Respondent in this motion filed a five paragraphs Counter Affidavit on 14th May, 2013 with three Exhibits A, B and C. The Appellant/Respondent filed his written address on 12th September, 2013 but deemed properly filed and served on 18th September, 2013.

The Applicant in his written address articulated two issues for determination as follows:

(a) Whether or not this Honourable court have power to receive Further Evidence on “special grounds” where evidence sought to be added were “matters which have occurred after the date of trial or hearing”

(b) Whether or not the 1st Respondent must seek the leave of court for further evidence, where fresh issues raised borders on the jurisdiction of the Court?

The Applicant however argued the two issues together.

The Appellant/Respondent articulated his own issue for determination as follows: