Mike Achoru V. Independent National Electoral Commission (2010)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

MARY U. PETER-ODILI, J.C.A (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

This is an appeal against the judgment of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja presided over by Honourable Justice M. A. Nasir, delivered on the 22nd day of July, 2008 dismissing the suit of the appellant as plaintiff. The Appellant took out a writ of summons dated the 6th day of July, 2007 initially against the Respondent and three others namely:

Prof. Maurice Iwu (Chairman INEC), Decagou Investment Ltd. and Engr. Adams Ibrahim. Before hearing commenced, the Appellant discontinued the suit against the three (3) leaving only the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) as the only defendant now respondent.

I would recast the grounds of appeal without the particulars and they are viz:

GROUND 1:

The Learned trial Judge erred and misdirected herself in law when she held that no agency relationship has been created or established between the plaintiff and the defendant, thus disentitling him to his agency considering and appreciating the plaintiff’s cause of action and/or the nature of his suit.

GROUND 2:

The Learned trial Judge erred in law when she placed the burden of adducing evidence or further evidence in proof of the facts which were either admitted or denied by the defendant.

GROUND 3:

The Learned trial Judge erred in law in not properly evaluating the evidence of the plaintiff and the defendant (i.e the PW1 having excluded the evidence of the DW2 and DW3) based on the pleadings and thus arriving at a perverse decision, by giving weight to the evidence of the DW1 while not giving weight to the evidence of PW1.

GROUND 4:

The Learned trial Judge erred in law and misdirected herself when she held “I do not believe as alleged by PW1 that one senator Farukunmi had the mandate of the defendant to negotiate with the plaintiff, or indeed to appoint him (plaintiff) as agent in the transaction for the purchase of the warehouse. All the letters written to the defendant were either addressed to the Chairman or Secretary of the commission and not anybody”.

GROUND 5:

The judgment is against the weight of evidence.