Mutfwang Caleb Manasseh v. Dr. Nentawe Yilwatda Goshwe & Ors (2024)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report – SUPREME COURT

EMMANUEL AKOMAYE AGIM, JSC (Delivering the leading judgment)

On 18-3-2023, the election of Governor of Plateau State held and the 3rd respondent herein that conducted the election, declared that the appellant scored majority of lawful votes cast in the election and at least 25% of the votes in at two third of the Local Government Areas in the State and returned him elected as Governor of the State.

Dissatisfied with the result of the election, the petitioners (1st and 2nd respondents herein) on 9-4-2023 filed a petition in the Plateau State Governorship Election Tribunal challenging the election of the appellant (as 2nd respondent to the petition) on three grounds namely: –

1. That the appellant was at the time of the election not qualified to contest the election
2. The election of the appellant was invalid by reason of non-compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act
3. The appellant was not duly elected by majority of lawful votes cast at the election.

Following conclusion of evidence and addresses of all parties, the tribunal rendered its judgment on 22-9-2023 dismissing the petition on all the grounds and upheld the election of the appellant.

Dissatisfied with the judgment of the tribunal, the petitioners (1st and 2nd respondents herein) appealed to the Court of Appeal against the said judgment. Following the adoption of briefs by all the parties to that appeal, the Court of Appeal on 19-11-2023, rendered its judgment, determining only the matter of whether the primary election and nomination of the appellant as candidate of the PDP was valid and if not whether he was qualified for election as Governor of Plateau State by virtue of section 177(c) of the 1999 Constitution.

The Court of Appeal held that the primary election and nomination of the appellant as candidate of PDP was invalid and that therefore he was not qualified for election as Governor of Plateau State by virtue of section 177 (c) of the 1999 Constitution.

On the basis of this determination it set aside the entire judgment of the tribunal and then proceeded to determine the reliefs it should grant the petitioners, it declared the election and return of the appellant null and void, declaring that “The 525, 299 votes credited to him have consequently become wasted. It granted reliefs a to g in the petition and returned the 1st respondent herein returned as the duly elected Governor of Plateau State.

Dissatisfied with the judgment of the Court of Appeal, the appellant herein has brought this appeal against that judgment to this court.

The appellant, 1st respondent and 2nd respondent herein filed, exchanged and adopted their respective briefs. 3rd and 4th respondent’s chose not to file briefs.

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

1. “Whether the Court of Appeal was right in relying heavily on PW16 and holding that the 4th respondent did not comply with the order of court to conduct a repeat state congress as in exhibit G1. (Distilled from grounds 5, 8, 12, 18 and 20)
2. Whether upon correct interpretation of sections 177 and 285 (2) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) as well as section 84 of the Electoral Act, 2022, the Court of Appeal was right in assuming jurisdiction on ground 1 of the petition which bordered on the issue of nomination and sponsorship of the appellant by the 4th respondent. (Distilled from grounds 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 11, 13 and 19)
3. Whether the Court of Appeal was right in shifting the burden of proof to the appellant and in declaring the 1st respondent as the duly elected Governor of Plateau State in spite of the fact that the 1st and 2nd respondents themselves stigmatized or branded the election as invalid. (Distilled from grounds 14 and 15)
4. Whether the judgment of their Lordships of the court below is rendered null and void by their failure to consider all the issues submitted to them for determination which issues their lordships either ignored completely or dismissed summarily without any indication whatsoever of the process of reasoning by which they arrived at their conclusions. (Distilled from grounds 16 and 17 of the grounds of appeal)
5. Whether the court below was right in holding that the tribunal was in error when it struck out the reply of the 1st and 2nd respondents to the reply of the appellant to the petition and utilized the evidence of PW16, PW24, PW27, and PW28 which the tribunal had expunged to come to their decision allowing the appeal. (Distilled from grounds 7, 9 and 10 of the grounds of appeal).

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

1. “Whether the lower court having taken into consideration the facts of non-qualification of the appellant which is aground for the presentation of the election petition culminating into this appeal, was not correct to hold that the tribunal was wrong to have declined jurisdiction to entertain the 1st and 2nd respondents’ petition? Distilled from grounds 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 11, 13 and 19 of the notice of appeal.
2. Whether the lower court was not right to have held that the 4th respondent did not comply with the subsisting order of court compelling the 4th respondent to conduct a fresh congress in Plateau State and held that appellant was disqualified to contest the Plateau State governorship election of 18th March, 2023? Distilled from grounds 5, 8, 12 and 18 of the notice of appeal.
3. Whether the lower court was not right to have overruled the tribunal on the striking out of the 1st – 2nd respondents’ reply to the appellant’s reply to the petition culminating into this appeal and consequently whether fact of discountenancing the evidence of PW 24, 27 and PW28 does not and PW 28 does not amount to breach of fair hearing? Distilled from 7, 9 and 10 of the notice appeal.
4. Whether the judgment of the lower court predicated on section 179 (2) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) and section 136 (2) of the Electoral Act, 2022 is nullity? Distilled from grounds 14, 15 and 20 of the notice of appeal.
5. Whether the lower court was not right when it dismissed appellant’s preliminary objection to the 1st and 2nd respondent’s appeal? Distilled from grounds 16 and 17 of the notice of appeal.”

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

1. Whether considering the facts of non-qualification of the appellant which is a ground for the presentation of the election petition in this appeal, the lower court was not right in holding that the tribunal was wrong to have decline jurisdiction to entertain the 1st and 2nd respondents’ petition? Distilled from grounds 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 11, 13 and 19 of the notice of appeal.
2. Whether the lower court was not correct in holding the 4th respondent to conduct a fresh state congress in Plateau State so as to provide a party structure fit to sponsor candidate for election and consequently hold that appellant was disqualified to contest the Plateau State governorship election of 18th March, 2023? Distilled from grounds 5, 8, 12 and 18 of the notice of appeal.
3. Whether the lower court was not right to have overruled the tribunal on the striking out of the 1st – 2nd respondents’ reply to the appellant’s reply to the petition culminating into this appeal and consequently whether fact of discountenancing the evidence of PW24, 27 and PW28 does not amount to breach of fair hearing? Distilled from 7, 9 and 10 of the notice of appeal.
4. Whether the judgment of the lower court predicated on section 179 (2) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) and section 136 (2) of the Electoral Act, 2022 is nullity? Distilled from grounds 14, 15 and 20 of the notice of appeal.
5. Whether the lower court was not right when it dismissed appellant’s preliminary objection to the 1st and 2nd respondents’ appeal? Distilled from grounds 16 and 17 of the notice of appeal.

Considering the scope of the judgment of the Court of Appeal, this appeal is determined on basis of the issues raised for determination in the appellant’s brief and issue no. 2 raised in the 1st and 2nd respondents’ briefs, particularly the issue as couched in the 2nd respondent’s brief.

Let me start by determining issue no.2 in the appellant’s brief which asks –