Peoples Democratic Party (Pdp) V. Dr. Sampson Uchechukwu Ogah & Ors (2016)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

HELEN MORONKEJI OGUNWUMIJU, J.C.A.

This is an appeal filed by the Appellant who was the 1st Respondent of the trial Court in suit No. FHC/UM/CS/94/2014 now FHC/ABJ/CS/71/2016 against the judgment delivered by Hon. Justice Okon Ajang on 27/6/16. The Appellant’s brief was settled by Dr. Onyeachi Ikpeazu, OON, SAN and Dr. Joseph Nwobike SAN and filed on 15/7/16. The Appellant’s Reply Brief was settled by Dr. Onyeachi Ikpeazu, OON, SAN, Dr. Joseph Nwobike SAN, Dr. Paul Anonoba SA, Prof. Ernest Ojukwu SAN and Valentine Offia Esq and filed on 4/8/16. The 1st Respondent’s Brief was filed by Dr. Alex A. Izinyon, SAN, OFR, O. O. Okpeseyi SAN, O. J. Nnadi SAN, Femi Falana SAN; and other counsel on 1/8/2016.

In the Appellant’s Brief, 8 issues were identified for determination as set out below:

1) Whether the trial Judge was wrong when he proceeded to hear and determine the originating summons having regard to the nature of complaint as well as the conflicting affidavit evidence of the parties without requiring oral evidence and also when he proceeded to place the burden of proof on the Appellant and the 2nd Respondent. Ground II

2) Whether the trial Judge was wrong when he held that the determination of whether the information contained in documents attached to the INEC form CF001is false does not involve the issue of forgery or making of false documents under the Criminal Code or Penal Code. Grounds I, IV, and V

3) Whether the trial Judge was wrong when he held that the Appellant and 2nd Respondent having failed to submit to INEC valid tax receipts for 2011, 2012 and 2013, the 2nd Respondent was not qualified to contest the Governorship election and was further disqualified from contesting the Appellant’s primary election by virtue of Article 14 of the appellant’s Election Guidelines for 2014. Grounds XXI, XXII, XXIII, XXV, XXVII, XXVIII and XXXI

4) Whether the trial Judge was wrong when he held that in determining the falsity or otherwise of documents delivered with Form CF001, the Court will not have regard to any other document introduced by the Appellant and 2nd Respondent to explain any misapprehension of documents attached to the Form CF001. Grounds X and XIV

5) Whether the trial Judge was wrong when held that it was 2nd Respondent who supplied all the information in the relevant form before the tax receipts and tax clearance certificates were issued by Abia State Internal Revenue Service which he thereafter submitted to the 3rd Respondent with Form CF001. Grounds XXIV

6) Whether the trial Judge was wrong when he held that the Form CF001 was submitted by the 2nd Respondent to the 3rd Respondent and that the documents attached thereto contained false information. Grounds VI, VII, VIII, IX, XI, XII, XIII, XV, XVI, XVIII, XIX, XX, XXIX, XXX, XXXIV

7) Whether the trial Judge was wrong when he held that the 1st Respondent was the person qualified to be presented to the 3rd Respondent as the Appellant’s candidate for the Abia State Governorship election and proceeded to grant the reliefs as contained in the Judgment. Grounds XXIV, XXXII and XXXIII

8) Whether the trial Judge was wrong when he held that by virtue of Order 27 Rule 4 of the Feral High Court Rules, 2009, no other affidavit will be filed as of right after a Plaintiff’s reply affidavit. Ground III.

In the 1st Respondent’s brief settled by Dr. Alex Azinyon et al, the following 8 issues were also set down for determination:

1) Whether considering the documentary and affidavit evidence before it and the nature of the claim under Section 31(2), (5) & (6) of the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended), the trial Court was not right in law in its finds that the 1st Respondent’s action could be determined by means of Originating Summons and placing the burden of proof on the Appellant and the 2nd Respondent. (Encompassing Ground II of the Notice of Appeal)

2) Whether the trial Court was not right in its decision that in an action brought pursuant to Section 31(5) of the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended) what is required to be established is falsehood of the information contained in the documents attached to the INEC Form (CF001and not forgery or making of false documents under the Criminal code or Penal Code (Encompassing Grounds I, IV and V of the Notice of Appeal)