Temitayo Fawehinmi & Anor. V. Dr. Joseph Iranola Akinlaja & Ors. (2010)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

CHIOMA EGONDU NWOSU-IHEME (Ph. D), J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

The 1st Appellant herein who was the candidate of the 2nd Appellant, the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), and the 1st Respondent, the candidate of the labour Party, contested the election into the House of Representatives for the Ondo East/Ondo West Federal Constituency held on 21st April, 2007. At the conclusion of the said election, the 2nd to the 4th Respondents declared the 1st Appellant winner.

Dissatisfied by the declaration, the 1st Respondent brought a petition against the Appellants and 2nd to 4th Respondents at the lower tribunal challenging the return of the 1st Appellant on the grounds that 1st Appellant was not duly elected by majority of lawful votes cast at the election and that the election was void by reason of acts that violated the Provisions of the Electoral Act 2006 including rigging, manipulation of election results, violence, thuggery, abduction and coercion of opponents, multiple ballot thumb printing, ballot box hijacking and other offences.

At the end of hearing, the lower tribunal in its Judgment nullified the return of the 1st Appellant and ordered a fresh election. Aggrieved by the Judgment of the lower tribunal, the Appellants brought the present appeal on 16 Grounds which are not necessary to be set out herein. The 1st Respondent cross appealed on six Grounds which are also not necessary to be set out here.

From the 16 Grounds, the Appellants distilled seven issues for determination. Those issues are:

“(1) Whether evidence elicited from a witness during cross examination can be ignored and discountenanced in the final evaluation of evidence merely because such evidence is contrary to the evidence of the said witness during examination in-chief. (Grounds 1, 2 and 14 of the Grounds of Appeal).

(2) Whether it is mandatory for the 1st Appellant to have personally given evidence as a witness in order to debunk allegations made against him by the Petitioner/1st Respondent.

(Grounds 6 & 12 of the Grounds of Appeal).

(3) “Whether the lower Tribunal was correct when it evaluated the evidence of the Petitioner/1st Respondent and assessed same on the scale of balance of probability.”

(Grounds 5 and 8of the Grounds of Appeal).

(4) Whether the lower tribunal can validly refuse to evaluate Exhibit 90 thereby failing to consider the effect that such evidence would have had on its decision.

(Grounds 3 and 9 of the Grounds of Appeal).

(5) Whether in the light of the totality of evidence adduced at the trial, it was right for the lower tribunal to hold that the Petitioner/1st Respondent has established all the allegations levelled against the Appellant/1st Respondent.

(Grounds 9, 10, 15 and 16 of the Grounds of Appeal).