3PLR – HON. IFEANYI B. IGWE V. TONY UCHE EZEKWELU & ORS
POLICY, PRACTICE AND PUBLISHING, LAW REPORTS 3PLR
[PDF copy of this judgment can be sent to your email for N300 only. Just order through lawnigeria@gmail.com and info@lawnigeria.com or text 07067102097]
HON. IFEANYI B. IGWE
V.
TONY UCHE EZEKWELU & ORS.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NIGERIA
ON WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL, 2012
CA/E/EPT/65B/2011
3PLR/2012/53 (CA)
BEFORE THEIR LORDSHIPS
HELEN M. OGUNWUMIJU, JCA
ALI ABUBAKAR BABANDI GUMEL, JCA
IGNATIUS IGWE AGUBE, JCA
BETWEEN
HON. IFEANYI B. IGWE – Appellants
AND
- TONY UCHE EZEKWELU
- ALL PROGRESSIVE GRAND ALLIANCE (APGA)
- INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION (INEC)
- RESIDENT ELECTORAL COMMISSIONER
- ELECTORAL OFFICER IDEMILI SOUTH STATE CONSTITUENCY, ANAMBRA STATE
- RETURNING OFFICER, IDEMILI SOUTH STATE CONSTITUENCY, ANAMBRA STATE
- PRESIDING OFFICER, OGANIRU PRIMARY SCHOOL I, CODE 005
- PRESIDING OFFICER OGANIRU PRIMARY SCHOOL II, CODE 006
- PRESIDING OFFICER OGANIRU PRIMARY SCHOOL III, CODE 007
- PRESIDING OFFICER OGANIRU PRIMARY SCHOOL IV, CODE 008
- WARD COLLATION OFFICER, OJOTO – Respondents
REPRESENTATION
Mr. B. I. Okafor, Mr. Martins Obi – For Appellant
AND
Mr. A.C. Anaenugwu, Mr. T.U. Oguji, Mrs. N.R. Owoh, Mr. G.B. Obi, Mr. G.E. Ezeuko, Mr. O. Anumonye Esq. – For Respondent
ORIGINATING STATE
Anambra State: National Assembly Elections Tribunal
MAIN ISSUES
ELECTION MATTERS:- National Assembly Elections Tribunal – Nullification of election results at identified polls on ground that no valid elections had taken place there – Connected suits – When decision of court in other suits would be determinative of questions in connected suits
MAIN JUDGMENT
JUSTICE ALI ABUBAKAR BABANDI GUMEL, JCA
On the 7th January, 2012, I dismissed this appeal and indicated them that I would give my reasons at a later date. I now do so today.
This appeal arose from the facts and circumstances of Election Petition No: EPT/AN/HA/25/2011 and the Judgment of the National Assembly Elections Tribunal, Awka, Anambra State delivered on 10th November, 2011 where it decided that there was no valid election at Oganiru Primary School Polling Units 005, 006, 007 and 008 are no valid results exist for the said units of Oganiru Primary School of Ojoto Ward of Idemili South State Constituency of the Anambra State House of Assembly. Upon this finding the Tribunal went ahead to nullify the election in those 4 Polling Units.
The Appellant herein, who for convenience I would hereinafter refer to as Mr. Igwe, was the candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) for the Anambra State House of Assembly Election into the Idemili State Constituency. He was dissatisfied with the decision delivered on 10/11/2011. He appealed to this Court in a notice of appeal dated 25/11/2011 but filed on 30/11/2011.
Upon the grounds of appeal, respective parties filed briefs of argument to prosecute and defend the appeal. The Appellant’s brief was settled by learned Counsel Ilochi Okafor SAN and is dated and filed on 16/12/2011. The 1st Respondent filed a brief of argument dated 28/12/2011, through learned Counsel O. A. Obionwu SAN. The 2nd Respondent and the 3rd – 11th Respondents did not file any briefs of argument. At the hearing of the appeal, respective learned Counsel identified, adopted and relied on their briefs. While learned Counsel to the Appellant urged on the Court to allow this appeal, learned Counsel to the 1st Respondent urged that it be dismissed. The 2 other sets of Respondents did not have anything to urge on the Court.
From the 8 grounds of appeal learned Counsel formulated and urged the following 3 issues in the Appellant’s brief.
They are:
- Was the Tribunal below right in treating and/or ranking Exhibits R1- R4 tendered by the 2nd Respondent through the Appellant as if they were in the same pedestal and of equal evidential value with Exhibits R7 – R10 tendered by the 1st Respondent.
- In all the circumstances of this matter, was the Tribunal below right in its evaluation of Exhibits P6 – P18, R7 – R10 and R1 – R4, the reasoning and conclusion it reached thereby by which it held that Exhibits R1 – R4 had no probative value and proceeded to nullify the result for Oganiru Polling Stations in Ojoto Ward, Idemili South Local Government Area.
iii. If your Lordships resolve that the Tribunal below was wrong in nullifying the election for Oganiru Polling Stations, is the Appellant not the person that ought to be declared the winner of the election having scored the majority of lawful votes cast in the said election.
On behalf of the 1st Respondent learned Counsel formulated and argued the following 2 issues. They are:-
- Whether the conclusion of the Tribunal that Appellant’s Exhibits R1-R4 had no probative value is correct.
- Whether the conclusion of the Tribunal that the Appellant could not be declared the winner of the election is correct.
The 2nd Respondent on one hand and the 3rd-11th Respondents on the other hand did not file any briefs of argument. At the hearing of the appeal respective learned Counsel to these parties conceded to the appeal after they told the Court that they had nothing to urge on the Court.
I wish to at this stage emphasize by way of a clarification and also with a view to give a proper focus to this appeal, that this is the appeal of the Petitioner in Petition No: EPT/AN/HA/25/2011. Also, the judgment in that petition was the subject of appeal in appeal No: CA/E/EPT/65A/2011. From the grounds of appeal herein and the issues formulated and argued in this appeal it appears to me that the appeal is mainly not against the cancellation of the result of the election at units 005, 006, 007 and 008 at Oganiru Primary School but against the refusal of the Tribunal, after having decided as it did, to declare this Appellant as the winner of the election for the Idemili South State Constituency of the Anambra State House of Assembly. I wish to add further that this Appellant is the 1st Respondent in appeal No: CA/E/EPT/65A/2011. He filed a brief in that appeal wherein his Counsel formulated and argued a lone issue for the determination of that appeal while the Appellant formulated and argued 6 issues for the determination of the appeal. This Court considered the most relevant and crucial arguments and submissions of respective learned Counsel and resolved all the 6 issues for the determination of that appeal.
There is a significant and profound intersection and dovetailing of the issues formulated for the determination of the appeal in CA/E/EPT/65A/2011 and those in this appeal. Also, learned Counsel Ilochi Okafor SAN, for the Appellant herein was Counsel to the same person as 1st Respondent in that appeal while Mr. Obianwu SAN was Counsel to the Appellant in that appeal and Counsel to the 1st Respondent herein. Both are formidable Advocate and legal luminaries. They were the gladiators in the arena of that appeal and also in this appeal.
Issues one and two in that appeal are;
(i) Did the tribunal properly evaluate the evidence before it with respect to the conduct of election at Oganiru Primary School Polling Centre and the Collation of result at the Ojoto Ward Collation Centre? (Distilled from Grounds 1 and 2)
(ii) Were the documents/sets of documents tendered in evidence properly evaluated by the Tribunal and whether in the process the said documentary evidence were accorded due probative value? (Distilled from Grounds 3, 4, 5 and 8).
All arguments on the position of oral and documentary evidence adduced in the course of the trial were considered and fully resolved.
Issue 6 in that appeal is;
(vi) Are the final orders of the Tribunal supportable having regard to the evidence before the Tribunal, the finding that 1st Respondent did not score the majority of lawful votes cast at the election and the reliefs sought in the petition? (Distilled from Grounds 11, 12, 13 and 14).
This issue does not differ from the 3rd issue formulated by the Appellant herein in any material respect. Issue 6 formulated on behalf of the Appellant was distilled out of ground 14 amongst other grounds of appeal. This ground of appeal is the all embracing omnibus ground of appeal which alleges that the judgment of the lower Court was against the weight of evidence. I have carefully considered all the grounds of appeal herein. There are 8 of them. Ground 8 is also an omnibus ground of appeal. Though learned Counsel to the Appellant, Ilochi Okafor SAN did not specifically relate any of the 3 issues he formulated for the determination of this appeal, his issue 3, in my view, can very well be accommodated under his omnibus ground of appeal (Ground 8).
Issue 6 in appeal No: CA/E/EPT/65A/2011 was fully considered and fully resolved in the context of the consolidated petitions EPT/AN/HA/25/2011 and EPT/AN/HA/36/2011. Both judgments were considered in their context. I have considered all the arguments and submissions of respective learned Counsel in this appeal and I was not able to see anything of significance to warrant any departure from any of the decisions made by this Court in appeal No: CA/E/EPT/65A/2011 for the purpose of the issues formulated for determination of this appeal. I must therefore remain guided by all those decisions in deciding this appeal. Against this background, the question posed in issue one in this appeal must be answered in the affirmative and resolved against the Appellant. The question in issue 3 must also be answered in the all affirmative and resolved against the Appellant too. I would answer the question in issue 3 in the negative and in consequence of that resolve it also against the Appellant.
This appeal is totally devoid of any merit. It is hereby dismissed. The judgment of the Tribunal in Petition No: EPT/AN/HA/25/2011 delivered on 10th November, 2011 is hereby affirmed. I make no order for costs.
HELEN MORONKEJI OGUNWUMIJU, J.C.A:
I have read the judgment just delivered by my learned brother A.A.B. GUMEL, JCA. I am in complete agreement that the appeal be dismissed. No order as to costs.
IGNATIUS IGWE AGUBE, J.C.A:
I agree.
