How Court Determines the Competence of a Ground of Appeal

CASE TITLE: ADEYEMI v. APC & ORS (2023) LPELR-61492(SC)
JUDGMENT DATE: 23RD OCTOBER, 2023
PRACTICE AREA: CIVIL PROCEDURE (APPEAL ARISING FROM ELECTION PETITION)
LEAD JUDGMENT: EMMANUEL AKOMAYE AGIM, J.S.C.

SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT:

INTRODUCTION:
This appeal borders on Civil Procedure.

FACTS:
This is an appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal, Abuja, affirming the decision of the Federal High Court, Abuja.

The Appellant is a member of the 1st Respondent, who aspired to contest the gubernatorial election in Kogi State, slated for November 11, 2023, by the 2nd Respondent, consequently, he, along with other aspirants, including the 3rd Respondent, purchased forms for the purpose of contesting the primary election of the APC, which was held on April 14, 2023. The 3rd Respondent was said to have polled the highest number of valid votes and, having been ratified by the Special Congress, was returned as the winner of the 1st Respondent’s primary election.

Dissatisfied with the outcome of the said primary election and all the processes that followed thereafter, the Appellant approached the Federal High Court, via an originating summons to challenge the same, seeking the following reliefs:

1. A declaration that the failure of the 1st Respondent to conduct a valid primary election in the 21 local governments of Kogi State before nominating the 3rd Respondent as its candidate for the 2023 gubernatorial election in Kogi State is a violation of Section 177(c) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria as amended, Section 29(1) and 84(4) of the Electoral Act and Article 20(4) of the APC Constitution.
2. A declaration that the 3rd Respondent is not validly nominated as a candidate for the 2023 gubernatorial election in Kogi State.
3. An order compelling the 2nd Respondent to reject or refuse to recognize the name of the 3rd Respondent for failure to emerge from a valid primary election.
4. An order against the 1st Respondent to conduct a fresh primary election by giving all aspirants equal opportunity as prescribed by the electoral act.

The learned trial Judge dismissed the Appellant’s suit. Dissatisfied with the decision of the trial Court, the Appellant filed a notice of appeal to the Court of Appeal wherein five (5) grounds were raised, challenging the judgment of the trial Court. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment of the trial Court. Dissatisfied with the judgment of the Court of Appeal, the Appellant appealed to the Supreme Court.

At the Supreme Court, the 2nd respondent by motion on notice, applied for

1. “AN ORDER of this Honourable Court striking out Ground 2 of the Appellant’s Notice of Appeal for being incompetent and invalid.
2. AN ORDER of this Honourable Court striking out all the particulars in support of Grounds 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 as couched and supplied in support of the said Grounds of Appeal in the Appellant’s Notice of Appeal.
3. AN ORDER of this Honourable Court striking out the Appellant’s Issue One for being incompetent as it was formulated from an incompetent Ground 2 of the Notice of Appeal.”

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION:
The Court determined the appeal on the 2nd respondent’s objection to the grounds of appeal.

DECISION/HELD:
In the final analysis, the Apex Court upheld the Preliminary Objection and dismissed the appeal.

​RATIOS:

• APPEAL – GROUND(S) OF APPEAL – When will the grounds of appeal be triable and reasonable?
• EVIDENCE – BURDEN OF PROOF/ONUS OF PROOF – On whom lies the burden of proof in civil cases?
• APPEAL – ISSUE(S) FOR DETERMINATION – How to determine whether an issue is related to a ground of appeal
• APPEAL – GROUND(S) OF APPEAL – Effect of a ground of appeal from which no issue for determination is formulated
• APPEAL – GROUND(S) OF APPEAL – How Court will determine the competence of a ground of appeal
• JUDGMENT AND ORDER – JUDGMENT OF COURT—Effect of giving a judgment on a misplaced evidential burden of proof
• EVIDENCE – BURDEN OF PROOF/ONUS OF PROOF – Whether the burden of proving a particular fact is fixed by the pleadings in civil cases
• ACTION – ORIGINATING SUMMON(S) – What constitutes pleadings and evidence in a matter commenced by originating summons?
• COURT – DUTY OF COURT – The duty of court where a party complains that a statute has been breached against him or that the mandatory provision of a statute was not complied with
• EVIDENCE – PRESUMPTION OF REGULARITY – Presumption of regularity of official/Judicial acts and instance(s) where same will apply
• ELECTION PETITION – STANDARD OF PROOF – Standard of proof required in an allegation of falsification of election result
• ACTION – PLEADINGS – Instance where the doctrine of severance of pleadings will not be applicable
• ELECTION PETITION – BURDEN OF PROOF – Effect of failure of a petitioner to discharge the burden on him in an election petition

To read the full judgment or similar judgments, subscribe to Prime or Primsol