CASE TITLE: INEC v. UZOIGWE & ORS (2023) LPELR-59749(CA)
JUDGMENT DATE: 14TH FEBRUARY, 2023
PRACTICE AREA: ELECTORAL MATTERS
LEAD JUDGMENT: JOSEPH OLUBUNMI KAYODE OYEWOLE, J.C.A.
SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT:
INTRODUCTION:
This appeal borders on Pre-election Matters.
FACTS:
This appeal is against the judgment of the Federal High Court, Enugu Judicial Division, holden at Enugu, delivered on the 8th December, 2022 by OGUNBANJO, J.
The Respondents filed an action via an originating summons seeking amongst other reliefs: “a declaration that by the express and combined interpretation of the provisions of Sections 31(1), 32 and 33 of the Electoral Act, 2022, and the letter of voluntary withdrawal sworn on oath and the 3rd Plaintiff’s letter to the Defendant, the 2nd Plaintiff has voluntarily and effectively withdrawn as the 3rd Plaintiff’s Enugu State House of Assembly Candidate for Aninri State Constituency Election, a declaration that by the express and combined interpretation of Sections 31, 32 and 33 of the Electoral Act, 2022 and the 3rd Plaintiff’s letter to the Defendant, the 1st Plaintiff is the duly nominated candidate of the 3rd Plaintiff for the 2023 Enugu State House of Assembly election for Aninri State Constituency Election.”
The Appellant did not appear in the action and did not file any process to contest it. On being satisfied however that all the processes in the action including hearing notices were duly served on the Appellant, the learned trial Judge set down the action for hearing and directed the personal appearance of the 2nd Respondent. On the hearing date, the 2nd Respondent appeared and confirmed the voluntary withdrawal of her nomination after which learned counsel for the Respondents argued the originating summons and judgment was reserved.
The trial Court in its judgment, granted the reliefs sought by the Respondents. Dissatisfied with the judgment, the Appellant lodged an appeal at the Court of Appeal.
ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION:
The appeal was determined on the following issues thus:
“1. Whether in view of the Respondents’ Exhibit APC2 attached to the affidavit in support of the Originating Summons deposed to at paragraph 10 thereof vis-a-vis the findings of the trial Court thereon, the case of the Respondents is not statute-barred.
2. Whether the trial Court evaluated the affidavit evidence placed before it by the Respondents before arriving at the conclusion that Exhibit APC2 was submitted to the Applicant.
3. Whether the trial Court was right in sustaining the reliefs sought by the Respondents.”.
DECISION/HELD:
In conclusion, the appeal was allowed and the judgment of the trial Court was set aside. The Court of Appeal went further to dismiss the suit for lacking merit.
RATIOS:
- ELECTORAL MATTERS – SUBSTITUTION OF CANDIDATE: Whether there must be evidence that a political party held a fresh primary election before the party can be said to have substituted its candidate who withdrew his candidature with another
- LIMITATION LAW – LIMITATION PERIOD: Effect of an action brought outside a statutorily limited period
- ACTION – DECLARATORY RELIEF(S): Whether declaratory reliefs can be granted on mere admission or default of defence
- EVIDENCE – EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE: When an Appellate Court will be in a position as a trial Court to evaluate documentary evidence
