If you find this case helpful and would like to access more cases like this, please subscribe to LawPavilion PRIME here
CASE TITLE: APC & ANOR v. AGODA & ANOR (2019) LPELR-47174(CA)
JUDGMENT DATE: 1ST APRIL, 2019
PRACTICE AREA: ELECTORAL MATTERS
LEAD JUDGMENT: MOORE ASEIMO ABRAHAM ADUMEIN, J.C.A.
SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT:
INTRODUCTION
This appeal borders on electoral matters.
FACTS
The 1st respondent commenced an action by way of an originating summons in the Federal High Court, Asaba Judicial Division, holden at Asaba. In the said suit, the 1st respondent sought the following reliefs:
“1. A DECLARATION that the Plaintiff is the 1st Defendant’s House of Representatives candidate for Ethiope Federal Constituency of Delta State in the 2019 General Election, the Plaintiff having polled the highest number of votes cast in the 1st Defendant’s House of Representatives Primary Election for Ethiope Federal Constituency of Delta State.
3. A DECLARATION that in view of Section 31(1) and Section 87(4) (c) (i) and (ii) of the Electoral Act, 2010 (As amended) and Article 14 (ii) of the 1st Defendant’s Guidelines for the Nomination of Candidates for the 2019 General Election, 2019, the Plaintiff’s name should have been forwarded/sent by the 1st Defendant to the 2nd Defendant as the 1st Defendant’s House of Representative’s Candidate for Ethiope Federal Constituency of Delta State in the 2019 General Election, the Plaintiff having polled the highest number of votes cast in the 1st Defendant’s House of Representatives Primary Election for Ethiope Federal Constituency of Delta State.
6. AN ORDER that the Plaintiff be declared the rightful candidate for Ethiope Federal Constituency of Delta State under the platform of the 1st Defendant and consequently issued a Certificate of Return should the 1st Defendant insist on fielding the 3rd Defendant or any other candidate other than the Plaintiff and the 2nd Defendant accepting such candidature.
The 1st respondent’s originating summons was supported with an affidavit of 22 paragraphs. In response to the 1st respondent’s originating summons, the 2nd appellant filed the following processes:
The 1st appellant filed a counter affidavit of 2 paragraphs. The originating summons and the other identified processes filed in the suit were supported with written addresses. After hearing the 2nd appellant’s preliminary objection and the originating summons together, the trial Court overruled the preliminary objection and granted the reliefs sought by the 1st respondent. Appellants appealed to the Court of Appeal.
ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION
The issues for determination are:
“1. Whether in view of the evidence before it and the facts and circumstances surrounding the case, the trial Court was not right in law when it held that the 1st Respondent’s suit is not in violation of Section 285 (9) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (Fourth Alteration 2018).
DECISION/HELD
In the final analysis, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.
RATIOS:
LawPavilion's attention has been drawn to a publication titled "Supreme Court Gives Landmark decisions on…
Introduction Acronyms and the legal profession are inseparable. Among the many facets of legal language,…
Introduction The legal industry is undergoing a significant transformation, driven by technological advancements. This shift…
CASE TITLE: OGIEFO v. HRH JAFARU & ORS (2024) LPELR-62942(SC)JUDGMENT DATE: 19TH JULY, 2024PRACTICE AREA:…
CASE TITLE: FBN PLC & ANOR v. BEN-SEGBA TECHNICAL SERVICES LTD & ANOR (2024) LPELR-62998(SC)JUDGMENT…
CASE TITLE: EFCC v. GOVT OF ZAMFARA STATE & ORS (2024) LPELR-62933(CA)JUDGMENT DATE: 20TH SEPTEMBER,…