INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION (INEC) v. OGBADIBO LOCAL GOVERNMENT COUNCIL & ORS
(2014)LCN/6854(CA)
RATIO
CONSIDERATIONS IN DETERMINING WHETHER A PARTY POSSESSES LOCUS STANDI
From an etymological perspective, the cliche expression, locus standi, traces its roots to Latin Language which means: “place of standing”. In its expounded legal form, locus standi denotes the legal right or capacity of a person to institute an action in a court of law when his right is trampled upon by somebody or authority. The locus classicus on locus standi in the Nigerian jurisprudence is the case of Adesanya v. The President, FRN (1981) 5 SC 112/(1981) 2 NCLR 358. Nigerian citizens derive their locus standi from the constitution, statutes, customary law or voluntary arrangements in organization involving their civil rights and obligations, see Odenye v. Efunuga (1990) 7 NWLR (Pt. 164) 618. Locus standi was evolved to protect the court from being converted into a jamboree by professional litigants or meddlesome interlopers who have no interest in matters, see Taiwo v. Adegboro (2011) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1159) 562. For a party to establish locus standi, he must show that the matter is justiciable – capable of being disposed of judiciously in a court of law – and the existence of dispute between parties, see Taiwo v. Adegboro (supra); Ajayi v. Adebiyi (supra)/(2012) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1310) 137. It is the statement of claim or affidavit in originating summons that is examined by a court in determining the locus standi of a party, see Taiwo v. Adegboro (supra); Adesanoye v. Adewole (2006) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1000) 242; Odeneye v. Efunuga (supra); Uwazuruonye v. Gov., Imo State (2013) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1355) 28. Where a party is without locus standi, then the court is divested of the jurisdiction to entertain his matter for same is rendered incompetent, see Emezi v. Osuagwu (2005) 12 NWLR (Pt. 939) 340/(2005) 30 WRN 1; A.G. Anambra State v. A.G., Fed. (2007) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1047) 4; Admin/Exec., Estate, Abacha v. Eke-spiff (2009) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1171) 614; Ajayi v. Adebiyi (supra); Uwazuruonye v. Gov., Imo State (supra); Adedayo v. PDP (2013) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1382) 1; Obande F. Ogbuinya, Understanding The concept of Jurisdiction In The Nigerian Legal System, Snaap Press Ltd., Enugu, 2008, pages 167 – 173.However, chances of success of an action are irrelevant in considering locus standi, see Taiwo v. Adegboro (supra); Ajayi v. Adebiyi (supra). In order words, the law does not give a person armed with locus standi, the assurance of success of his case. Such a party, who possesses locus standi, has a fifty-fifty chance of succeeding or not in his case. Per OBANDE FESTUS OGBUINYA, J.C.A
EVIDENCE: THE POWER OF THE COURT TO EVALUATE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
By virtue of the provision of section 97(1) (c) and (2) (c) of the Evidence Act, 2004, sections 89 (e) and 90 (1) (c) of the Evidence Act, 2011, the only admissible form of secondary evidence of a public document is a certified true copy and no other kind of it. The certification, which imports authentication in writing, of such a public document is in the manner decreed by the provision of section 111 of the Evidence Act. 2004, section 104 of the Evidence Act, 2011, see Araka v. Egbue (2003) 17 NWLR (Pt. 848) 1; Iteogu v. LPDC (2009) 17 NWLR (Pt.1171) 614; Tabik Investment Ltd. v. GTB Plc. (supra)/(2011) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1276) 240; Adeyefa v. Bamgboye (2013) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1363) 532; Nwaogu v. Atuma (2013) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1364) 117.
It is settled principle of law that a court of law is restrained from relying on inadmissible evidence in its decisions. Where inadmissible documentary evidence is inadvertently admitted in a proceeding, the law gives the courts, both of first instance and appellate, the licence to expunge it from its decision, see Abubakar v. Chuks (2007) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1066) 386; Abubakar v. Joseph (2008) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1104) 307; Nwaogu v. Atuma (supra); Durosaro v. Ayorinde (2005) 8 NWLR (Pt. 927) 407.
I have married these exhibits, documentary evidence, with the current positions of the law, dissected above, with a view to ascertaining the fulfillment of the latter by the former. They are all documentary evidence. Interestingly, the law, in order to remedy/redress any injustice, has allocated concurrent jurisdiction to this court and the lower court vis-a-vis evaluation of documentary evidence, see Gonzee (Nig.) Ltd. v. NERDC (2005) 13 NWLR (Pt. 943) 634; Our Line Ltd. v. SCM 173; Fajunwa v. Adibi (2004) 17 NWLR (Pt. 903) 544; Ayuya v. Yorin (2011) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1254) 135; Eyibo v. Abia (2012) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1325) 51; Lafia L.G. v. Gov., Nasarawa State (2012) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1328) 94; Odutola v. Mabogunje (2013) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1354) 527. I will take advantage under this co-extensive powers in assessing the litany of documentary evidence in this appeal. Per OBANDE FESTUS OGBUINYA, J.C.A
