APC v. LOKO & ORS
(2022)LCN/16241(CA)
In The Court Of Appeal
(ABUJA JUDICIAL DIVISION)
On Friday, January 07, 2022
CA/ABJ/CV/948/2021
Before Our Lordships:
Ali Abubakar Babandi Gumel Justice of the Court of Appeal
Mohammed Danjuma Justice of the Court of Appeal
Muhammad Ibrahim Sirajo Justice of the Court of Appeal
Between
ALL PROGRESSIVES CONGRESS APPELANT(S)
And
1. HON. MUHAMMED ANGULU LOKO 2. INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION 3. ABUBAKAR UMAR ABDULLAHI RESPONDENT(S)
RATIO
THE DUTY OF THE COURT IN DETERMINING WHEN A CAUSE OF ACTION AROSE
In the case of HON. SULEIMAN ALHASSAN GWAGWA VS. HON. MURTALA USMAN KARSHI AND 17 OTHERS IN APPEAL NO. CA/ABJ/CV/766/2021 AT PAGE 104 PER HON JUSTICE DANLAMI ZAMA SENCHI, JCA who delivered the lead judgment dated the 3rd day of December, 2021 thus:
“In determining when a cause of action arose, the Court must examine the originating process, the affidavit evidence, relevant documentary evidence and the evidence on record to enable the Court know when the wrong occurred and when the suit was filed… Also the apex Court of the land, in the case of APC VS LERE (2020) 1 NWLR (PT. 1705) PAGE 254 on what the Court considers in determining whether an action is statute barred held:-
‘To determine whether an action is statute barred, the Court examines the originating process, statement of claim, together with the evidence on record where that has taken place. To know when the wrong in question occurred and compared it with the dates the originating processes were filed in Court”.
It is trite law that in any suit where issue of statute of limitation or time within which a party is expected to file his suit is raised or in question as in the instant appeal, the Court will have recourse to the statement of claim where same has been filed to examine and to ascertain when the cause of action arose and compare same with the date the writ was filed to see if it was filed within time or not. See the case of YARE V. N.S.W.I.C (2013) 12 NWLR (PT. 1367) PAGE 173 AT 848, PARAS D-G, EGBE V ADEFARASIN (1987) 2 NWLR (PT. 47) PAGE 1 AND WILLIAMS V. WILLIAMS (2008) ALL FWLR (PT. 433) PAGE 1245, (2008) 10 NWLR (PT. 1095) PAGE 364. PER GUMEL, J.C.A.
ALI ABUBAKAR BABANDI GUMEL, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): This is an appeal against the judgment of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) High Court, Abuja delivered on 12th November, 2021 in Suit No. FCT/HC/CV/105/2021. Coram Judice Modupe Osho-Adebiyi, J.
In an originating summons dated 9th June, 2021, which with leave of Court granted led to the filing of an Amended Originating Summons dated 10th September, 2021. In the Amended summons, the 1st Respondent herein as the Claimant sought for the determination of the following questions. They are:-
“1. Whether having regard to the Provision of Section 87(4)(d) of the Electoral Act 2010 (As Amended) and INEC Form: INEC/EPMC/09 dated 23rd of April 2021, the 1st Defendant was not Manifestly wrong in law when, it accepted and Published the name of the 3rd Defendant as the Candidate of then 2nd Defendant for the Area Council Chairmanship Election slated for the 12th day of February 2022 despite the fact that it was the Claimant who was declared the winner of the 2nd Defendant’s Primary Election held on the 23rd of April 2021 at Abaji Area Council which was supervised by the 1st Defendant in whose Presence the declaration of the Claimant as the winner of the primary election was made.
2. Whether having regard to the provisions of Section 87(4)(d) of the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended) and Paragraph 14(b) (viii) of the APC Guidelines for the Nomination of Candidates For the FCT Area Council and Ward Elections, 2021, the 2nd Defendant was not wrong when it forwarded the name of the 3rd Defendant to the 1st Defendant as her nominated candidate for the Chairmanship of Abaji Area Council for the Area Council chairmanship Election to be held on the 12th day of February 2022 despite the fact that the Claimant scored the highest number of lawful votes and was declared winner of the 2nd Defendant’s Primary election conducted on the 23rd day of April, 2021 in the presence of the 1st Defendant who supervised the said primary election.
3. Whether upon a proper interpretation and application of the provision of Section 87(4)(d) of the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended) and Paragraph 14(b) (viii) of the APC Guidelines for the Nomination of Candidates for the FCT Area Council and Ward Elections, 2021, the Claimant’s name ought not to have been submitted to the 1st Defendant and published by the 1st Defendant as the Candidate of the 2nd Defendant in the Area Council election slated for the 12th day of February, 2022, the Claimant having scored the highest lawful votes cast and declared winner of the 2nd Defendant’s primary election conducted on the 23d day of April, 2021.
4. Whether upon a proper interpretation and application of the combined provisions of Section 87(4)(d) of the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended), Article 20 of the Constitution of the All Progressives Congress and Paragraph 14(b) (viii) of APC Guidelines for the Nomination of Candidates for the FCT Area Council and Ward Elections, 2021, the submission of the 3rd Defendant’s name as Candidate of the 2nd Defendant in the forthcoming Local Government Chairmanship Election slated for the 12th day of February, 2022 and the subsequent publication of same by the 1st Defendant is not null and void and ought to be nullified in view of the fact that it was the Claimant that scored the highest lawful votes cast and was declared the winner of the 2nd Defendant’s Primary election conducted on the 23rd day of April, 2021.”
Upon the determination of these questions, the 1st Respondent as the claimant, sought for the following main reliefs thus:
“1. A DECLARATION that by the Provision of Section 87(4) (d) of the Electoral Act 2010 as Amended and INEC Form: INEC/EPMC/09 dated 23d of April 2021, the 1st Defendant was Manifestly wrong in law when it accepted and published the name of the 3rd Defendant as the Candidate of the 2nd Defendant for the Area Council Election stated for February 2022 despite the fact that it was the Claimant who was declared the winner of the 2nd Defendant’s Primary Election held on the 23rd of April 2021 at Abaji Area Council which was supervised by the 1st Defendant and in whose presence the declaration of the Claimant as the winner of the primary election was made.
2. A DECLARATION that by the provision of Section 87(4)(d) of the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended), Paragraph 14(b) (viii) of the APC Guidelines for the Nomination of Candidates for the FCT Area Council and Ward Elections, 2021, the 2nd Defendant was wrong when it forwarded the name of the 3rd Defendant to the 1st Defendant as her Candidate for the Chairmanship of Abaji Area Council for the Area Council election slated for the 12th day of February 2022.
3. A DECLARATION that upon a proper interpretation and application of the provision of Section 87(4)(d) of the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended), Article 20 of the Constitution of the All Progressives Congress and Paragraph 14(b) (viii) of the APC Guidelines for the Nomination of Candidates for the FCT Area Council and Ward Elections, 2021, the Claimant’s name ought to have been submitted to the 1st Defendant and published by the 1st Defendant as the Candidate of the 2d Defendant for the Area Council election slated for the 12th day of February 2022.
4. A DECLARATION that upon a proper interpretation and application of the combined Provisions of Section 87(4)(d) of the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended), Article 20 of the Constitution of the All Progressives Congress and Article 14(b) (viii) of APC Guidelines for the Nomination of Candidates for the FCT Area Council and Ward flections, 2021, the submission of the 3rd Defendant’s name as Candidate of the 2nd Defendant in the forthcoming Area Council Chairmanship Election slated for the 12th day of February, 2022 and the subsequent publication of same by the 1st Defendant is unlawful and liable to be set aside in view of the fact that it was the Claimant that scored the highest lawful votes cast and was declared winner of the 2nd Defendant’s primary election conducted on the 23rd day of April, 2021.
5. Area Council and Ward Elections, 2021, the submission of the 3rd Defendant’s name as Candidate of the 2nd Defendant in the forthcoming Area Council Chairmanship Election slated for the 12th day of February, 2022 and the subsequent publication of same by the 1st Defendant is unlawful and liable to be set aside in view of the fact that it was the Claimant that scored the highest lawful votes cast and was declared winner of the 2nd Defendant’s primary election conducted on the 23rd day of April, 2021.
6. AN ORDER of this Court setting aside and/or nullifying the submission and publication of the name of the 3rd Defendant as the Candidate of the 2nd Defendant for Abaji Area Council in the FCT Area Council’s chairmanship election slated for the 12th day of February, 2022.
7. AN ORDER that the Claimant having scored the highest lawful votes cast at the primary election held on the 23rd of April, 2021 is the duly nominated Candidate of the 2nd Defendant for the seat of the Chairman Abaji Area Council in the forthcoming FCT Area Council’s Election stated for the 12th day of February, 2022.
8. AN INJUNCTION prohibiting the 2nd Defendant from holding out or representing the 3rd Defendant as her nominated Candidate for the Chairmanship position of Abaji Area Council in the Area Council election stated for the 12th day of February, 2022.
9. AN ORDER that the 1st Defendant grant the Claimant all the eights and privileges as the duly nominated candidate of the 2nd Defendant in the election to the office of the Chairman of Abaji Area Council slated for the 12th day February 2022.
10. AN ORDER mandating the 1st Defendant to recognize and treat for all purposes including, but not limited, to recognising the Claimant as the 2nd Defendant’s nominated candidate for the Chairmanship election of Abaji Area Council slated for the 12th day of February, 2022.
11. AN INJUNCTION prohibiting the 3rd Defendant from parading himself or otherwise presenting himself as the 2nd Defendant’s nominated Candidate for the chairmanship election for Abaji Area Council slated for the 12th day of February, 2022.”
In support of the Amended Originating Summons, the 1st Respondent herein, as the Claimant, deposed to a 28 paragraph affidavit with 9 various and copious documents attached as Exhibits and later a further and better affidavit of 12 paragraphs with a single document attached as an Exhibit.
The 2nd Respondent herein (INEC) was the 1st Defendant before the lower Court, the 2nd Defendant is now the Appellant while the 3rd Defendant is the within named 3rd Respondent. The Defendants opposed the claims of the 1st Respondent by way of separate notices of preliminary objections by the 2nd and 3rd Defendants and counter-affidavits with copious documents attached. All the affidavits of the parties were enriched by robust arguments in the various filed and exchanged written addresses. Issues having been duly joined, the respective learned counsel argued the Amended Originating Summons and the notices of preliminary objections.
During the proceedings of the lower Court on 6th October, 2021, respective learned counsel to the parties introduced the processes they filed and exchanged with each other.
Thereafter they took turns to adopt and rely on their processes, their respective annexed documents as well as the arguments and submissions contained in the respective written addresses. Each learned counsel had a field day to explain some of their key and fundamental submissions. At the end of that exercise, the lower Court announced to respective learned counsel that it was going to consider and decide the preliminary objections along with the substantive action in the Amended Originating Summons.
From the various affidavits and counter-affidavits for and against the parties in this appeal it was shown that the Appellant conducted a primary election on 23rd April, 2021 among five of its members as candidates to elect a Chairmanship Candidate for the Abaji Area Council election of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT). The primary election was scheduled to be held according to the letters and spirit of the Constitution of the Appellant and Guidelines issued for it.
At the end of the election, the 1st Respondent was initially said to have won it with 150 votes against the 123 votes scored by the 3rd Respondent. Things took a dramatic turn when the Appellant submitted the name of the 3rd Respondent as its candidate for the Abaji Area Council Chairmanship seat instead of the 1st Respondent. The Claimant/1st Respondent attached the Report of the Electoral Committee as an Exhibit to the Amended Originating Summons. The 2nd Respondent (INEC) admitted monitoring the conduct of the primary election through its duly accredited officials but did not show any surprise when the name of the 3rd Respondent was submitted to it and not that of the 1st Respondent.
The Appellant and the 2nd and 3rd Respondents did not concede to this narrative and the perspective of the case as set out by the 1st Respondent as the Claimant at the trial Court. According to the Appellant, the Primary Election Committee recorded scores for aspirants without confirming the number of ballot papers cast for the aspirants, the Appellant also maintained that from the Report submitted to it by the committee, the result of the election was announced without a statement on the total number of accredited voters; invalid votes or total valid votes cast before it departed the venue of the election. Also, according to the Appellant, because the election failed to comply with its Guidelines, the 3rd Respondent was aggrieved and dissatisfied with the outcome of its exercise, he petitioned to the Appellant which also led to the establishment of an Appeals Committee to consider and adjudicate on the complaints of the 3rd Respondent as provided by the Guidelines. The Appeals Committee of the Appellant determined that the 3rd Respondent scored the highest lawful votes. It was against the backdrop of the findings of the Appeals Committee and the decision of the Appellant to accept same and to further submit the name of the 3rd Respondent to the 2nd Respondent as its candidate for the Abaji Area Council Chairmanship election that led the 1st Respondent to commence the instant action.
In its very copious judgment, the lower Court considered the affidavits of the parties, the notices of preliminary objection of the Appellant and the 3rd Respondent herein. After all said and done the lower Court found in favour of the Plaintiff/1st Respondent and proceeded to grant to him nearly all the declaratory and injunctive reliefs in the Amended Originating Summons.
The Appellant was dissatisfied with this judgment and appealed to this Court in a notice of appeal dated 23rd November, 2021 but filed on 24th November, 2021. It contains 15 grounds of appeal.
To argue the appeal, learned SAN Mr. I. K. Bawa filed the Appellant’s brief of argument on 8th December, 2021. The 1st Respondent’s brief of argument was filed on 20th December, 2021. The 3rd Respondent’s brief was also filed on 20th December, 2021, while the brief of argument of the 3rd Respondent was filed on 22nd December, 2021. On behalf of the Appellant learned Senior Counsel Mr. Bawa filed what he chose to call “Appellant’s reply to 1st Respondent’s notice of preliminary objection and reply on points of law to the 1st Respondent’s brief of argument.”
From the 15 grounds of appeal, learned SAN Mr. Bawa formulated the following 5 issues for determination in this appeal. They are:-
1. Whether having regard to the circumstance of this case, the trial Court was not wrong when it held that the cause of action arose on the date the 1st Respondent became aware that Appellant submitted the name of the 3rd Respondent as its candidate for the Election (Ground 1)
2. Whether the trial Court was not wrong when it held that exhibit Loko 3A was admissible due to the mistake of counsel to the 1st Respondent (Ground 2 and 13)
3. Whether the trial Court was not wrong when it held that the Guidelines issued by the Appellant for the primary election was Exhibit Loko 2 and not Exhibit L/Exhibit Abaji 2 (Ground 8).
4. Whether the trial Court was not wrong when it investigated the appeal committee Report of the Appellant, entertained the internal affairs of the Appellant and nullified the said Appeal Committee Report without any relief sought by the 1st Respondent on same (Grounds 5, 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, and 15)
5. Whether the judgment is not against the weight of evidence (Grounds 3, 4 and 15)”
On issue one, learned counsel to the Appellant argued that the 1st Respondent had actively participated in the appeal brought against the primary election and was aware that the Appeal Committee upturned his victory and therefore, the cause of action arose from that date. That in order to defeat the objection, the 1st Respondent feigned ignorance of the Appeal Committee and its Report vide his counter-affidavit at pages 2819-2942 of Vol. 6 of the record. That the 1st Respondent claimed to have seen the Report of the Appeal Committee for the first time on 15th July, 2021 when the Report was attached to the 3rd Respondent’s preliminary objection at pages 926-965 of Vol. 2 of the Record. That the trial Court held that the cause of action arose on 31/5/2021 when the 1st Respondent became aware that the name of the 3rd Respondent was forwarded by the Appellant as its candidate to INEC. He said trial Court failed to resolve the issue of the 1st Respondent’s participation in the appeal process with respect to the preliminary objection.
Appellant’s counsel then submitted that in the computation of time when a cause of action arose, knowledge is irrelevant and cited plethora of authorities. According to the Appellant’s counsel, the trial Court was wrong to compute time when the cause of action arose from the date the 1st Respondent became aware that the name of the 3rd Respondent was submitted to the INEC as a candidate of the Appellant. He argued that the 1st Respondent having participated in the appeal process and his victory upturned, the cause of action arose on that date i.e. 24/4/2021.
On issue two, learned counsel to the Appellant averred that the 1st Respondent smuggled in, changed, introduced and/or altered the contents of Exhibit Loko 3 attached to the affidavit in support of the originating summons without leave of the Court. The counsel argued that in order to defeat Appellant’s preliminary objection, the 1st Respondent also filed a further affidavit by which he introduced Exhibit Loko 3A. According to him, the 1st Respondent, in justifying Exhibit Loko 3 attached to the amended originating summons stated that the said Exhibit Loko 3 objected to was indeed “issued by the officials of the 2nd Defendant (Appellant herein) who upon effecting some corrections in the presence of all agents duly counter-signed same”.
Learned counsel to the Appellant argued that the 1st Respondent had sworn to the affidavit by himself and not his counsel and no leave of Court sought to further amend the amended originating summons but rather a further affidavit was filed introducing Loko 3A. He submitted that the further affidavit was not an application to amend the already amended originating summons. So, he continued, the said Exhibit Loko 3A was alien to the proceeding and the decision of the trial Court predicated on the said Exhibit Loko 3A amounted to building the case on a non-existent document. He said the trial Court failed to consider the fact that Exhibit Loko 3 was smuggled into the Court without leave, and wrongly concluded that it can rely on documents forming part of its records. Appellant’s counsel argued that the law is that a process that has been amended no longer has any relevance in the determination of the right of the parties, it follows. The Appellant’s counsel further argued that the decision of the trial Court to the effect that Exhibit Loko 3 was attached to the affidavit in support of amended originating summons due to the mistake of counsel is not supported by the evidence. He urged the Court to discountenance Exhibit Loko 3 attached to the amended originating summons and Exhibit Loko 3A attached to the further affidavit and resolve this issue in favour of the Appellant.
On issue three, the Appellant’s counsel contended that it was wrong for the trial Court to hold that the Guidelines issued by the Appellant for the primary election was Exhibit Loko 2 and not Exhibit L or Exhibit Abaji 2. That in fact, it is for this reason that the trial Court set aside or nullified the Report of the Appeal Committee of the Appellant on the basis that the Appeal Committee composed of 7 members set up by the National Working Committee of the Appellant as provided for in Exhibit L or Exhibit Abaji 2 and not 3 members set up by Federal Capital Territory Working Committee on the Appellant as provided for in Exhibit Loko 2.
The Appellant’s counsel argued that the Court endorsed the deposition in the Affidavit of the 1st Respondent that the Guidelines given to all parties by the Appellant prior to the conduct of the primary election as Guidelines for the conduct of the primary election was Exhibit Loko 2. Thus, having by now arrived at this conclusion, the trial Court held that the Appeal Committee should be 3 members set up by Federal Capital Territory Working Committee of the Appellant, but then such conclusion is erroneous.
The Appellant’s counsel further argued that it was wrong for the trial Court to rely on documents exhibited by the 2nd Respondent and its affidavit on the presumption that the 2nd Respondent is an unbiased umpire. He submitted that the trial Court cannot prefer the evidence of a party to that of another party without first listening to oral testimonies. It was stated that the primary election in issue, by depositions of all parties, was conducted by 7-man Election Committee in line with the provisions of Exhibit L and Exhibit Abaji 2 contrary to the provision of Exhibit Loko 2. Appellant’s counsel averred that it is a travesty of justice for the trial Court to hold that Exhibit Loko 2, which provides for 4-man Election Committee as opposed to 7-man Election Committee that conducted the primary election, is the Guidelines used for the conduct of the primary election and same is applicable to appeals arising from the primary election. It was the submission of learned counsel that since the 1st Respondent based his claim on the purported result of the primary election conducted by 7-man Election Committee provided for in Exhibit L/Exhibit Abaji 2 and contrary to the provisions of Exhibit Loko 2 that provided for 5-man Election Committee, the 1st Respondent cannot turn around to challenge the composition of 7-man Appeal Committee as provided for in Exhibit L/Exhibit ABAJI 2 and insist on provision of Exhibit Loko 2 which provided for 3-man Appeal Committee. He urged this Court to resolve this issue in favour of the Appellant.
On issue four, Appellant’s counsel contended that trial Court investigated the Appeal Committee Report of the Appellant, entertained the internal affairs of the Appellant and also nullified the said Appeal Committee Report without any relief sought by the 1st Respondent on same. He said a look at pages 1939 to 1941 of vol. 4 of the Record would reveal the reliefs sought by the 1st Respondent at the trial Court and there is no relief sought in the originating summons of the 1st Respondent seeking that the report of the Appeal Committee be set aside. He posited that Courts are only bound to adjudicate over specific issues as joined by the parties hence a Court lacks power to grant a party a relief or remedy which he did not claim. He refers to the case of Uwaechina V. Okeke (2014) LPELR-23753 (CA) at page 9, (2015) 14 NWLR (pt. 1478) 108 at 116.
The Appellant’s counsel submit that the trial Court relied on the claim of the 1st Respondent that he was never part of the appeal process and made heavy weather about service or non-service of notice of the proceedings of the Appeal Committee but the 1st Respondent infact participated in the proceedings of the Appeal Committee. Further, he argued that the trial Court, in holding that the Appeal Committee must invite, have attendance register duly signed by aspirant and obtain the signatures of the Appellant and 1st Respondent for its proceedings to be valid, descended into issues concerning the procedure of running the affairs of the Appellant and internal affairs of the Appellant. Learned counsel argued that the conclusion of the learned trial Judge that the Report of the Appeal Committee is null and void because 2 members of the committee did not sign same has no precedence in law. According to him, the trial Court had investigated the report of the Appeal Committee in arriving at the conclusion that 5 out of the 7 members of the committee signed same contrary to the role of Court to evaluate evidence and not investigate same. Again, he averred that the trial Court relied on Exhibit Loko 8, the report of a 7-man committee signed by only 2 of the members and Exhibit Loko 3A, signed by only 2 of 7 members of the committee to hold that the 1st Respondent was properly elected but rejected Exhibit J (the report of Appeal Committee of the Appellant) on the ground that the report was signed by 5 of its 7 members. He submitted that the trial Court was wrong when it held that Exhibit J is null and void. He urged the Court to so hold.
On issue five learned counsel to the Appellant submitted that the trial Court made findings in this case which are not supported by the evidence before the Court and which ultimately affected the decision of the Court. That the decision of the trial Court on whether the result of the primary election was publicly announced or not was slanted against the Appellant. Also, the trial Court made pronouncement on the validity of the proceedings of the Appeal Committee of the Appellant. He averred that there were no facts stated by the 1st Respondent on the need for attendance register or signing of the report of the Appeal Committee of the Appellant. So, Appellant’s counsel submitted that the decision of the trial Court on the absence of any evidence of service of the petition of the 3rd Respondent on the 1st Respondent by the Appeal Committee and any alleged failure by the Appeal Committee to obtain the signatures of the 1st and 3rd Respondents were not supported by the affidavit evidence. He said the trial Court made decisions that are wrong as for instance granting relief for 1st Respondent against the Report of the Appeal Committee when there was no relief claimed and the Appeal Committee was not even a party to the proceeding. This, learned counsel argued is against natural justice. He said at page 49 of the judgment (page 3039 of volume 6 of the record), that the trial Judge held that the guidelines issued by the Appellant for the conduct of the primary election was Exhibit Loko 2 and not Exhibit L or Exhibit ABAJI 2 simply because INEC (2nd Respondent) stated that Exhibit Loko 2 was used in the conduct of primary election. According to him, the Appellant, by nature of Originating Summons proceedings and in the absence of oral evidence, had no opportunity to join issue with INEC being a co-defendant at trial Court.
It was Appellant counsel’s submission that the result of the primary election on the basis of which the 1st Respondent claimed right to be candidate of the Appellant is not regular. That addition of the alleged scores of Aspirants i.e. 123, 2, 13, 150 and 10 will give a total of 298 votes. An addition of 16 invalid votes, as recorded in the Exhibits presented by the 1st Respondent, to the 298 total votes cast in favour of Aspirants will give total votes cast as 314. He averred that this is contrary to the 282 total votes cast as recorded in Exhibit Loko 3A, Loko 8 and paragraph 11 of the affidavit in support of amended Originating Summons. It was submitted that since the total votes cast as recorded in Exhibit Loko 3A, Loko 8 and paragraph 11 of the Affidavit of the 1st Respondent in support of the amended Originating Summons is 282, the total valid votes of 298 cannot be cast in favour of Aspirants and there still be 16 invalid votes. Learned counsel to the Appellant posited that the case of the 3rd Respondent was narrowed down to the validity or otherwise of the 16 votes recorded as invalid in Exhibit Loko 3A, whereas the case of the 3rd Respondent was that the whole process of counting of result of the primary election was not properly done which claim was corroborated by the Exhibits LOKO 3A, LOKO 7 as shown on the face of Exhibit LOKO 3A, LOKO 8 and paragraph 11 of the affidavit of the 1st Respondent in support of the Amended Originating Summons, Appellant’s counsel then submitted that the Appeal Committee cannot be faulted when it recounted the ballots submitted to the Appellant by the Electoral Committee and arrived at the actual votes scored by each of the aspirants. He urged the Court to so hold.
On behalf of the 1st Respondent, learned counsel formulated only two issues for determination. They are
1. Whether the learned trial Judge was right when his lordship held that the Claimant/ 1st Respondent’s suit is not statute barred and thus proceeded to entertain same? (Distilled from Ground 1 of the Notice of Appeal).
2. Whether in view of the Affidavit evidence in support of Amended Originating Summons, the documents placed before the Court and the respective Counter Affidavit of all the Defendants, the learned trial Judge was right to have found in favour of the Claimant/ 1st Respondent and granted all the reliefs sought therein the suit? (Distilled from Grounds 2-15 of the Notice of Appeal)
On issue one, learned counsel to the 1st Respondent argued that the trial Court rightly found that the claimant/ 1st Respondent’s originating summons was filed within the time stipulated under the provisions of Section 285 (9) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended). He submitted that in any suit where issue of statute of limitation or time within which a party is expected to file his suit is raised or in question as in the instant appeal, the trite position of law is that in determining whether a suit is statute barred or not, the Court will have recourse to the statement of claim where same has been filed to examine and to ascertain when the cause of action arose and compare same with the date the writ was filed to see if it was filed within time or not. He made reference to the cases of YARE V. N.S.W.I.C (2013) 12 NWLR (PT.1367) PAGE 173 AT 848, PARAS D-G; EGBE V ADEFARASIN (1987) 2 NWLR (PT. 47) PAGE 1 AND WILLIAMS V WILLIAMS (2008) ALL FWLR (PT. 433) PAGE 1245, (2008) 10 NWLR (PT. 1095) PAGE 364.
1st Respondent’s counsel submitted further that where as in the instant case, the suit is commenced by way of Originating Summons, the trial Court is to look at the Affidavit evidence in support of the Originating Summons to consider the facts constituting the Plaintiff’s cause of action viz a viz the time the suit was filed.
Learned counsel to the 1st Respondent argued that the 3rd Defendant has struggled to limit and/or situate the time the claimant’s cause of action arose to the 24/4/2021 when according to the 3rd Defendant, the claimant’s victory was upturned in favour of the 3rd Defendant by the Election Appeal Committee and that the filing of the Claimant’s suit on the 9th day of June, 2021 means that the Claimant filed his suit 47 days after his cause of action arose contrary to the 14 days stipulated in the Constitution. He said contrary to the submissions of the Appellant, the cause of action really arose when the 1st Respondent became aware of the submission of the 3rd Defendant’s name to INEC as the candidate of the Appellant, and this is in line with the position of law. 1st Respondent’s counsel averred that by paragraph 14 of the affidavit in support of the Amended Originating Summons, the Claimant became aware of the submission of the name of the 3rd Defendant by the 2nd Defendant to the 1st Defendant as the candidate of the 2nd Defendant on the 31st of May, 2021. He submitted by arithmetic calculation, whether from the 31st of May, 2021 that the claimant became aware of the submission of the 3rd Defendant or the 29th day of May, 2021 that the 2nd Defendant/Appellant submitted the name of the 3rd Defendant to the 1st Defendant as its candidate, the Claimant’s suit was well within time and pray the Court to hold so. On issue two as formulated by 1st Respondent’s counsel.
In arguing the second issue distilled for the determination of this appeal, learned counsel to the 1st Respondent posited that in law, the Court is duty bound to carefully consider the competing cases/evidence of parties before it in order to determine in whose favour the evidence represents. He said this is exactly what the trial Court did having discharged its duty as to evaluation of evidence and ascription of probative values to same, it behoves an Appellant challenging evaluation of evidence as done by trial Court to move beyond the allegation of improper evaluation but to go further by pinpointing out the errors he complains about and to convince the appellate Court that if corrections of errors are made, the decision of the Court will not stand. 1st Respondent’s counsel further argued that it is not sufficient for an Appellant to allege that the trial Court did not evaluate properly the evidence before it but must also go further to not only show the errors but also to convince this Court that if the errors are corrected, the judgment of the trial Court will automatically give way. He referenced OLUYEDE V ACCESS BANK PLC (2015) 17 NWLR (PT. 1489) PAGE 596; ENANG V ADU (1981) 11-12 SC 25; OKONKWO V ONOVO (1999) 4 NWLR (PT. 597) 110.
On the contentions about Exhibit LOKO 3A, that LOKO 3A is alien to the proceedings and that the Court failed to consider the issue that Exhibit LOKO 3A was smuggled into the Court without leave, 1st Respondent’s counsel said the Appellant was also wrong in arguing that the decision of the trial Court to the effect that Exhibit LOKO 3 was attached to the affidavit in support of Amended Originating Summons due to the mistake of counsel is not supported by evidence.
In response to the Appellant’s issue 3 on pages 12-4 of the Appellant’s Brief of Argument, the 1st Respondent’s counsel submitted that the trite position of law remains that documents attached to an Affidavit form part and parcel of the said affidavit and the Court will be at liberty to look at all documents in its bid to do substantial justice to the given case and it is what happened in this case. Thus, contrary to the submission of the Appellant, the learned trial Judge resorted to documentary evidence of both parties as in Exhibits LOKO 2 and Exhibit L/Exhibit ABAJI 2 and the need for oral evidence became unnecessary, more so that the suit itself is a type that is time bound.
In response to Appellant’s claim that the trial Court went into investigating the report of the Appeal Committee and thus dabbled into the internal affairs of the Appellant, 1st Respondent’s counsel submitted that the Court is at liberty to look and consider all documents brought before it in order to do justice to the case. And in response to the Appellant’s claim that judgment is against the weight of evidence, he submitted that from the contents of pages 3024-3046 of Vol. 6 of the Record of Appeal, the trial Court, without doubt placed the evidence of parties on an imaginary scale and found in favour of the Appellant. He said the victory of a person who is returned as winner of a primary election cannot be overturned by any Appeal Committee of a political party. He relied on the case of HON. SULEIMAN ALHASSAN GWAGWA VS HON. MURTALA USMAN KARSHI & 17 ORS (supra). He urged this Court to dismiss the appeal and uphold the judgment of the trial Court.
The 2nd Respondent in this appeal filed his Brief of Argument on 20/12/2021. In the said brief, chose to stand on neutral ground but pledged to abide by whatever decision this Court arrive at. This position, the 2nd Respondent posited, is consistent with the admonition by this Honourable Court to the 2nd Respondent in similar cases particularly in Hope Uzodinma V Osita Izunaso (No. 2) (2011) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1275) Pg 30 at 101 paragraph F.
The 3rd Respondent, on the other hand, filed his Brief of Argument on 22/12/2021. The 3rd Respondent claims to point out some defects arising from the proceedings at the trial Court but did not raise any fresh issue for the determination of this appeal.
I have carefully perused the respective briefs of the 2nd and 3rd Respondents and digested their arguments, submissions and explanations. Suffice to say the Court does not see the need to go over their respective positions here. Moreover, resolution of issues raised by the Appellant and 1st Respondent would effectively take care of their positions. Thus, this Court is left with the issues by the Appellant and the 1st Respondent in this appeal.
PRELIMINARY OBJECTION
The 1st Respondent filed Notice of Preliminary Objection together with his brief of argument on 20th December, 2021. In the said Brief, the 1st Respondent raised Preliminary Objection and argued same at paragraphs 3.5 to 3.12. The grounds of objection of the 1st Respondent are:
i. That the appeal is an abuse of Court process in that Abubakar Umar Abdullahi also filed an appeal against the same judgment of the trial Court.
ii. That the Court of Appeal lacks appellate jurisdiction in respect of Local Government Election.
Learned counsel to the 1st Respondent submitted that the act of proliferating appeals as done by the Appellant in this case viz-a-viz the sister appeal constitutes an abuse of Court process. He posited that what amounts to an abuse of the judicial process is not susceptible to a close knitted definition but also denotes improper use of the process of Court to achieve unlawful ends or the employment of the judicial process to the annoyance or irritation or injury of the person of another, like in the present case, where the petitioners are out to employ the judicial process in overreaching the Respondents. He refers to LADOJA V. AJIMOBI (2016) LPELR-40658. He urged the Court to dismiss the appeal on this ground.
On the question of jurisdiction of the Court to entertain this appeal, he referred to Section 299 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria which provides as follows:
Section 299:-
The provisions of this Constitution shall apply to the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja as if it were one of the states of the Federation.
Thus, he submitted that where the National Assembly legislates for the FCT, it legislates as a State House of Assembly, thus it is settled that the provisions of Section 7 of the 1999 Constitution vests the system of Local Government Councils under the purview and control of the states and in the case of the FCT, under the control of the Federal Capital Territory who are to ensure their existence under a law which provides for the establishment, structure, composition, finance and functions of such councils. He said flowing from the above and by virtue of Sections 240, 241 and 243 of the 1999 Constitution, the appellate jurisdiction of this Court does not extend to the determination of any question relating to the seat of a Local Government or Area Council Chairman. He said that such issues stop at the High Court of the FCT and that this much was stated by this Court in the case of SALISU UBANDOMA & ANOR V SAFIYANU YAHAYA & 2 ORS IN Appeal No. CA/A/260/2020 delivered on the 14th day of August, 2020. Learned Counsel urged this Court to decline jurisdiction and strike out this appeal.
In his response, Appellant’s Counsel argued that the appeal is not an abuse of Court process. He argued that the 1st Respondent relied on the case of Ladoja V. Ajimobi (2016) LPELR-40658 in support of his submission that this appeal is an abuse of Court process but that the decision in the case of Ladoja V. Ajimobi (supra) is not authority for position that more than one appeal cannot emanate from one judgment.
On the issue of jurisdiction, he posited that the argument of the 1st Respondent is misconceived. He said the 1st Respondent relied on the case of Salisu Ubandoma & Anor V. Safiyanu Yahaya & 2 Ors in Appeal No. CA/A/260/2020 delivered on the 14th day of August, 2020 in support of the argument that the Court of Appeal lacks jurisdiction to entertain this appeal. It was submitted that a case is an authority for what it decides and there exist great differences between this appeal and the case of Salisu Ubandoma & Anor V. Safiyanu Yahaya & 2 Ors (supra).
DECISION ON THE PRELIMINARY OBJECTION
RAISED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
Having gone through the arguments put forward by the 1st Respondent’s counsel in his Notice of Preliminary Objection and the response of the Appellant, I will proceed to decide it.
First, learned counsel to the 1st Respondent had submitted that the “act of proliferating appeals” as done by the Appellant in this case constitutes an abuse of course process. He referenced LADOJA V. AJIMOBI (2016) LPELR- 40658 as authority on this. I have carefully gone over the case of Ladoja V. Ajimobi (Supra) and had noticed that the decision in that case is actually not authority for the position that more than one appeal cannot emanate from one judgment. In Ladoja V. Ajimobi (Supra) what was termed abuse of Court process was filing of two separate appeals by co-petitioner. Parties who filed joint petition at an Election Tribunal and represented by same counsel filed separate appeals in that case. This was held to be an abuse of Court process. In this case however, the Appellant herein was the 2nd Defendant at the trial Court while Abubakar Umar Abdullahi was the 3rd Defendant at the trial Court. They filed separate processes at the trial Court. It follows that the cases are not similar and the decision in Ladoja V. Ajimobi (supra) does not apply to this case. I hold that this appeal is not an abuse of Court process.
As for whether or not the Court of Appeal has jurisdiction to determine this appeal, the 1st Respondent in arguing his appeal placed reliance on the case of Salisu Ubandoma & Anor V. Safiyanu Yahaya & 2 Ors in Appeal No. CA/A/260/2020 delivered on the 14th day of August, 2020. But I agree with the learned counsel to the Appellant that the decision in Salisu Ubandoma & Anor V. Safiyanu Yahaya & 2 Ors (supra) relates to who should be chairman of Magama Local Government Area of Niger State. This appeal on the other hand, has to do with whether the provision of Section 87 of Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended) was complied with by the Appellant when it forwarded the name of the 3rd Respondent to the 2nd Respondent as its candidate. There are plethora of decisions of Court regarding pre-election appeals regarding compliance or otherwise with the provision of Section 87 of Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended). I hold that this Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine appeals from the decision of High Court of Federal Capital Territory, Abuja in pre-election matter under the Constitution notwithstanding the fact that same relates to the candidacy of political party in the Area Council of Federal Capital Territory.
Having resolved the issues in the preliminary objection thus, the preliminary objection fails. The outcome of this appeal would be determined by the substantive Appeal.
MAIN JUDGMENT
Having read through the respective briefs filed by the parties to this appeal, I will now proceed to determine same. I will adopt the issues distilled for determination of this appeal by the Appellant. They are reproduced below:
1. Whether having regard to the circumstance of this case, the trial Court was not wrong when it held that the cause of action arose on the date the 1st Respondent became aware that Appellant submitted the name of the 3rd Respondent as its candidate for the election (Ground 1).
2. Whether the trial Court was not wrong when it held that Exhibit Loko 34 was admissible due to the mistake of counsel to the 1st Respondent (Grounds 2 and 13).
3. Whether the trial Court was not wrong when it held that the Guidelines issued by the Appellant for the primary election was Exhibit Loko 2 and not Exhibit L/Exhibit Abaji 2 (Ground 8),
4. Whether the trial Court was not wrong when it investigated the Appeal Committee Report of the Appellant, entertained the internal affairs of the Appellant and nullified the said Appeal Committee Report without any relief sought by the 1st Respondent on same (Grounds 5, 6, 7, 9, 11, 12 and 14).
5. Whether the judgment is not against the weight of evidence (Grounds 3, 4, and 15).
ISSUE ONE
1. Whether having regard to the circumstance of this case, the trial Court was not wrong when it held that the cause of action arose on the date the 1st Respondent became aware that Appellant submitted the name of the 3rd Respondent as its candidate for the election (Ground 1).
The contention of the Appellant here is the issue of statute of limitation. He had argued that the cause of action arose on 24/4/2021 while the trial Court held that the cause of action arose on 31/5/2021.
In the case of HON. SULEIMAN ALHASSAN GWAGWA VS. HON. MURTALA USMAN KARSHI AND 17 OTHERS IN APPEAL NO. CA/ABJ/CV/766/2021 AT PAGE 104 PER HON JUSTICE DANLAMI ZAMA SENCHI, JCA who delivered the lead judgment dated the 3rd day of December, 2021 thus:
“In determining when a cause of action arose, the Court must examine the originating process, the affidavit evidence, relevant documentary evidence and the evidence on record to enable the Court know when the wrong occurred and when the suit was filed… Also the apex Court of the land, in the case of APC VS LERE (2020) 1 NWLR (PT. 1705) PAGE 254 on what the Court considers in determining whether an action is statute barred held:-
‘To determine whether an action is statute barred, the Court examines the originating process, statement of claim, together with the evidence on record where that has taken place. To know when the wrong in question occurred and compared it with the dates the originating processes were filed in Court”.
It is trite law that in any suit where issue of statute of limitation or time within which a party is expected to file his suit is raised or in question as in the instant appeal, the Court will have recourse to the statement of claim where same has been filed to examine and to ascertain when the cause of action arose and compare same with the date the writ was filed to see if it was filed within time or not. See the case of YARE V. N.S.W.I.C (2013) 12 NWLR (PT. 1367) PAGE 173 AT 848, PARAS D-G, EGBE V ADEFARASIN (1987) 2 NWLR (PT. 47) PAGE 1 AND WILLIAMS V. WILLIAMS (2008) ALL FWLR (PT. 433) PAGE 1245, (2008) 10 NWLR (PT. 1095) PAGE 364.
Now, let me say I have perused carefully the judgment of the learned trial Judge at pages 3015-3024 of vol. 6 of the Records of Appeal and I am in agreement with him on this issue. At page 3016 of vol. 6 of the Record of Appeal, the learned trial Judge had this to say:
“In order to determine whether or not a pre-election suit is statute barred, the Court will examine the originating process/claim of the Plaintiff to determine the “date of the event, decision or action complained of in the suit”.
I hold that whether we begin from the 31st of May, 2021 that the claimant became aware of the submission of the 3rd Respondent’s name or the 29th day of May, 2021 that the 2nd Defendant/Appellant submitted the name of the 3rd Defendant to the 1st Defendant as its candidate, the 1st Respondent’s suit was well within time. Thus, the trial Court having got it right, it does not require much more words at this juncture. In OBULOR V OBORO (2001) FWLR (PT. 47) PAGE 1004, RATIO 3, AT PAGE 1006, the Supreme Court held thus:
“Every judgment or ruling delivered by a competent Court is presumed to be right. The burden is therefore on the Appellant to show the reason why the judgment he has appealed from in a civil case should be set aside. If he cannot clearly convince the Court or if all he has done is merely raise a doubt whether the judgment is right or wrong, the judgment stays, and the appeal fails”.
This Court is not convinced by the Appellant’s argument to the effect that in the computation of time when a cause of action arose, knowledge is not relevant.
ISSUE TWO
Whether the trial Court was not wrong when it held that Exhibit LOKO 3A was admissible due to the mistake of counsel to the 1st Respondent (Ground 2 and 3).
On this issue, learned counsel to the Appellant posited that the decision of the trial Court to the effect that Exhibit LOKO 3 was attached to the affidavit in support of amended originating summons due to the mistake of counsel is not supported by evidence and that Exhibit LOKO 3A was smuggled in. He had said the learned trial Judge failed to consider the issue that Exhibit LOKO 3A is alien to the proceeding.
However, I noticed that at pages 3018-3024 of vol. 6 of the Record of Appeal, the learned trial Judge had painstakingly noted how he had arrived at the decision that the issue of Exhibit LOKO 3A amounted to a mere discrepancy that is not grave enough to warrant to dismissal the case. His point was that there was a discrepancy and the 1st Respondent went around to cure it. He had said natural justice demands that the 1st Respondent should not be punished for an error from his counsel. I have also noted that the issue of the 1st Respondent’s further affidavit and the 2nd and 3rd Defendants objection to same was considered before the trial Court ruled that it was satisfied that the omission was that of the mistake of counsel and that to uphold the submissions of the 2nd and 3rd Defendants will amount to allowing technicality to defeat the course of justice. Technical justice is not justice at all and this Court will not expend much energy on it when it has every opportunity to pursue and do substantial justice.
In any case, it is elementary, that a further affidavit can be used to correct an omission and mistake in an affidavit in support of an originating summons. This issue must and is hereby resolved in favour of the 1st Respondent against the Appellant.
ISSUE THREE
Whether the trial Court was not wrong when it held that the Guidelines issued by the Appellant for the primary election was Exhibit LOKO 2 and not Exhibit L/Exhibit ABAJI 2 (Ground 8).
The Appellant had claimed that the learned trial Judge erred in believing the deposition in the Affidavit of the 1st Respondent that the Guidelines given to all parties by the Appellant prior to the conduct of the primary election as guidelines for the conduct of the primary election was Exhibit LOKO 2 and that having arrived at this conclusion, the trial Court held that the appeal committee should be of 3 members set up by Federal Capital Territory Working Committee of the Appellant as provided for in Exhibit LOKO 2. But how true is the claim?
The correct position of the law, in my view, is that documents that are attached to an affidavit become part of the said Affidavit and the Court will be at liberty to look and evaluate all documents in its bid to do substantial justice in a given case. Thus, contrary to the submission of the Appellant, it seems to me that the learned trial Judge utilized documentary evidence of both parties as in Exhibits LOKO 2 and Exhibit L/Exhibit Abaji 2 and the need for oral evidence became unnecessary, more so that the suit is of the type that is time bound. I venture to say that the Appellant has not shown where the learned trial Judge held that it preferred evidence of one party against that of the other. There is no doubt that the learned trial Judge simply juxtaposed the conflicting documentary Exhibits and made his findings accordingly.
It will do well to note that it is not in all cases where there are conflicting affidavit evidence that the Court must call oral evidence to resolve it, in some cases (such as this particular case) where there are documentary evidence at the disposal of the Court, the Court can resolve any conflict from the available documents. See UBA LTD VS. TAAN (1993) 4 NWLR (PT 287) PAGE 368 AT 309, PARA C PER NIKI TOBI, JCA, (as he then was).
If this appeal must succeed, it cannot be on the basis of issue three as argued by the Appellant. The argument does not sound convincing by any stretch of imagination. This issue is also resolved against the Appellant.
ISSUE FOUR
Whether the trial Court was not wrong when it investigated the Appeal Committee Report of the Appellant, entertained the internal affairs of the Appellant and nullified the said Appeal Committee Report without any relief sought by the 1st Respondent on same (Grounds 5, 6, 7, 9, 11, 12 and 14).<br< p=”” style=”box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;”></br<>
In the case of HON. SULEIMAN ALHASSAN GWAGWA VS HON MURTALA USMAN KARSHI & 17 ORS (Supra) this Court has dealt with the issue of Appeal Committee in the APC Constitution as non-existent. So not much need be said. I however find one thing curious: it was the Appellant who had brought the document to Court on its own volition to establish the fact that it forwarded the name of the 3rd Defendant to the 1st Defendant as its candidate based on the same Report. I thus agree with the 1st Respondent that the pertinent question is “if the Appellant does not want the Court to look at the document, why bringing the said document to the Court as evidence in the first place? It is certain that the Court is at liberty to look and consider all documents brought before it in order to do justice to the case. Obviously, even on appeal, the Appellant has been unable to show from the records of appeal, documentary evidence of service of invitation on the 1st Respondent to appear before the Appeals Committee and no documentary evidence of participation of the 1st Respondent in the said appeal processes.
The Appellant claimed at paragraph 4.37 of his brief of argument that Exhibits LOKO 8, LOKO 3A and J were all made by committees constituted pursuant to the Guidelines of the Appellant but that the learned trial Judge chose to give preferential treatment to the Exhibits of the 1st Respondent. This to me sounds hollow. I had read the judgment of the trial Court very well and could not see anywhere the Court was biased based on this issue. Perhaps, here, the Appellant conceived the idea of casting the net wide, perhaps a fish might turn up. Arguments such as this do not help the course of justice. This issue too is resolved against the Appellant.
ISSUE FIVE
Whether the judgment is not against the weight of evidence (Grounds 3, 4, and 15).
In arguing this issue, learned counsel to the Appellant faulted the learned trial Judge for making findings in this case which are not supported by the evidence before the Court and which he alleged affected the decision of the Court.
At page 3026 of vol. 6 of the Record of Appeal, the learned trial Judge hit the nail on the head when he observed that:
“In essence, it is the duty of the Court to determine whether a certain set of facts given in evidence by one party in a civil case is preferable to another set of facts given by the opposing party. The test to be applied in such a situation is as stated in the case of WACHUWKU VS OWUNWANNE (2011) 14 NWLR (PT. 1266) PG 1 AT 36-37, PARAS G-C PER TOBI, JSC quoting FATAYI-WILLIAMS, JSC IN ODOFIN VS MAGAJI (1978) 2 NSCC 275 AT 277 wherein the learned jurist held that a Court is duty bound to put facts as given by each party on separate scale, weigh one against the other, then decide upon the preponderance of credible evidence of which weighs more, and accept it in preference to the other”.
To my mind, this is exactly what the learned trial Judge did. It is worthy of note that the entire case of the Appellant is that it overturned the victory of the 1st Respondent based on the report of its Appeals Committee. But then, this Court recently held that the victory of a person who is returned as winner of a primary election cannot be overturned by any Appeals Committee of a political party. See HON. SULEIMAN ALHASSAN GWAGWA VS HON. MURTALA USMAN KARSHI & 17 ORS (Supra). It is quite unfortunate indeed that the Appellant who was the 2nd Respondent in that appeal and whose conduct was denounced by this Court still adopts ‘bold face’ and relied on the Appeals Committee Report which has been held unlawful. This issue is resolved in favour of 1st Respondent against the Appellant.
Thus, issue 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 are all resolved in favour of the 1st Respondent and against the Appellant. This being so, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed for lacking in merit.
The judgment of FCT High Court, Abuja, delivered by Hon. Justice Modupe Osho-Adebiyi, on 12th day of November, 2021 in suit No. FCT/HC/105/2021 is hereby affirmed.
I make no order as to cost.
MOHAMMED DANJUMA, J.C.A.: I have the privilege of reading in draft, the lead judgment just delivered by my learned brother Ali Abubakar Babandi Gumel, JCA. I agree with the reasoning and conclusion in the lead judgment, that the appeal lacks merit and is hereby dismissed.
I abide by the consequential order in the lead judgment.
MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM SIRAJO, J.C.A.: I had the privilege of reading the draft judgment prepared by my learned brother, Ali Abubakar Babandi Gumel, PJCA. I agree with his reasoning and conclusion that this appeal is unmeritorious and should be dismissed. I too, dismiss the appeal. I abide by the orders in the lead judgment.
Appearances:
Sarafa Yusuff, Esq. For Appellant(s)
Azeez Taiwo Hassan, Esq. – for 1st Respondent
Bashir M. Abubakar, Esq. – for 2nd Respondent
Akinsanya Ayodele, Esq. – for 3rd Respondent For Respondent(s)
