ROMEO DAVID OYEYEMI OGEDEGBE & ANOR v. HON MATTHEW POKO OPUORU & ORS
(2019)LCN/13843(CA)
In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
On Monday, the 4th day of November, 2019
CA/B/EPT/17/2019
RATIO
FAIR HEARING: THE IMPORTANCE
The right to fair hearing is very fundamental and failure by a Court to observe it would invariably vitiate both the proceedings and judgment or ruling of such a Court, notwithstanding the merit or otherwise of the cases of the parties or indeed how meticulous the proceedings were conducted or even how sound the resultant judgment was on the merit. It is constitutionally guaranteed to the citizen in the determination of his civil rights and obligations and is thus sacrosanct. See Ekpenetu V. Ofegobi (2012) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1323) 276; Amadi V. INEC ( 2013) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1345) 595; Ovunwo & Anor. V. Woko & Ors ( 2011) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1277) 522; Pan African Incorporation & Ors. V. Shoreline Lifeboat Ltd & Anor. (2010) All FWLR (Pt. 524) 56; Action Congress of Nigeria V. Sule Lamido & Ors (2012) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1303) 560 @ p. 593; Judicial Service Commission of Cross River State & Anor. V. Dr (Mrs) Asari Young (2013) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1364) 1. PER BIOBELE ABRAHAM GEORGEWILL, J.C.A.
WHETHER THE SOLE GROUND RELIED UPON BY THE APPELANTS IS COGNIZABLE UNDER SECTION 138 OF THE ELECTORAL ACT 2010
Rather, the issue is whether the sole ground relied upon by the Appellants is cognizable under the provisions of Section 138(1)(a) – (e) of the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended)?Thus, the earlier decisions germane to this issue must be the ones which were given based on facts as nearly similar to the facts and circumstances of this appeal and not otherwise. See Adegoke Motors Ltd. V. Dr. Babatunde Adesanya & Anor(1989) LPELR – 94(SC). See also Mrs. Matilda Aderonke Dairo V. Union Bank of Nigeria Plc. (2007) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1059) 99; Chevron (Nig.) Ltd. V. Warri North L.G.C. (2002) LPELR – 5435(CA); FRN V. Lalwani (2013) LPELR – 20376 (CA); PER BIOBELE ABRAHAM GEORGEWILL, J.C.A.
SECTION 138 OF THE ELECTORAL ACT 2010: THE IMPORTANCE
The law is that a Petitioner, such as the 1st and 2nd Respondents, is obligated to found or base his Petition within the ambit of any of the four grounds as prescribed by Section 138 (1) (a) – (d) of the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended), failing which such a Petition is rendered incompetent. A Petitioner cannot in law, on his own volition, go outside the grounds as prescribed by Section 138 (1) (a) – (d) of the Electoral Act 2010 as amended, neither does he have the power or liberty to add to or subtract from the grounds as provided specifically in Section 138 (1)(b) of the Electoral Act 2010 as amended…In my view, the result of the affliction suffered by the sole ground by the incorporation of two incompetent grounds…is that it rendered the Petition incompetent.
. PER BIOBELE ABRAHAM GEORGEWILL, J.C.A.
WHEN AN APPELLATE COURT CAN INTERVENE AND RE EVALUATE EVIDENCE BROUGHT BEFORE A TRIBUNAL
Now, in law it is only where the Lower Tribunal had not properly carried out its sacred duty of dispassionately evaluating the totality of the evidence led, and had thus failed in this primary duty, that an appellate Court would have the legal justification to intervene and re – evaluate the evidence on the printed record in order to make appropriate findings of facts in line with the dictates of justice to the parties. So, unless and until an appellate Court arrives at such a conclusion the need for re – evaluation of evidence does not even arise since an appellate Court has no business re – evaluating the evidence and interfering with correct findings of a trial Court. See Williams V. Tinubu (2014) All FWLR (Pt. 755) 200. See also Woluchem V. Gudi (1981) 5 SC. 291; Enang V. Adu (1981) 11-12 SC. 25; Abisi & Ors. V. Ekwealor & Anor (1993) 6 NWLR (Pt. 302) 643.
It is the law that even where an appellate Court comes to the conclusion that there is need to re-evaluate the evidence, it must be borne in mind that evaluation and ascription of probative value to the evidence led is ordinarily the turf of a trial Court, and therefore, once a trial Court discharges that duty on the strength of the evidence placed before it, unless it arrives at perverse conclusions or findings not supported by the established evidence before it, an appellate Court should not interfere once the conclusions reached is correct, even if the reason turns out to be wrong. See Alhaji Ndayako & Ors. V. Alhaji Dantoro & Ors. (2004) 13 NWLR (Pt. 889) 187 @ p. 198. See also Abaye V. Ofili (1986) 1 NWLR (Pt. 15) 134; Ukejianya V. Uchendu 18 WACA 46. PER BIOBELE ABRAHAM GEORGEWILL, J.C.A.
THE RIGHT ATTITUDE OF APPELLATE COURTS TO WITNESSES CALLED AT TRIAL COURTS OR TRIBUNALS
It is also the law that an appellate Court which had not seen the witnesses testify and observed their demeanor in the witness stand should respect the views of the trial Court and should not to readily substitute its own views for that of the trial Court except where it is shown that the conclusion or finding reached by the trial Court below was perverse. In latter circumstance, an appellate Court will readily intervene to re-evaluate the evidence in the printed record if it is shown that the conclusions reached or findings made by the Court below on the proved evidence before it do not flow from such proved facts or runs contrary to such proved facts and thus perverse and thus, the appellate Court is in good a position as the trial Court to intervene to re – evaluate the evidence in the printed record to draw necessary inference and make proper findings on the proved and admitted facts in the record as the justice of the case requires but which the trial Court had failed to do. See Obajimi V. Adeobi (2008) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1075) 1 @ P. 19. See also Owor V. Christopher (2010) All FWLR (Pt. 511) 962 @ 992; Sogbamu V. Odunaiya (2013) All FWLR (pt. 700) 1249 @ P. 1302; Mini Lodge V. Ngei (2010) All FWLR (Pt. 506) 1806 @ pp. 1820 -1821; Sa?eed V. Yakowa (2013) All FWLR (Pt. 692) 1650 @ P. 1681. PER BIOBELE ABRAHAM GEORGEWILL, J.C.A.
PROOF OF FRAUD IN CRIMINAL LAW: STANDARD OF PROOF
In law an allegation of corrupt practices is by all standards criminal in nature and once it is made central to the issues in contention between the parties, it must be proved beyond reasonable doubt as required by law. See Section 135 of the Evidence Act 2011. See also Nwobodo V. Onoh (1984) 1 SCNLR 1; Aigbadion V. The State (2000) 4 SC (Pt. 1) 1; Maune V. Abdul (2001) 4 NWLR (Pt. 702) 95; Agwasin V. Ejivumerwerhaye (2001) 9 NWLR (Pt. 716) 395; Olalomi Industries Ltd. V. NIDB (1992) 4 NWLR (Pt.233) 91 @ p.106.
PER BIOBELE ABRAHAM GEORGEWILL, J.C.A.
THE ONLY DUTY OF THE APPELLATE COURT
An appellate Court is only concerned with whether the judgment appealed against is right or wrong not whether the reasons given are right or wrong. Where the judgment is right but the reasons given are wrong, the appellate Court does not interfere. It is only where the misdirection has caused the Court to come to a wrong conclusion that the appellate Court will interfere….? See also Abaye V. Ofili (1986) 1 NWLR (Pt. 15) 134; Ukejianya V. Uchendu 18 WACA 46. PER BIOBELE ABRAHAM GEORGEWILL, J.C.A.
JUSTICES
