SENATOR ADEMOLA ADELEKE v. MR. WAHAB ADEKUNLE RAHEEM & ORS (2019)

SENATOR ADEMOLA ADELEKE v. MR. WAHAB ADEKUNLE RAHEEM & ORS

(2019)LCN/13393(CA)

In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

On Thursday, the 30th day of May, 2019

CA/A/304/2019

RATIO

JUDGMENT IN REM: FEATURES

The feature of a judgment in rem is that it binds all persons whether a party to the proceedings or not. It stops anyone from raising the issue of the status of persons or persons or things, or the rights or title to properly litigated before a competent Court. It is indeed conclusive against the entire world in whatever it settles as to status of the person or property. All persons whether party to the proceedings or not are stopped from averring that the status of persons is other than the Court has by such judgement declared or made it to be.” Okpalugo vs. Adeshoye (1996) 10 NELR pt. 476, pg. 77, Fointrades Ltd. vs Uni Association Co. Ltd. (2002) 8 NWLR Pt. 770, pg. 699, Ogbahon vs. Reg. Trustees CCCG (2002) 1 NWLR Pt. 749, pg. 675, Olaniyan vs Fatoki (2003) 13 NWLR pt. 837, Pg. 273.PER EMMANUEL AKOMAYE AGIM, J.C.A.

JURISDICTION: CO-ORDINATE JURISDICTION: WHETHER A COURT CAN REVIEW OR SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF ANOTHER COURT CO-ORDINATE JURISDICTION

As a Court whose jurisdiction is co-ordinate with that of Osun State High Court, the High Court of Federal Capital Territory has no jurisdiction to review or set aside the said judgment of Osun State High Court on the educational qualification of the appellant to be candidate in the election of a Governor of Osun State. SeeNDIC v. SBN Plc (2003) 1 NWLR (Pt. 501) 311, Offodile v. Egwuatu (2006) 1 NWLR (Pt. 961) 421, Emordi & Ors v. Kwentoh & Ors (1996) LPLER 1135 (SC) and Akporue & Anor v. Okei & Ors (1973) 12 SC 137.PER EMMANUEL AKOMAYE AGIM, J.C.A.

JUSTICES:

ADAMU JAURO Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

EMMANUEL AKOMAYE AGIM Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

MOHAMMED BABA IDRIS Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

Between

SENATOR ADEMOLA ADELEKE – Appellant(s)

AND

1. MR. WAHAB ADEKUNLE RAHEEM
2. MR. ADAM OMOSALEWA HABEEB
3. PEOPLES DEMOCRATIC PARTY
4. INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION (INEC) – Respondent(s)

EMMANUEL AKOMAYE AGIM, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): This appeal No. CA/A/304/2019 was commenced on 4-4-2019 when the appellant herein filed a notice of appeal against the consolidated rulings and judgment of the High Court of Federal Capital Territory rendered on 2-4-2019 in Suit No. FCT/HC/BW/CV/122/2018 and Motion No. FCT/HC/BW/M/141/2019 by O. A. Musa J. The notice of appeal contains 11 grounds of appeal.

The appellant, 1st and 2nd respondents filed their respective briefs as follows- appellants brief, 1st and 2nd respondents brief and appellants reply brief.

The 1st and 2nd respondent filed a notice of preliminary objection on the grounds that-
1. The decision appealed against by the Appellant was not specified.
2. The grounds 2 & 3 of the Appellants Notice of Appeal are vague, imprecise and unknown to law.
3. The Appellant in the instant appeal is a stranger to this case.
4. The Appellants Notice of Appeal as a whole is incompetent.

This objection is reproduced and argued in pages 8 to 11 of the 1st and 2nd respondents brief.

The responsorial arguments by the appellant are contained in pages 1 to 9 of the appellants reply brief.

Let me now consider the merits of the arguments of both sides on the objection before I delve into the merit of the appeal, if need be.

It is glaring from the express terms of grounds 2 and 3 of this appeal that the objection that the grounds are vague, imprecise and unknown to law as they allege error in law and misdirection is wrong and baseless. Each of the grounds distinctly allege misdirection. None of them allege both law and misdirection. So they are not duplicitous.
Each ground distinctly and clearly identify the defect in the judgment alleged to be an error or misdirection and disclose reasonable complains against the judgment appealed against. Therefore the said grounds are not vague, imprecise or incompetent. They are valid grounds of appeal, having clearly given notice of the reasons why the decision is considered wrong by the appellant.

Grounds 1, 2 and 3 of the objection were not argued by the 1st and 2nd respondents. They are therefore deemed abandoned by the 1st and 2nd respondents.

The argument made under ground

4 of the objection have no nexus with the said ground of objection. That ground of objection is that the notice of this appeal as a whole is incompetent. But the argument under it is that issue number 2 in the appellants brief stated therein to be distilled from grounds 5, 6 and 7 of this appeal have no relationship or nexus with the said grounds and that the arguments made in the appellants brief under that issue rather address the complains in ground 5, 6, and 7 of this appeal. These arguments do not support the fourth ground of the preliminary objection and are not valid as arguments of that ground of objection.

I will deal with the merit of the arguments concerning issue number 2 of the appellants brief along with other issues raised for determination in the appellants brief.

For the above reasons, I overrule and dismiss the preliminary objection on all grounds for lack of merit.

Having determined the 1st and 2nd respondents preliminary objection, let me now consider the merits of this appeal.

The appellants brief raised the following issues for determination:-

1. Having regards to the provisions of Sections 285(9) and (10) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), whether this suit is not statute barred. (Grounds 1, 2, 3 and 9).
2. Whether the trial Court gave a full and dispassionate consideration of all the issues presented before it by the Appellant. (Grounds 5, 6 and 7)
3. Whether the trial Court is competent to assume jurisdiction over this matter that the course of action arose outside its territorial jurisdiction. (Ground 10)
4. Whether the trial Court can sit on appeal over the decision of Osun State High Court. (Ground 8).

The 1st and 2nd respondents brief raised the following issues for determination-
1. Whether or not by the restrictive definition of pre-election matters contained in Section 285(14)(a)(b) & (c) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (Fourth Alteration No. 21) Act, 2017, Section 285(9) & (10) of the Act could be invoked to deny the Honourable Court of the requisite competence of determine this case on its merit (Grounds 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5).
2. Whether or not there are Processes, Ruling or Judgment of either Suit No. HOS/M.103/2018 or Suit No.

HOS/M.118/2018 on Record that suggest that the subject of the two suits is the same with the instant case for the trial Court to be bound. (Ground 8).
3. Whether or not the cause of action of this case arose from the territorial jurisdiction of High Court of Federal Capital Territory or High Court of Osun state (Ground 10).
4. Whether or not the trial Court gave a full and dispassionate consideration of all the issues presented before it by the Appellant (Grounds 5, 6 & 7).

I will determine this appeal on the basis of the issues raised for determination in the appellants brief.

Let me start with issue No. 1 which asks Having regards to the provisions of Sections 285(9) and (10) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), whether this suit is not statute barred.

Before I consider the merit of this issue, let me deal with a preliminary point that was raised concerning this issue by Learned Counsel for the 1st and 2nd respondents during adoption of briefs in this appeal.

During the hearing of this appeal, after adopting the 1st and 2nd respondents brief, Learned Counsel for the said 1st and 2nd

respondents pointed out that there is no ground of this appeal complaining against the dismissal of motion No. M/141/2019 filed on 6-3-2019 and notice of objection filed on 19-3-2019 after the matter had been adjourned for judgment, for the reason that the processes seek to arrest the judgment and therefore constitute abuse of process.
I do not think that this view is correct. Ground 3 of this appeal clearly complain against the dismissal of the said motion on notice and notice of preliminary objection. The ground reads thusly-
The lower Court misdirected itself in law when it held that the application dated 6th March, 2019 was brought to arrest the judgment of the lower Court.
PARTICULARS OF ERROR
i. The case of the Appellant before the lower Court was that by the provisions of Section 285(10) of the 1999 Constitution (4th Alteration), the lower Court had lost jurisdiction to entertain the suit, having failed to deliver its judgment within 180 days.
ii. Issue of Jurisdiction can be raised even for the first time in the Supreme Court and or at the Court of Appeal
iii. Issue of Jurisdiction may even be raised orally or by

motion or in any form.
In any case, assuming there is no ground of this appeal complaining against the dismissal of the motion and notice of preliminary objection for the reason that they are belated and amount to an arrest of the impending judgment, it would not preclude the appellant from raising and arguing in this appeal, the issue of lack of jurisdiction of the trial Court due to non compliance with S.285(9) and (10) of the 1999 Constitution. This is because the issue of lack of the jurisdiction of the trial Court to entertain and determine a case can be raised at any stage of the proceedings, even for the first time in an appeal to this Court or the Supreme Court. So that even if the trial Court had refused to entertain the objection because it was raised after the matter had been adjourned for final judgment, it can be raised in an appeal against the judgment of the trial Court to this Court or on a further appeal to the Supreme Court. The trial Court in its ruling acknowledged that even without raising the objections in the trial Court, the appellant can raise them in an appeal to this Court or in a further appeal to the Supreme Court. So

dismissing the motion on notice and notice of preliminary objection which raised the issue of lack of jurisdiction for being brought belatedly, does not bar the appellant from raising the issue in this appeal. Grounds 1, 2, 4, 7 and 9 raise the issue of lack of jurisdiction of the trial Court to entertain this pre-election matter for non compliance with S.285(9) and (10) of the 1999 Constitution.
The trial Court was wrong to have held that filing those processes to raise the issue of lack of jurisdiction for non compliance with S.285 (9) and (10) of the 1999 Constitution after the matter had been adjourned for judgment amounted to arresting the judgment and an abuse of process. As I have held herein, being a jurisdictional issue, it can be raised at any stage of the proceedings. It was not too late to raise it. SeeOlutola V University of Ilorin (2004) LPELR-256 in which the Supreme Court restated that The issue of jurisdiction being a fundamental issue, it can be raised at any stage of the proceedings in the Court of first instance or in the appeal Courts. This issue can be raised by any of the parties or by the Court itself suo motu. When there

are sufficient facts ex facie on the record establishing a want of competence or jurisdiction in the Court, it is the duty of the Judge or Justices to raise the issue suo motu if the parties fail to draw the Courts attention to it, See Odiase v. Agho (1972) 1 All NLR (Pt.1) 170. In Abdulsalam & Anor V Salawu(2002) 6 SC (Pt. ii) 196 the Supreme Court held that Jurisdiction as an issue can be raised any time during trial of a suit up to finality.
On 12-2-2019, the trial Court concluded hearing of the originating summons and objections to the jurisdiction of the Court and adjourned the matter for ruling on a date to be communicated to the parties. On 6-3-2019, the 1st respondent filed a notice of preliminary objection contending that the trial Court lacked the jurisdiction to entertain the suit as a pre-election matter for non compliance with S.285(9) and (10) of the 1999 Constitution. Both sides filed written addresses on the objections. On 26-3-2019, the trial Court heard the objections and adjourned ruling on the objections and judgment in the main suit to 2-4-2019. The trial Court having heard arguments from both sides and

adjourned for ruling on them, should have gone ahead to determine the merit of the objections. There was no need or basis for it to have first considered whether the objections amount to arrest of the judgment in the main suit and an abuse of process.
The dismissal of the said objection for being belated and an arrest of the judgment was completely unnecessary and wrong as the matter was adjourned for its ruling on the objection. The fact that it proceeded to deliver its ruling on the objections confirm that its dismissal of the motion and notice of preliminary objection was an unnecessary engagement. It is hereby set aside.

Let me now determine the merit of issue No. 1

On 21-7-2018, the 3rd respondent conducted its primary election to nominate its candidate for the general election of Governor of Osun State. The appellant scored the highest votes in the primary election and was declared winner of the primary election and the 3rd respondent submitted his name to the 4th respondent as its candidate for the general election fixed for 22-9-2019.

On 24-7-2018, the appellant submitted to the 4th respondent documents containing information on

his educational qualification and other particulars and affidavit in support of his said personal particulars indicating that he has satisfied all the constitutional requirements for election of Governor of Osun State (Form C.F. 001).

The 4th respondent herein displayed the list of all the candidates who, under various registered Political Parties, were contesting Osun State governorship election slated for 22nd day of September, 2018 on its Notice Board at its office on Gbongan Road, Osogbo, Osun State and the information displayed by the 3rd Defendant, include not only the names of the governorship candidates and their running mates but also the details of the educational qualification/credentials among other documents submitted by the candidates. On the 4th day of August, 2018 the Nigerian Tribune, a National Newspaper published the names of the governorship candidates and their running mates and the details of the educational qualification/credentials and documents submitted by the contestants.

The 1st and 2nd respondents herein believing that the information given by the appellant in the said documents and affidavit of personal particulars

(Form C.F. 001) is false, on 4-9-2018 filed the suit that has led to this appeal, seeking for the determination of the following questions-
a. Whether by virtue of provisions of the Section 177(d) of Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) and Section 31(5) & (6) of the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended) the 1st Defendant ought not be disqualified from contesting the Osun State Governorship Election slated for the 22nd September, 2018 as candidate of the 2nd Defendant regards being had to the false information and/or declaration of the 1st Defendant as contained in FORM C.F. 001 submitted to the 3rd Defendant in July, 2018.
b. Whether having regards to the manifest falsehood of the claims of the 1st Defendant in the School Certificate Result attached to FORM C.F. 001 submitted to the 3rd Defendant, being the educational qualification of the 1st Defendant and the Oaths thereto, the 1st Defendant has not contravened the extent law governing the qualification and or disqualification of candidates for a governorship election in Nigeria.
c. Whether in the light of a and b above, the 1st Defendant ought not to be

disqualified from contesting the Osun State Governorship Election slated for 22nd September, 2018 as candidate of the 2nd Defendant (PEOPLES DEMOCRATIC PARTY) on the ground of false information or perjury.
d. Whether in the circumstances of a, b & c above, the Honourable Court ought not to restrain the 3rd Defendant from giving recognition and or effect to the 1st Defendant as the candidate of the 2nd Defendant in the Governorship Election scheduled to take place on the 22nd September, 2018 in Osun State having regard to manifest false information in the School Certificate Results relied on by the 1st Defendant to qualify him to contest the election.
And seeking for the following reliefs:-
1. A DECLARATION that the 1st Defendant has failed to comply with the composite provisions of Section 177(d) of Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) and Section 31(5) & (6) of the Electoral Act, 2010 (as Amended) to qualify him as a candidate to contest the Governorship Election in Osun State scheduled to take place on the 22nd September, 2018
2. A DECLARATION that in the circumstances the nomination of the 1st

Defendant as the candidate of the 2nd Defendant is unconstitutional null, void and of no effect whatsoever regard being had to the false information and/or declaration contained in FORM C.F. 001 submitted to the 3rd Defendant contrary to the requisite Constitutional and Electoral Law provisions.
3. AN ORDER disqualifying the 1st Defendant from contesting the Osun State Governorship Election scheduled to take place on the 22nd September, 2018 for not complying with the mandatory provisions of Section 177(d) of Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as Amended) and Section 31(5) & (6) of the Electoral Act, 2010 (as Amended).
4. AN ORDER restraining the 3rd Defendant from recognizing and or giving effect to the 1st Defendants nomination as the candidate of the 2nd Defendant to contest the Governorship Election scheduled to take place on the 22nd September, 2018.

After conclusion of hearing in the case and all objections including the last two it heard, the trial Court on 2-4-2018 delivered consolidated rulings on the last two objections and the final judgment on all other objections and the merit of the suit.

The part of the decision of the trial Court complained against under this issue 1 reads thusly- On the 26/03/2019, parties adopted their various processes before the Court in a motion seeking to terminate the suit No: FCT/HC/BW/CV/122/2018.
There are two primary Motions M/141/2019 and the 2nd defendants Motion filed on 19/03/2019 without a motion number, this is therefore the consolidated ruling.
I have bended backwards to entertain the applicants motion number M/141/2019 which was smuggled into Courts judgment file with yet again another preliminary objection aimed at taking a pre-emptive strike at this suit by entreating this Honourable Court to enter an Order striking same out pillared on the ground of non-compliance with the provision of Section 285(10) of the Amended 1999 Constitution.. Let me first say that this Motion of the 1st Defendant is considered by the Court as an attempt to arrest the judgment of this Honourable Court which on settled authorities is unknown to our jurisprudence. In fact, this attitude has been roundly condemned by the Supreme Court in Newswatch Communications Ltd vs. Atta (2006) 12 NWLR (Pt. 993) 144 at

178-179. It is equally confirmed in Ukachukwu vs. PDP (2013) LPELR-21894 (SC) that the procedure to arrest a Courts judgment is alien to our civil jurisprudence. In fact, arrest of Court judgment has been described as a very offensive expression connoting brigandage and lawlessness all things anathema to Rule of Law, Nwankudu Vs. Ibeto (2010) LPELR-4391 (CA). Though jurisdiction is a threshold issue that can be raised at anytime, even first time in the appeal Courts, it presupposes that it should be raised when there is a pending proceeding, see Ukachukwu vs. PDP (Supra). The applicant in this suit could have conveniently raised it, at the Court of appeal or even in their grounds of appeal with or without the leave of this Court or of the Court of appeal assuming the case is against them or as cross appellant. There is therefore no pending proceeding upon which the motion can be predicated, I hold that this motion constitutes a thorough abuse of judicial process in the extreme and stands dismissed in its entirety. The decision I reached here stands in per force with the motion filed by the 2nd defendant filed on 19/03/2019 which is predicated on

285(9) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended). It provides that actions must be commenced within 14 days of the event.
In other words, unlike the objection of the 1st defendant, the instant 2nd defendant had the opportunity of bringing this ground of objection in the main suit and objection earlier filed, but neglected to do so, may be as a practice strategy. I am not unmindful that issue of jurisdiction is fundamental, but it must be raised where there is a pending proceeding, and not aimed at arresting judgment of Court. The 2nd defendant can even raise the issue, first time on appeal as either an appellant or cross appellant or by respondents notice. It therefore stands to judicial reason that I punish the offending and odoriferous process as being an abuse of Court process, it is hereby dismissed. The objection of the claimant is upheld.
As am not the last Court and assuming I am wrong, I proceed to look into the merit of the motion. Evidently, Section 285(10) creates a time frame within which on settled authorities this Court is to dispose of any matter being a pre-election matter. All the above notwithstanding, I move to quickly clear the

cobwebs gathered by the said Motion on Notice dated 6th March, 2019 by considering Section 285(10) on which it is anchored. It is important to note that the said provision came into being by virtue of Fourth Alteration, No. 21 that provides for 180 days within which the Court is to dispose of any pre-election matter. I also agree with the submission of the applicant counsel on the authority of Marwa v. Nyako (2012) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1296) 286 where Justice Onnoghen JSC, remarked as follows:
It is settled law that time fixed by the Constitution for the doing of anything cannot be extended. It is immutable, fixed like the rock of Gibraltar. It cannot be extended, elongated, expanded or stretched beyond what it states.”
From the authority above, I hold that by Section 285(10) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), I have no authority to extend the time of hearing a pre-election matter beyond 180 days from the date of filing.
The law is that in interpretation of Constitution or statute that the Court will do a community reading of the Constitution to reveal the intention of the parliament. It is always good to avoid absurdity. It is equally

the law and now settled that lawmakers do not use words in the statute for fun as each of them has intended consequences. Where words used are clear and unambiguous it must be given their ordinary meaning.
According to Halsburys Laws of England, 4th Edition, Volume 44, Paragraph 861 and it reads:
Presumption that words are not used unnecessarily. It may be presumed that words are not used in a statute without a meaning and are not tautologies or superfluous and so effect must be given, if possible to all the words used, for the legislature is deemed not to waste its words or say anything in vain.”
The question is whether the instant case qualifies as a pre-election matter? A cursory look at Section 285(14)(a)-(c) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) stated clearly and defined what pre-election matter means, that is any matter brought by any aspirant complaining of the violation of either the Electoral Act or the Guidelines of a Political party in the conduct of primaries or any suit by a political party challenging the actions, decision, or activities of the Independent National

Electoral Commission disqualifying its candidate from participating in an election or the violation of the Act by the INEC. Clearly the Claimants herein are neither an aspirant nor a political party. In one word, this action falls outside of the limited scope of the meaning assigned to pre-election matter by the Constitution itself. This ground of objection equally fails as same is grossly misconceived, it is hereby overruled.
I now turn to the merit of the 2nd defendant motion filed 19/03/2019 and anchored on Section 285(9) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended).
Having found and ruled in motion number M/141/2019 that this is not a pre-election matter, it has taken sail of this motion. This I say, as the relevant section only deals with pre-election matter. Section 285(9) is the aircraft while Section 285(14) is the run way necessary for 285(9) provision to fly. The said flight having not reached the threshold to take off, crashes irredeemably. The objection lacks merit, it is equally dismissed. The earlier finding that the two motions are an abuse of process still afflicts them and from whatever angle one looks at it, it fails.

Learned Counsel for the appellant has argued that the suit at the trial Court was filed 17 days after the cause of action arose on 21-7-2018 when the appellant won the primary election held on that day or on 4-8-2018, when the 1st and 2nd respondents became aware of the appellants educational qualification following the display in public of the appellants personal particulars and their publication in the Tribune Newspaper of 4-8-2018, that by virtue of S.285(9) of the 1999 Constitution, the trial Court lacked the jurisdiction to entertain and hear the suit brought after 14 days from the date the cause of action accrued, that the final judgment in the suit was delivered after 180 days from the date the suit was filed, that by virtue of S.285(10) of the 1999 Constitution, the trial Court lacked the jurisdiction to deliver the final judgement after the expiration of 180 days from the date the suit was filed, that the trial Court was wrong to have held that the suit is not a pre-election one, that the trial Court was inconsistent in holding that is not a pre-election matter and in another breadth hold that it is a

pre-election case, that a Court cannot approbate and reprobate on the same issue, that it is contrary to the doctrine of stare decisis for the trial Court to ignore the Supreme Court decision in Gusau v. APC & Ors (2019) LPELR 46897 (SC) and this Courts decision in Itanyi & Ors v Bagudu (CA/A/698/2018 of 17-9-2018) which judicially settled this issue, that a trial Court is bound by the decision of this Court and the Supreme Court.

Learned Counsel for the 1st and 2nd respondent argued in reply that S.285(14) of the 1999 Constitution (Fourth Alteration) does not apply to the subject matter of this suit, as it is not a pre-election matter, that the decision of this Court in PDP & Ors v. Dayo & Ors (2018) LPELR-46187 (CA) support his above submission, that if the attention of this court had been drawn to its decision in PDP v. Dayo (supra) when it was deciding Itanyi & Anor v. Bagudu & Ors, its decision would have been different, that this Court should uphold his above submission, or in the alternative the case should be stated or a full panel of this Court be constituted to have a critical look at the scope and application of

S.285(14) of the 1999 Constitution.

Learned Counsel for the appellant argued in the appellants reply brief that the decision of this Court in PDP v. Dayo (supra) was based on facts and circumstances totally different from the facts of this case, that in PDP v. Dayo (supra) the issue was which of two factional state executives in a political party was the valid state executive, that it had nothing to do with the nomination or qualification or sponsorship of a candidate for a primary or general election, that this Courts decision in Itanyi vs Bagudu (supra) has now been affirmed by the Supreme Court in the further appeal to the Supreme Court.
Let me now determine the merits of the above arguments of both sides.

The record of this appeal show that on 26-3-2019, Learned Counsel for the appellant and 3rd respondent in their oral argument in open Court of Motion M/141/2019 filed on 6-3-2019 relied on the decision of this Court in Itanyi & Anor v Bagudu (supra) delivered on 17-8-2018 and the decision of the Supreme Court in Farouk Salim v CPC (2013) LPELR 1998 (SC).
The trial Court in its consolidated ruling of 2-4-2019

on this issue did not refer to or consider the above decisions of the Supreme Court and this Court relied on by the appellant and 3rd respondent on the point. This is glaring from the part of that ruling reproduced in pages 15 to 17 of this judgment. It held that the suit brought under S.31(5) of the Electoral Act 2010 as amended is not a pre-election matter as defined by S.285(14)(a)-(c) of the 1999 Constitution and that therefore S.285(9) and (10) of the 1999 Constitution are not applicable to this case.
This approach of the trial Court in disregarding and not considering the judicial authorities relied on in support of the arguments of a party on a point in a case before it is wrong and violates that partys right to fair hearing as it has not fully considered that partys said argument on the point. The duty to consider those judicial authorities became more compelling when the decisions were said to be that of Courts higher than the trial Court in the judicial hierarchy. It should have considered them to guide itself on the decisions of those Courts on the point raised for its determination so as to follow them as precedents in the issues

if the relevant facts are similar.
If it had read and considered the said decisions of this Court and the Supreme Court relied on in support of the arguments of the objections, it would have realised that this Court and the Supreme Court had judicially settled the issue raised for determination before it and held that an action brought under S.31(5) and (6) of the Electoral Act 2010 as amended for a declaration that information given by a candidate for an election in his Form C.F.001 and documents of personal particulars is false and an order disqualifying such candidate from contesting an impending election is a pre-election matter. See Senator Nurudeen Ademola Adeleke & 1 Or. V. Awosiyan Olalekan Kingsley & 3 Ors. Suit No: CA/AK/81/19 decided by the Akure Division of this Honourable Court on the 6th day of April, 2019.
This Court in Itanyi & Ors v Bagudu (supra) held that pre-election matters as defined in S.285(14) covers a pre-election action brought under S.31(5) of the Electoral Act 2010 as amended in the following words- A conscious reading of Section 285(14) of the said Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (Fourth Alteration, No. 21) Act 2017,

shows that it is capable of giving escape route to the litigants who decide to challenge the eligibility of a candidate to vie for an elective office created by the Constitution and the law if such litigants decides to utilize the window provided under Section 31(5) of the Electoral Act. This would unwittingly mean that the amendment is only for a litigant who commences his action vide Section 87(9) of the Electoral Act 2010 as amended. This really is not the purpose and intention of the said amendment. What is good for the goose should be equally convenient for the gander. The Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (Fourth Alteration, No. 21) Act 2017 cannot be construed or interpreted discriminately in favour of any of the litigants in pre-election matters just because the person decides to sue a candidate in an election pursuant to Section 31(5) of Electoral Act, 2010. The whole essence of the amendments in the Fourth Alteration will be stultified. It will defeat the purpose of the amendments and the mischief the law makes set out to curb and terminate. It will lead to injustice.

This point is already settled by a long line of Supreme Court decisions in WIKE EZENWO NYESOM V. HON. (DR) DAKUKU ADOL PERTERSIDE & ORS (2015) 11-112 SCM 139 AT 164 H-I per. The Supreme Court held that- The intention of the lawmakers is to make the provisions of the amendments applicable to all classes of pre-election matters whether emanating from Section 31(5) or 87(9) of the Electoral Act 2010 as amended. The long title to the Act is very indicative of this and lends credence to the fact that the two categories of pre-election matters are amenable to the provisions of the amendments. It says: Act to alter the provisions of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 to provide time for the determination of pre-election matters; and for related matters (underlined mine).
The definition of Section 285(14) (a) (b)(c) of the aforesaid Constitution must not be allowed to throw spanner into the wheel of progress in administration of justice to circumvent the laudable objectives and intendments of the amendments to the Constitution aforesaid for the mutual benefit of stakeholders in the three arms of government and the general public.

In PDP v. INEC & Ors (2014) LPELR 235808 (SC), the Supreme Court held that The provisions of S.31(5) & (6) of the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended) cannot be ventilated at an election Tribunal. The first reason is that the language of the section and the reliefs to be granted point irresistibly to a pre-election action. Secondly, an election petition Tribunal is not mentioned in Section 31(5) of the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended) as one of the Courts where such a complaint can be made In PDP appeal in Salim V. CPC (supra) it held that- the issue of disqualification, nomination, substitution and sponsorship of candidates for an election precede election and are therefore pre-election matters (See pp.22 paras. D-E.).
Hon. Ishola Balogun Fulani & Anor vs Comrade Adams Oshiomole & 5 Ors suit No.: SC/214/2019 (unreported) and Senator Magnus Ngei Abe & Ors vs INEC & Ors Suit No.: SC/197/2019 (unreported), Senator Nurudeen Ademola Adeleke & 1 Or. V. Awosiyan Olalekan Kingsley & 3 Ors. (supra); Salim vs CPC (2013) -2 SC (pt 4) 105 AT

130 per Peter-Odili, JSC, Hon. Ishola Balogun Fulani & Anor v. Comrade Adams Oshiomole & 5 Ors suit No.: SC/214/2019 (unreported) and Senator Magnus Ngei Abe & Ors vs INEC & Ors Suit. No.: SC/197/2019 (Unreported). See also Akpamgbo Okadigbo & Ors v. Chidi & Ors (2015) LPELR 24 564 (SC), Ekagbara & Anor v. Ikpeazu (2016) LPELR 26052 (SC).
The decision of this Court inPDP v. Dayo (supra) relied by Learned counsel for the 1st and 2nd respondents cannot apply to this case because the facts and issues in that case are totally different from the facts of this case. In PDP v. Dayo (supra) the issue was which of two factional state executives in a political party was the valid state executive. The nomination or qualification or sponsorship of a candidate for a primary or general election was not in issue in that case.
The trial Court was therefore wrong to have held that the suit is not a pre-election matter. It is a pre-election matter. The suit being a pre-election matter, S.285(9) and (10) of the 1999 Constitution apply to it. The trial Court was wrong in holding that these provisions do not apply here.

Therefore the suit must be filed within 14 days from the date of the event, decision or action complained of occurred as required by S.285(9) of the 1999 Constitution which provides that Notwithstanding any to the contrary in the Constitution, every pre-election matter shall be filed not later than 14 days from the date of the occurrence of the event, decision or action complained of in the action. The judgment in the suit must be delivered in writing within 180 days from the date the suit was filed as required by S.285(10) of the 1999 Constitution which provides that A Court in every pre-election matter shall deliver its judgment in writing within 180 days from the date of filing of the suit.”
Let me now determine the date the event, decision or action complained of occurred, so as to determine the date from which the 14 days period for filing the suit can be reckoned. It is obvious from the clear words of S.31(5) of the Electoral Act 2010 that the act that should be complained of in a case brought under it, such as this case, is giving information of the candidates personal particulars in the affidavit of personal

particulars (Form C.F.001) and the documents that accompanied it to the 4th respondent.
The giving of the information occurred when the Form C.F 001 and the accompanying documents were submitted by the appellant and 3rd respondent to the 4th respondent. As it is clear from the 4th respondents stamp and date on the said Form C.F. 001 and the documents that accompanied it, acknowledging receipt of them, that the date they were submitted to the 4th respondent was 24-7-2018. So the event or action complained of occurred on 24-7-2018.
This Court in Ikpeazu v. Ekeagbara (2016) LPELR 40847 (CA) stated when a cause for an action under S.31(5) of the Electoral Act accrues in the following words- In determining when the cause of action arose or accrued for the purpose of initiating Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/1086/14, the affidavit filed in support of the Suit is germane. In Paragraphs 4(a) to (k), the 1st and 2nd respondents as plaintiffs deposed to the holding of the Primary Election of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) 3rd respondent. From the depositions in the aforesaid paragraphs of the affidavit in support of the suit filed by the

1st and 2nd respondents, when considered together with the documents contained in INEC FORM CF 001 which the appellant submitted to INEC, 4th respondent on 26/12/14, it is evident that the cause of action arose or accrual on 26/12/16, the date FORM CF 001 was submitted to INEC, 4th Respondent, not on 8/12/16 when the appellant submitted same to the PDP for purpose of holding primary election. This view is supported by the decision in the case of Ojukwu v. Yar’adua (2008) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1150) p. 50 at 131, where it is stated that the accrual of a cause of action is the event whereby a cause of action becomes complete so that the aggrieved party can begin and maintain his cause of action. See also Adimora v. Ajufo (1988) 3 NWLR (Pt. 30) P. 1 and Egbue v. Araka (1988) 3 NWLR (Pt. 840) P. 598.
The provisions of Section 31(1), (2) and (3) of the Electoral Act, 2010 throw more light or reveal when the cause of action ought to accrued or arisen. All the foregoing acts cannot take place before the submission of the documents on the 26/12/16 to INEC, therefore, the cause of action accrued on that date.
So the 14 days period within which the suit

ought to have been filed in the trial Court must be reckoned from the 24-7-2018. From this date, the 14 days period expired on 6-8-2018. The 1st and 2nd respondents herein as claimants filed the suit on 4-9-2018, 43 days after the appellant gave to the 4th respondent the information in Form C.F. 001 and the documents that accompanied it.
Paragraph 11 of the affidavit in support of the originating summons that commenced the suit states that the names of the appellant together with other candidates of the 3rd respondent for election to various offices were published in the Nigerian Tribune of 4-8-2018 along with the educational qualifications and credentials and other documents submitted by them to the 4th respondent.
If the 14 days period is reckoned from 4-8-2018, the date the 1st and 2nd respondents became aware of the documents the appellant submitted to the 4th respondent, the suit would still have been filed out of time because 14 days from 4-8-2018 expired on 17-8-2018. The suit was filed on 4-9-2018, 32 days from 4-8-2018.
So the suit filed on 4-9-2018 was filed out of time. It was statute barred. The trial Court lacked the jurisdiction to

entertain and determine it. See Gusau v. APC & Ors (2019) LPELR 46897 (SC), Abubakar v. Nasamu & Ors (2012) LPELR 7826 (SC). Its exercise of jurisdiction in hearing and deciding the suit, its entire proceedings and judgment in the suit are void. See Ugba & Ors v. Suswam & Ors (2012) LPELR 9726 (SC) in which the Supreme Court held that Ordinarily where the law prescribes a period within which a matter should be brought or heard or disposed of, legal proceedings cannot be properly or validly instituted or heard after the expiration of the prescribed period. An action instituted after the expiration of the prescribed period has no legal effect whatsoever; it has become extinguished by effluxion of time. Furthermore, where the limitation of time is imposed in a statute, decree or edict, unless the said statute, decree or edict makes provision for extension of time, expansion or elongation, the Courts cannot extend the time. Ordinarily where the law prescribes a period within which a matter should be brought or heard or disposed of, legal proceedings cannot be properly or validly instituted or heard after the expiration of

the prescribed period. An action instituted after the expiration of the prescribed period has no legal effect whatsoever; it has become extinguished by effluxion of time. Furthermore, where the limitation of time is imposed in a statute, decree or edict, unless the said statute, decree or edict makes provision for extension of time, expansion or elongation, the Courts cannot extend the time.

Another reason why the judgment of the trial Court is a nullity is that it was delivered on 2-4-2019, 209 days from 4-9-2018 when the suit was filed contrary to S.285(10) of the 1999 Constitution that requires that the Court delivers the judgment in a pre-election matter within 180 days from the date of filing of the suit. The judgment having been delivered out of time is void. It is settled by a long line of judicial decisions that a judgment in a pre-election or election matter must be delivered within the time prescribed by S.285 of the 1999 Constitution within which to deliver the judgment. See again Ugba & Ors v. Suswam & Ors (supra) in which the Supreme Court restated thusly- This Court had repeatedly emphasized in our recent decisions on

the interpretation of these Sections that they are meant to operate as limitation laws so that election matters which are sui generis and time is of essence are not affected by the endemic delay in the prosecution of cases. Ordinarily where the law prescribes a period within which a matter should be brought or heard or disposed of, legal proceedings cannot be properly or validly instituted or heard after the expiration of the prescribed period. …….. Where the limitation of time is imposed in a statute, decree or edict, unless the said statute, decree or edict makes provision for extension of time, expansion or elongation, the Courts cannot extend the time. In ANPP v. Gonis case this Court held at pg. 191 paragraphs F-G that- 180 days provided by Section 285(6) of the Constitution is not limited to trials but also to de novo trials that may be ordered by an Appeal Court. For the avoidance of any lingering doubt, once an election petition is not concluded within 180 days from the date the petition was filed by the petitioner as provided by Section 285(6) of the Constitution, an Election Tribunal no longer has jurisdiction to hear the petition

and this applies to re-hearings. 180 days shall at all time be calculated from the date the petition was filed. See also Cole & Ors v Umah & Ors (2018) LPELR 46651 (CA).
In Kusamotu v APC & Ors (2019) LPELR 46802 (SC), the Supreme Court held that Indeed, I hold the view that in the light of the provision of Section 285(12) of the 1999 Constitution, a judgment delivered in an appeal from a pre-election matter, outside the 60 days allowed by law, is null and void as such judgment is delivered without jurisdiction. On the whole, I hold that this appeal filed on 23rd May, 2018 is clearly spent same having not been determined within the 60 days allowed by law. This Court is therefore without the jurisdiction to determine same. This appeal is hereby struck out for being statute barred. See also ANPP V. Goni (2012) 7 NWLR (Pt 1298) 147.
In the light of the foregoing, issue No. 1 is resolved in favour of the appellant.

Let me now determine issue No. 3 which asks- Whether the trial Court is competent to assume jurisdiction over this matter that the cause of action arose outside its territorial jurisdiction.

Learned Counsel for the appellant argued that the cause of action is in respect of the Governorship election in Osun State, but the 1st and 2nd respondents filed this suit in the Federal Capital Territory High Court, Abuja, that the action ought to have been brought in the High Court of Osun State, that the High Court of Federal Capital Territory lacks the jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit, that the events that gave rise to the suit occurred in Osun State, that at the heart of the suit was the emergence of the appellant as the 3rd respondents candidate for the 22nd September, 2018 general election of the Governor of Osun State, following the primary election held by the 3rd respondent in Osun State on 21-7-2018, that the suit challenges the educational qualification of the appellant to contest the said election of Governor of Osun State, that the mere fact that the 4th respondent published the Form C.F.001 of the appellant on its website does not bring the matter within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court of Federal Capital Territory. For these submissions, Learned Counsel relied on a host of judicial

authorities including Mailantarki v. Tongo and Dalhatu v. Turaki (2003) 15 NWLR (Pt. 843) 310 (SC).

Learned Counsel for the 1st and 2nd respondents argued replicando that the subject of this suit is not about the primary election of any person or party, that it is simply a case of appellant presenting fake documents and upon which his declaration to the 4th respondent was premised, that the cause of action arose here in the Federal Capital Territory when the 3rd respondent submitted the names of elected candidates at the headquarters of 4th respondent in the Federal Capital Territory at No. 91 Zambezi Crescent, Abuja, that the 3rd respondent who accepted the Form C.F. 001 from the appellant for onward presentation to the 4th respondent has its office at Zone 5, Wuse, Abuja, FCT, that Order 3 Rule 4 of the High Court of Federal Capital Territory (Civil Procedure) Rules 2018 stipulate that suits may be commenced and determined in the Judicial Division in which the defendant resides or carries on business, that the 3rd and 4th respondents reside in Abuja, that the appellant himself as a serving Senator resides in the Federal Capital Territory, that the High

Court of Federal Capital Territory has jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
Let me now consider the merits of the above arguments.

It is not in dispute that the suit leading to this appeal is to seek a declaration that the information given by the appellant in his form C.F. 001 and accompanying documents as the 3rd respondents candidate for the general election of Governor of Osun State is false and to consequently an order disqualifying him from contesting the said election of Governor of Osun State. It is also not in doubt that all the events leading to the emergence of the appellant as the candidate of the 3rd respondent for the election of Governor of Osun State, including the display of his name as the said 3rd respondents candidate on the notice board of the 4th respondent after the submission of his name and his Form C.F. 001 and other documents to the 4th respondent as its candidate for the said candidate took place in Osun State. Paragraphs 10 and 11 of the affidavit in support of the originating summons are of particular relevance here. At the risk of being prolix, I reproduce them here again. Their exact text read thusly-

10. I am also aware of the fact that the 3rd Defendant recently displayed the list of all the candidates who under various registered Political Parties are contesting Osun State governorship election slated for 22nd day of September, 2018 on its Notice Board at its office on Gbongan Road, Osogbo, Osun State and that part of the information displayed by the 3rd Defendant apart from the names of the governorship candidates and their running mates are the details of the educational qualification/credentials among other documents submitted by the candidates.
11. On the 4th day of August, 2018, the National Dailies publicized the names of the governorship candidates and their running mates displayed by the 3rd Defendant and it also included the details of the educational qualification/credentials and documents submitted by the contestants. The Nigerian Tribune edition of 4th August, 2018 in particular.
So the subject of this suit is the candidature of the appellant to contest the election of Governor of Osun State and in particular the veracity of his personal information he gave to the 4th respondent herein in his form C.F. 001 and other

documents as a condition precedent to be listed by the 4th respondent as the 3rd respondents candidate to contest the general election of Governor of Osun State. The 4th respondent who was 3rd respondent at the trial, did list his name and displayed same with his Form C.F.001 and the other documents accompanying it at its notice board in its office at Osogbo in Osun State and also published same in the Nigerian Tribune Newspaper.
Since the suit concerns events in Osun State, particularly the veracity of the information displayed on its notice board in its office at Osogbo concerning the personal particulars of the appellant as 3rd respondents candidate for the general election of Governor of Osun State, only the High Court of Osun State has original jurisdiction to entertain, try and determine it, by virtue of S.270(1) and 272(1) of the 1999 Constitution.
The High Court of Federal Capital Territory does not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try it as it can only deal with matters occurring in the Federal Capital Territory by virtue of S.255(1) and 157(1) of the 1999 Constitution.
In dealing with a similar

situation in Dalhatu v Turaki (2003) 15 NWLR (Pt 843) 310 at 342, the Supreme Court held thusly-
It is undeniable that the events that led to that action had to do with the Governorship of Jigawa State. It is of course not debateable that Jigawa State is totally distinct and different from the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja. It seems to me that if any action was to be properly commenced, that action should have initiated in the Court in Jigawa State.
I have taken pains to discuss this judgment on territorial jurisdiction of a Court in view of recent development whereby litigants rather than suing in the proper Courts come to the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory Abuja. I think their Lordship of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory ought to be circumspect before deciding whether or not it is wise and correct to exercise jurisdiction in matters outside the territory of the Federal Capital Territory. Their Court, unlike the Federal High Court has jurisdiction only in matters arising out of the Federal Capital Territory Abuja. Order 10 Rule 4 is only to determine the proper judicial division of the Court where a

matter can be heard and determined.
In similar vein, the Supreme Court recently in Mailantarki v. Tongo (2017) LPELR 42467 (SC) held that it is settled law that a Court in one State does not have jurisdiction to hear and determine a matter, within the exclusive jurisdiction of another State There cannot be any doubt that the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court of the FCT is restricted and confined to causes and matters that arise within the Federal Capital Territory. In the instant case, the cause of action, which is the primary election of the 2nd Respondent, took place in Gombe State. The appeal committee also sat in Gombe State. There is no justification for the institution of the case before the High Court of the FCT in Abuja. The filing of the suit before that Court is a clear example of forum shopping in the hope of securing a favourable outcome. This practice does not augur well for the administration of justice. It is also unethical practice on the part of the legal practitioner who filed the suit.
The fact that the 3rd respondent submitted its list of candidates for the general

election to the 4th respondent at its headquarters in Abuja, the fact that the 3rd respondent has its National Office at Zone 5, Wuse, Abuja, FCT cannot give the High Court of Federal Capital Territory the territorial jurisdiction to entertain suit dealing with elections in Osun State.
I do not agree with the submission of Learned Counsel for the 1st and 2nd respondents that because the 3rd and 4th respondents have their National Offices in Abuja Federal Capital Territory, the Federal Capital Territory High Court has the jurisdiction to entertain the suit by virtue of Order 3 Rule 4 of the High Court of Federal Capital Territory (Civil Procedure) Rules 2018 which stipulate that suits may be commenced and determined in the judicial division in which the defendants resides or carries on business. Order 3 Rule 4 has not and cannot expand the jurisdiction vested on the Federal Capital Territory High Court by the Constitution. It only determines the venue to try matters that are within its jurisdiction. It is trite law that the Rules of Procedure of a Court do not confer its jurisdiction not vested on it by the Constitution or statute.

In Mailantarki v. Tongo (2018) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1614) 69 where the Supreme Court was confronted with a similar situation. In that case, the Plaintiff also argued that the FCT High Court had jurisdiction to entertain the matter because the National Working Committee of APC which is headquartered in Abuja, FCT had submitted the list of candidates and Forms CF001 which did not include his name to the headquarters of INEC in Abuja FCT. In rejecting this argument, the Supreme Court found that the fact that the name of the candidate the Plaintiff was complaining against was submitted and received in Abuja did not confer jurisdiction on the High Court of the FCT as the submission and receipt of names and FORMS CF001 at the INEC headquarters were merely incidental to the actual primary election conducted at Gombe State. Indeed, their Lordships frowned at the prospect that a High Court in the FCT would determine who would be governor in faraway Gombe State. Please see pages 84-85 paras. G-C where the Supreme Court related the Appellants case as follows:
For the appellant, it is submitted that the suit of the appellant, filed at the FCT High Court, touched on

the primaries held by the APC on the 8th December, 2014, that the suit was filed to enforce the decision/finding already taken by the National Assembly Election Appeal Committee of the APC and which decision had been duly forwarded to the headquarters of the APC for implementation. The implementation of the findings of the Appeal Committee entails forwarding of the names of the winner of the primary election conducted on 8th December, 2014 to INEC at its headquarters in the FCT. Exhibit I, the senior counsel for the appellant submits, is the report of the appeal committee which must be submitted and which was, in fact, submitted to APC at its headquarter in FCT, Abuja, for implementation. Senior Counsel further submits that the suit was filed to enforce the decision of the appeal committee which was to be implemented in the FCT, Abuja, hence the decision to file the suit at the FCT High Court. The learned Senior counsel submits further that though the facts leading to the report of the appeal committee relate to the primary election held in Gombe State, the cause of action or the act over which the appellant is aggrieved, took place in Abuja. And that by

virtue of Order 9 Rule 4(1) and Order 22 Rule 5 of the High Court of the Federal Territory, Abuja (Civil Procedure) Rules 2004 read with Section 257(1) of the 1999 Constitution, as amended. Section 9 of the High Court of the Federal Territory Act and Section 87(9) Electoral Act, 2010 as amended, the High Court of the FCT has jurisdiction to entertain the appellants suit.
The lower Court has, rightly in my view, held, relying on Dalhatu v. Turaki (supra), that the jurisdiction of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, which is regarded as a State High Court by virtue of section 299(a) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) does not extend to matters that arise outside the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja. I also agree with their lordships of the lower Court that each State of the Federation is independent of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja and vice versa and that the judicial powers of each State are vested in the Courts established for that State. Gombe State and the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja are distinct and independent of each other. It follows, therefore, that this matter which arose in Gombe State and has to do with

the parties in Gombe State should have been commenced in the High Court of Gombe State, and not in the FCT High Court. The FCT High Court has, in the circumstance, acted ultra vires in assuming jurisdiction over a cause of action that arose in Gombe State and outside its jurisdiction territory. The proceedings in the suit No. FCT/CV/934/2015 before the FCT High Court, being incompetent, deserved to be and were correctly struck out by the lower Court. There is no substance in his appeal on this issue The decision to file this suit in the FCT High Court far away from Gombe State where the cause of arose cannot be anything but a sheer decision to abuse the judicial process. Forum shopping denotes a rather reprehensible practice of choosing the most favourable territory jurisdiction or Court in which a matter or cause may be entertained and adjudicated upon. A typical example of forum shopping, according to Blacks Law Dictionary, is where the plaintiff institutes a suit in the jurisdiction with a reputation for awarding high damages, disdain for political gimmicks or filing several similar

suits and keeping the one with the preferred Judge. See also Idemudia v. Igbinedion University, Okada & Ors. (2015) LPELR-24514 (CA). The instant appellant, as the plaintiff, had artfully avoided the High Court of Gombe State, in preference to the FCT High Court, because the former, as it appears may be a forum inconvenience. I say no more. The dictum of Ogundare, JSC, which I had earlier reproduced, should be sufficient to put their Lordships of the FCT High Court on the watch out or guard so that their Courts will not be turned into axis of forum shopping.
Let me quickly deal with the argument of the learned senior counsel to the effect that, by dint of Order Rule 4(1) and Order 22 Rule 5 of the FCT High Court (Civil Procedure) rules, the FCT High Court can exercise jurisdiction over the cause of action that arose in Gombe State. The law is settled that the jurisdiction of a Court of record, in its board and substantive sense, cannot be conferred by the rules of Court. The rules of Court are only made, pursuant to the powers conferred on the heads of Courts by the Constitution to make rules, to regulate practice and procedure in their respective

Courts. The rules they make are only to regulate the practice and procedure in their respective Courts. The rules of do not confer jurisdiction on the Court to entertain causes or matters. Rather, the jurisdiction of Courts in Nigeria is either conferred or vested by the Constitution or the enabling statute establishing the Court. This is my understanding of the dictum of Obaseki, JSC in Clement v. Iwuanyanwu (1989) 4 SC (pt. II) 89; (1989) 3 NWLR (Pt. 107) 39 on the question whether rules of court confer substantive jurisdiction on the Court they relate to. My answer, therefore, to the submission of the appellants senior counsel on this, is that the FCT High Court does not derive any jurisdiction from its rules of practice and procedure to entertain any cause or matter, the dispute in respect of which arose in Gombe State or any other place outside the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja.

In the light of the foregoing, issue No. 3 is resolved in favour of the Appellant.

Let me now consider issue No. 4 which asks- Whether the trial Court can sit on appeal over the decision of Osun State High Court.

I will start the determination of this issue by a restatement of the undisputed and established facts of this case that relate to this issue to facilitate the understanding of the treatment of this issue.

The 3rd respondent herein, on 21-7-2018 conducted its primary election to nominate or elect its candidate for the general election of Governor of Osun State. The appellant who contested in the primary election along with other aspirants scored the highest votes cast in the primary election was declared winner of the primary election and the 3rd respondents candidate in the general election of Governor of Osun State.

On 23-7-2018, Olatunji Rasheed Olabayo and Oluwa Segun Idowu, members of the 3rd respondent herein and who were not aspirants in the said primary election filed an originating summons commencing Suit No. HOS/M.103/2018 in the High Court of Osun State against the appellant herein, 3rd respondent herein, the National Chairman of 3rd respondent, Osun State Chairman of 3rd respondent and 4th respondents herein as defendants/respondents. The originating summons raised the following questions for determination-
(a) Whether the 1st Defendant

having not met the constitutional requirements of S.177(d) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) by possessing and providing his School Leaving Certificate was eligible to participate in and present himself for election as the 2nd Defendant Osun State 2018 Governorship Election Candidate at its governorship election party primaries held on the 21st July, 2018.
(b) Whether the 2nd – 4th Defendant can validly present and submit the name of the 1st Defendant to the 5th Defendant as its Osun State 2018 Governorship Election Candidate, the 1st Defendant having not met the constitutional requirements of S.177(d) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) by possessing and providing his School Leaving Certificate.
(c) Whether the 5th Defendant can validly accept the 1st Defendant name from the 2nd – 4th Defendant as its Osun State 2018 Governorship Election Candidate the 1st Defendant having not met the constitutional requirements of S.177(d) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) by possessing and providing his School Leaving Certificate.

The reliefs sought for in the summons are as follows-
1. A Declaration that the 1st Defendant having not met the constitutional requirement of S.177(d) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) by possessing and providing his School Leaving Certificate was ineligible to participate in and present himself for election as the 2nd Defendant Osun State 2018 Governorship Election Candidate at its governorship election party primaries held on the 21st July, 2018.
2. A Declaration that the 2nd – 4th Defendant cannot validly present and submit the name of the 1st Defendant to the 5th Defendant as its Osun State 2018 Governorship Election Candidate the 1st Defendant having not met the constitutional requirement of S.177(d) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) by possessing and providing his School Leaving Certificate.
3. A Declaration that the 5th Defendant cannot validly accept the 1st Defendant name from the 2nd 4th Defendant as its Osun State 2018 Governorship Election Candidate the 1st Defendant having not met the constitutional requirement of S.177(d) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended)

by possessing and providing his School Leaving Certificate
4. An Order of this Honourable Court setting aside the election at 2nd Defendant governorship election party primaries held on the 2st July, 2018 of the 1st Defendant as Peoples Democratic Party candidate in the Osun State 2018 Governorship Election the 1st Defendant not having satisfied the requirements of S.177(d) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) by possessing and providing his School Leaving Certificate.
5. An Order of Perpetual Injunction restraining the 1st Defendant from presenting himself to the 2nd 4th Defendants as the candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party in the Osun State 2018 Governorship Elections not having met the constitutional requirements of S.177(d) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) by possessing and providing his School Leaving Certificate
6. An Order of Perpetual Injunction restraining the 2nd – 4th Defendant from submitting and presenting the name of the 1st Defendant to the 5th Defendant as the

Peoples Democratic Party candidate in the 2018 Osun State Governorship Election the 1st Defendant not having satisfied the requirements of S.177(d) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) by possessing and providing his School Leaving Certificate
7. An Order of Perpetual Injunction restraining the 5th Defendant from accepting the name of the 1st Defendant from the 2nd – 4th Defendant as the Peoples Democratic Party candidate in the 2018 Osun State Governorship Election the 1st Defendant not having satisfied the requirements of S.177(d) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) by possessing and providing his School Leaving Certificate.

After considering the evidence adduced by all the parties in their respective affidavits and their final written addresses, the High Court of Osun State at Osogbo on 8-8-2018 decided the merit of the case thusly-
A total perusal of the Plaintiffs evidence and submissions will show that what the Plaintiffs is complaining against the Defendants is the qualification of the 1st Defendant to stand as a candidate for the 2nd Defendant

on primary election which took place on 21st July, 2018.
It is to be noted that relevant provision of the Law which provides for educational qualification required of any candidate seeking to occupy the office of the Governor of a state is contained in Section 177(d).
Now Section 177(a-d) of the 1999 Constitution provides as follows:-
177 A person shall be qualified for election to the office of the Governor of a State if:-
(a) He is citizen of Nigeria by birth;
(b) He has attained the age of thirty five years;
(c) He is a member of a Political Party; and is sponsored by that political party; and
(d) He has been educated up to at least School Certificate level or its equivalent.
It is the Sub-section (d) above as relating to the 1st Defendant in his contesting in the last primaries of the 2nd Defendant that the Plaintiffs are now questioning
By:
(i) Paragraph 10 of the affidavit of urgency attached to the Plaintiffs originating summons;
(ii) Paragraph 10 of the affidavit supporting the motion ex-parte of the plaintiffs;
(iii) Paragraph 10 of the affidavit supporting the motion on notice and

lastly
(iv) Paragraph 10 of the affidavit supporting the originating summons; the Plaintiffs/Applicants have deposed as follows:-
That I know as a matter of fact that the 1st Defendant/Respondent attended Ede Muslim Grammar School, Ede but did not leave with a school certificate..
By the above quoted paragraph of the various affidavits of the Plaintiff, the plaintiffs have admitted that the 1st Defendant is educated up to secondary school level.
I think the problem the plaintiff have is the issue of certificate or passing of examination. The 1st Defendant at the secondary school level. In an attempt to attack the 1st Defendant, the Plaintiffs attached a list of candidates who sat for WAEC examination which showed the number of one candidate as No. 149. It is to be noted that Exhibit OR3 in which the Plaintiffs are attacking the 1st Defendant is completely illegible, the names of the candidate in No. 143 of Exhibit OR3 cannot be read even with high powered eye lenses. The document is headed West African Examination Council Centre No. 1905. Detailed Result A critical look at the document shows that it is a

document from public institution West African Examination Council and therefore a public document. The copy attached and marked Exhibit OR3 is not marked as Certified True Copy as required under Section 104 of the Evidence Act 2011. Un-Certified True Copies of copies of public document is not admissible in law, it is settled law that only Certified True Copies are admissible and no other. See ARAKA VS. EGBUE (2003) LPELR 532 (SC); See also OBA AROMOLARAN VS DR. AGORO (2014) LPELR 24037 (SC). For its illegibility, no reliance or value can be place on Exhibit OR3 and for being inadmissible; it is hereby struck out. ARAKA VS. EGBUE (2003) LPELR 532 (SC).
The Plaintiffs have not shown me that it was Exhibit OR3 that the Plaintiff used in contesting the 2nd Defendants primaries.
The plaintiff counsel also attacked Exhibit PDP1 and PDP2 attached to the affidavit of the 4th Defendant/Respondent which were the same as Exhibit SENATOR 1 and SENATOR 2 attached to the affidavit supporting the Notice of Preliminary Objection and the Counter Affidavit of the 1st to 3rd Defendants against the originating summons. I note that those documents were obtained from

public school after the filling of the Plaintiffs action.
Olufemi Ayandokun Esq., learned Counsel for the Plaintiffs has strenuously canversed in his argument that the documents Exhibit PDP1 and PDP2, SENATOR1 and SENATOR 2 and the TESTIMONIAL were forged. However, it must be noted that the plaintiffs did not raise any question on forgery in the originating summons. Counsel started raising them in his address. It is settled law that a brilliant address of counsel cannot substitute hard evidence. See SENATOR JULIUS ALIUCHA & ANOR. VS CHIEF NWANSCHO ELECHI & ORS. (2012) LPELR 7823 (SC); See also OLAGUNJU V. ADESOYE & ANOR. (2009) LPELR 2555 (SC). It is true that some of those documents PDP 1, PDP 2 and the PDP 3 contain serious and damaging irregularities but it is my view that the purported makers of those documents must be called to disown them before it can be said that those documents were forged; See Section 467(2) (c) of Criminal Code. Ingredients which a party alleging forgery of document must plead and provide the particulars he relies upon. It is settled law that a party in a proceeding who alleges forgery of a document must

not only plead the document but also provide the particulars he relies upon. See AMINU VS. OGUNYEBI & ANOR. (2005) LPELR 7195 (CA); See also EYA VS. OLOPADE & ANOR (2011) LPELR 1184 (SC).
In any case, it is settled law that allegation of claim in a civil case has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. See OMOBORIOWO VS AJASIN (1984) 1 SCNLR 108; NWOBODO V. ONOH (1984) 1 SCNLR 1; BUHARI V. OBASANJO (2005) ALL FWLR (Pt. 273). I hold that the Plaintiffs have not pleaded nor prove forgery or its particulars not to talk of proving the allegation of forgery beyond reasonable doubt required by law.
The next question to be answered is what type of certificate is required of the 1st Defendant to use for the election as a gubernatorial candidate? S.177(d) does not provide that a certificate must be used. All what is required of a candidate for gubernatorial election is education up to secondary level or its equivalent. This position has been settled by the Supreme Court in KAKIH VS. PDP & ORS. (2014) LPELR 23277 (SC)
In the above cited case S.318(1) of the 1999 Constitution which defines the requirement of Section 177(d) was reviewed

and they described education up to school certificate or its equivalent approving the case of BAYO VS. NJIDDA (2004) 8 NWLR 544 at 630 as follows: it is enough in my view that one attained school certificate level; i.e. without passing and obtaining certificate. By the combine reading of Section 177(d) and 318(b) of the Constitution is not the only requirement or basis of qualification but whether the candidate has been educated up to secondary school certificate level.
I note that the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Defendants admitted that they screened the 1st Defendant and found him to be qualified before he was allowed to contest in the primaries of the 2nd Defendant.
Again, I have said earlier by the paragraph 10 of the various affidavit of the Plaintiffs/Applicants, they admitted that the 1st Defendant attended Ede Muslim Grammar School, Ede, a secondary school certificate level school. I hold that the 1st Defendant need not have any certificate at all or pass any paper at the school certificate level before been qualified to contest the gubernatorial primaries of the 2nd Defendant. See KAKIH VS. PDP & ORS. (2014) LPELR 2327 (SC)
In conclusion, the Plaintiffs case is lacking in merit and it is accordingly dismissed.

On 4-9-2018, the 1st and 2nd respondents herein, as claimants commenced Suit No. FCT/HC/BW/CV/122/2018 in the High Court of Federal Capital Territory against the appellant, 3rd and 4th respondents. The questions raised for determination in their Originating Summons and the reliefs sought for therein are reproduced in pages 9 to 12 of this judgment. This said suit has led to this appeal.

Learned Counsel for the appellant argued that the 1st and 2nd Respondents brought the suit before the trial Court to attempt to set aside the decision of the Osun State High Court in HOS/M/103/2018, and held that the Appellant is qualified under the law to contest the gubernatorial primaries of the 3rd Respondent, that the action before the trial Court seeks to reopen the subject matter upon which Osun State High Court had earlier made decision, that the trial Court had no jurisdiction whatsoever to entertain such a claim, that the lower Court was gravely in error in assuming jurisdiction, that the he trial Court and the Osun State High Court are Courts of

co-ordinate jurisdiction, that the trial Court cannot sit on appeal over its jurisdiction and orders, review or set same aside, that the trial Court has no jurisdiction or competence to grant the reliefs sought or to nullify the subsisting orders of a Court of co-ordinate jurisdiction, that the orders made by the Osun State High Court sitting in Osogbo were valid and are subsisting until set aside by an appellate Court, that the trial court has no power or jurisdiction to review or set aside an order made by another Court of co-ordinate or concurrent jurisdiction, that once a judgment had been rendered by a Court on the merits of the case, the Court becomes functus officio as far as that judgment is concerned and the course open to a party aggrieved by the judgment, is to appeal to this Court against such judgement.

Learned Counsel for the 1st and 2nd respondents argued in reply that the issues in suit No. HOS/M.103/2018 at Osun State High Court and the issue in Suit No. FCT/HC/BW/CV/122/2018 and FCT/HC/BW/M/141/2019 in the High Court of Federal Capital Territory are different, that the issue in HOS/M.103/2018 is non presentation of educational

qualifications and whether the appellant herein sat for the WAEC examination in 1981, while the issue in FCT/HC/BW/CV/122/2018 and FCT/HC/BW/M/141/2019 is whether he forged, altered and falsified the testimonial and statement of result he submitted to the 4th respondent, that the plaintiffs in HOS/M.103/2018 are not privies to and are different from the claimants in FCT/HC/BW/CV/122/2018 and FCT/HC/BW/M/141/2019, that the decision in HOS/M.103/2018 cannot be a basis for the application of the principle of estoppels per rem judicatam to bar the subsequent suit in the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory against the appellant, that there is no basis for the plea of estoppels raised against the suit leading to this appeal by the appellant, that legally recognised conditions for the success of a such a plea do not exist here.
Let me now consider the merit of the above arguments.

The issue in HOS/M.103/2018 is that the appellant did not possess and provide his school leaving certificate and therefore did not meet the requirement of S.177(d) of the 1999 Constitution and was not qualified to be candidate for the election of Governor of Osun State.

What the trial Court decided in HOS/M.103/2018 is that since the appellant attended Ede Muslim Grammar School Ede, a secondary school certificate level school, he is qualified to contest the governorship elections and does not need to have any certificate at all or pass any papers at the school certificate level before he can be considered to be so qualified.
The issue in Suit No. FCT/HC/BW/CV/122/2018 and Motion No. FCT/HC/BW/M/141/2019 is not purely one of the appellant presenting or giving to the 4th respondent Secondary School Certificate and testimonials containing information believed to be false, it also raised and dealt with a second issue that the appellant was not qualified to be candidate for the election of governor because he did not meet the requirement of S.177(d) of the 1999 Constitution.
The first issue of giving or presenting to the 4th respondent certificates and testimonials containing false information is raised by question (a) for determination in the originating summons and relief 2 of the reliefs claimed for in the originating summons. The second issue of the qualification of the appellant to be candidate for the election of

Governor, is raised in questions (b), (c) and (d) of the questions raised for determination in the Originating Summons.
Since the issue of the appellant giving or presenting to the 4th respondent certificates containing false information was not raised and decided by the High Court of Osun State in Suit No. HOS/M.103/2018. Estoppel per rem judicatam cannot be invoked on the basis of that decision to bar the later suit and motion in the High Court of Federal Capital Territory in which that issue was raised and dealt with. So the plea of estoppel per rem judicatam failed in respect of question (a) for determination and relief 1 in the Originating Summons in Suit No. FCT/HC/BW/CV/122/2018. The decision of the Osun State High Court in the earlier suit No. HOS/M.103/2018 in keeping with the decision of the Supreme Court in KAKIH VS. P.D.P. & ORS (2014) 15 NWLR (PT.1430) 374, that the appellant having attended the Muslim Grammar School, Ede, a secondary School Certificate level school has satisfied the requirement of S.177(d) of the 1999 Constitution and is therefore qualified to be candidate for the election of Governor of Osun State and need not

have any certificate at all or pass any paper at school certificate level to be so qualified is a judgment in rem. It determines the legal status of his educational qualification as candidate for election of Governor of a State.
Being a judgment in rem, it binds the world at large and not only the parties to the suit on the issue of whether the level of education of the appellant meets the requirement of S.177(d) of the 1999 Constitution. As the Supreme Court held in Ogboru & Anor v. Uduaghan & Ors (2011) LPELR-8236 (SC) A judgement in rem may be defined as the judgement of a Court of competent jurisdiction determining the status of a person or thing as distinct from the particular interest of a party to the litigation. Apart from the application of the term to persons, it must affect the res in the way of condemnation, forfeiture, declaration, status or title. (a) Examples are judgment of a Court over a will creating the status of administration. (b) Judgment in a divorce by a Court of competent jurisdiction dissolving a marriage declaring the nullity or affirming its existence. (c) Judgment in an election petition.

Tribunal having the jurisdiction and the competence to pronounce on that Status. Such a judgment is usually and invariably founded on proceedings instituted against or on something or subject-matter whose status or condition is to be determined. It is thus a solemn declaration on the status of some persons or thing. It is therefore binding on all persons in so far as their interests in the status of the property or person are concerned. That is why a judgment in rem is a judgment contra mundum binding on the whole world parties as well as non-parties. A judgment in personam, on the other hand, is on an entirely different footing. It is a judgment against a particular person as distinguished from a judgment declaring the status of a particular person or thing. A judgment in personam will be more accurately called a judgment inter partes. A judgement in personam usually creates a personal obligation as it determines the rights of parties inter se to, or in the subject-matter in dispute whether it be land or other corporeal property or liquidated or unliquidated demand, but does not affect the status of either the persons to the dispute or the

thing in dispute.
The judgment on this issue operates as estoppel per rem judicatam to bar any further suit by anybody on this same issue of the educational qualification of appellant to be candidate in the election of Governor. So the judgment binds the 1st and 2nd respondents who are claimants in the suit leading to this appeal even though they were not parties in the suit at Osun State High Court. It equally binds the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory and robs it of the jurisdiction to try the issue of the qualification of the appellant to be candidate in the election of Governor by virtue of the operation of the principle of estoppel per rem judicatam.
So in view of the judgment of Osun State High Court in Suit No. HOS/M.103/2018 that the level of education of the appellant meets the requirement of S.177(d) of the 1999 Constitution, that he is qualified to be candidate in the election of Governor of Osun State and that he need not have any certificate at all or pass any paper at the school certificate level to be so qualified, a suit cannot be brought in another High Court to litigate again on the same issue. So Questions (b),

(c) and (d) for determination in the originating summons and reliefs 1, 3 and 4 claimed for in the Originating Summons, are incompetent and cannot be tried by the High Court of Federal Capital Territory, being a Court of co-ordinate jurisdiction with the High Court of Osun State. It has no jurisdiction to reopen or revisit the litigation and determination of an issue already determined by Osun State High Court.
As a Court whose jurisdiction is co-ordinate with that of Osun State High Court, the High Court of Federal Capital Territory has no jurisdiction to review or set aside the said judgment of Osun State High Court on the educational qualification of the appellant to be candidate in the election of a Governor of Osun State. SeeNDIC v. SBN Plc (2003) 1 NWLR (Pt. 501) 311, Offodile v. Egwuatu (2006) 1 NWLR (Pt. 961) 421, Emordi & Ors v. Kwentoh & Ors (1996) LPLER 1135 (SC) and Akporue & Anor v. Okei & Ors (1973) 12 SC 137.
The trial Court lacked the jurisdiction to determine Questions (b), (c) and (d) and reliefs 1, 3 and 4 in the Originating Summons in Suit No. FCT/HC/BW/CV/122/2018 and motion No. FCT/HC/BW/M/141/2019.

Its exercise of jurisdiction to determine the said questions and reliefs is a nullity. Its grant of relief 1 is a nullity and it is hereby set aside.

In the light of the foregoing, issue No. 4 is resolved in part, in favour of the appellant.

Let me now determine issue No. 2 which asks- Whether the trial Court gave a full and dispassionate consideration of all the issues presented before it by the Appellant.

Learned Counsel for the appellant argued that the trial Court failed to fully and dispassionately consider all the issues raised by the appellant and that this failure breached the appellants fundamental right to fair hearing, that the trial Court that had on 11-9-2018 at the instance of the 1st and 2nd respondents herein Ordered West African Examination Council (WAEC) to depose to and file an affidavit confirming or denying that the appellant was a candidate of the 1981 May/June 1981 Senior School Certificate Examinations it conducted at Ede Muslim High School, to produce and file in Court the LEDGER containing the results of all the candidates who sat for the above named examinations at Ede Muslim High School and to serve

all parties with copies of the above mentioned affidavit and Ledger, failed to consider and evaluate the said affidavit and ledger after West African Examination Council (WAEC) had produced them in compliance with its said orders, that if the trial Court had considered them, its judgment would have been different and would have rather held that the appellant complied with the requirements of S.177(d) of the 1999 Constitution, that the trial Court had a duty to consider and evaluate all evidence before it, that the failure of the trial Court to consider the West African Examination Council (WAEC) affidavit and ledger occasioned substantial miscarriage of justice to the appellant.

Learned Counsel for the appellant also argued that the trial Court completely ignored the evidence of the Principal of Ede Muslim High School subpoenaed at the instance of the 1st and 2nd respondents to produce Exhibits AA1, AA2, AA3, AA4 and AA5 and testify concerning them, that he admitted that he issued and signed exhibit AA3, that Ede Muslim High School Ede is the new name of the school, the old name being Ede Grammar School, Ede, the Principal testified that there are errors

on the face of Exhibit AA2 and that the document is not fake or forged contrary to the holding of the trial Court, that the case of the 1st and 2nd respondents was not based on Exhibit AA4, yet the trial Court based its decision on it, Learned Counsel for the 1st and 2nd respondent in his address at the trial Court admitted that we are not contesting whether he sat for WAEC.

Another argument of Learned Counsel for the appellant is that Exhibits PL5, AA1 to AA5 being official document, they must be regular and valid, that it was wrong for the trial court to grant reliefs to the 1st and 2nd respondent who failed to rebut the said presumption, that the trial Court refused to consider the evidence of the appellant and engaged in speculation.

Learned Counsel for the 1st and 2nd respondents have argued in reply that the arguments of Learned Counsel for the appellant concerning Exhibits AA4 and AA5 is just begging the issue because the issue or subject of this case is simply about falsification, alteration and doctored Exhibits AA2 & AA3 submitted by the Appellant to the 4th Respondent, that it is not the duty of the Court to accept

evidence of West African School Certificate (WASC) on behalf of the 4th Respondent, that it is common knowledge that certificate is never issue to anybody who does not pass, at least a subject, by West African Examination Council (WAEC), that the signature of the Principal (the subpoenaed witness) on Exhibit AA2 Testimonial was denied by the Principal who was not a staff of the school as at 1988, 30 years ago, that Osun State has not been created as at 1988, that Exhibit AA3, Statement of Result had a letterhead design , fabricated and the signatures also miraculously transcribed on the document submitted by Appellant to the 4th Respondent, that what oral evidence are we talking about here when the whole thing was res ipsa loquitor, that in the case Ottih v. Nwanekwe (1990) 3 NWLR (pt 140) 550 @ 562, paras F-G, it was held that he Court is not under any legal duty or obligation to consider a document which is at best worthless or at worst tainted with criminality, that oral evidence is inadmissible either to add to or to subtract from the content of a document, that there is no credible proof whatsoever that the Appellant gave to the 4th

Respondent that he sat for West African Examination Council (WAEC), so there is nothing to disproof in the first place, that the subject of this suit is simply the legality of the documents submitted to the 4th Respondent by the Appellant in his Form CF001 and nothing more.
Let me now determine the merit of the above arguments.

The case of the 1st and 2nd respondents herein, as the claimants in the trial Court concerning the information in the educational certificates presented by the appellant to the 4th respondent, which information, the 1st and 2nd respondents believe is false is stated in paragraphs 13 to 19 of the affidavit in support of the originating summons thusly-
13. I know as a matter of fact that the 1st Defendant now goes around town flaunting the documents submitted to the 3rd Defendant as proof of his academic qualification which is headed Statement of Result for May/ June 1981 dated 24/7/2018 purportedly issued to the 1st Defendant by the Ede Muslim High School of P. O. Box 6, Yidi Road, Ede, Osun State. The Statement of Result is attached as Exhibit PL6.
14. Furthermore, I am aware that

he 1st Defendant also claimed to have obtained a document titled The School Testimonial which is dated 20th July, 1988 issued by another school named the Ede Muslim Grammar School of P. O. Box 6, Yidi Road, Ede, Osun State. These aforesaid documents presented by the 1st Defendant, were altered and the information contained in the documents attached to the FORM C.F.001 are false and unfounded. The School Testimonial is attached as Exhibit PL 7.
15. I reasonably believe that the election of the 1st Defendant as the candidate of 2nd Defendant was not lawful on account of ineligibility, falsification of results and false information submitted to the 3rd Defendant.
16. The particulars of the falsities contained in Exhibits 5, 6 and 7 are as follows:
i. By Exhibit 6 the 1st Defendant is recorded to have sat for a Senior Secondary School Examination (SSCE) in 1981 with Candidate No. 19645/149 and scored F9 in English Language while the results for the eight (8) other subjects he purportedly sat for were recorded to be pending.
ii. By Exhibit 6 which the 1st Defendant presented to the 3rd Defendant, the 1st Defendant is

reported to have sat for SSCE organized by the West African Examination Council (WAEC) and the one organized by the National Examination Council (NECO) in 1981!
iii. Exhibit 6 was purportedly issued in 1988 (being the date it bears).
iv. I know that it is not possible for the 1st Defendant to be absent from writing eight (8) examination papers and at the same time have results for the same examinations to be pending.
v. It is a notorious fact judicially noticeable that the National Examination Council (NECO) had not come into existence in 1988 when the stated result was issued, let alone in 1981 when the 1st Defendant claimed to have sat for the non-existing NECO Examination!
vi. I know as a fact an which is also in the public domain that the National Examination Council (NECO) was established through a Military Decree sometime in April 1999 under the Military Government of General Abdulsalami Abubakar, the then Nigerian Head of State.
vii. The issuing authority of Exhibit 7 (i.e. Ede Muslim High School Testimonial) was recorded on the exhibit to be located in Osun State in 1988 when it was purportedly issued.
viii. I know that

Osun State had not been created in 1988, but was created by the Military Government of General Ibrahim Badamosi Babangida much later on the 27th day of August, 1991.
ix. I know that the documents presented by the 1st Defendant are full of false information and the 1st defendant is liable to be disqualified by this Honourable Court.
x. It is scandalous that the same person called the School Principal who purportedly signed Exhibit 6 on the 24th July, 2018 was one and the same School Principal who purportedly earlier signed Exhibit 7 on the 20th day of July, 1988 being interval of 30 years between the dates contained on the two contradictory documents!
xi. It is a notorious fact under the Public Service Rules in Nigeria that it is not possible for one and the same person who was the purported principal of the acclaimed school in 1988 to still remain as the principal in 2018, a period of 30 years interval since it is impossible to start a teaching career as a Principal.
xii. It is also a notorious fact which is judicially noticeable by the Honourable Court that there was nothing like Senior Secondary School Certificate Examination (SSCE) in

1981 but West African School Certificate (WASC) in Nigeria at the material time.
17. I reasonably believe that the 1st Defendant has not only presented false and forged information to the 3rd Defendant under Oath so as to deceive the general public about his academic qualifications, he has by this act contravenes the extant law governing the Election and Oath taking in Nigeria.
18. I am also aware of the fact that the 1st Defendant is a drop out who never completed his secondary school at Ede Muslim High School.
19. I Know that the West African Examination Council does not issue Certificate to any student who failed all his subjects or has a result pending and in actual fact the 1st Defendant has not shown any certificate purportedly issued by West African Examination Council.

The appellant responded to the above depositions in paragraphs 6, 8 to 13, 34 to 37 38 of his counter-affidavit thusly-
6. That I know as a fact that paragraphs 13, 14, 15, 16(iii), 16(iv), 16(vii), 16(ix), 16(x), 16(xii), 17, 18, 19 and 20 of the said affidavit in support of the Originating Summons are untrue and calculated to mislead this

Honourable Court.
8. That I was born on the 13th day of May, 1960 in Enugu.
9. That I was admitted into the Ede Muslim Grammar School, Ede in 1976 with admission No;76/273.
10. That I sat for May/June 1981 WAEC examination with Candidate No: 19645/149. The said Statement of Result dated 24/07/2018 and Letter of Confirmation dated the 24th day of July, 2018 issued by the Ede Muslim Grammar School, Ede singed by the Principal of the said Ede Muslim Grammar School are hereby marked and attached as Exhibit SENATOR 1 & SENATOR 2 respectively.
11. That I was elected a distinguished Senator of the Federal Republic of Nigeria under the platform of the Peoples Democratic Party sometime in 2017 for the Osun West Senatorial district.
12. That I possess proof of education up to Secondary School Certificate level by sitting for the May/June, 1981 WAEC Examination with Candidate No:19645/149 at the Ede Muslim Grammar School, Ede (now Ede Muslim high School, Ede).
13. That I was the President of the old students Association of Ede Muslim Grammar School, Ede (now Ede Muslim High School, Ede).
34. I know as a

fact that Ede Muslim Grammar School of P.O.Box 6, Yidi Road, Ede is the same with Ede Muslim High School, Ede and has been in existence, was/is still in existence during May/June of 1981, 20th day of July, 1988 and till date.
35. That I know as a fact that I am no the one that issued Exhibit PL7 attached at paragraph 12 of the affidavit in support of the Originating Summons, and the Plaintiffs has not shown any disclaimer from the authority that issued the said Exhibit PL7.
36. That I know as a fact that the Plaintiffs have not shown that I did not attend Muslim High School Ede or that I did not sit for the final School’s Examination of 1981.
37. That I know as a fact that I have satisfied the requirement of Section 177(d) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria to be the flag bearer of the 2nd Defendant in the slated 22nd September, 2018 Osun State Governorship Election.
38. That I know as a fact that I have neither presented any false information nor forged any document about my academic qualification.

Upon the application of the 1st and 2nd respondents by a motion exparte, the trial Court on 11-9-2018

ordered as follows-
iv. That an order is hereby made directing and compelling the West African Examination Council (WAEC) of 21, Hussey Street, Yaba, Lagos, Nigeria through its Director General or any other designated officer of the Council to depose to an affidavit confirming or denying that the 1st Defendant in this suit, named Adeleke Ademola Candidate No. 19645/149 sat for the Senior Secondary School Certificate Examination in May/June, 1981 conducted by the Council at Ede Muslim High School situate at P.O.Box 6 Yidi Road, Ede, State of Osun, and to file same before this Honourable Court within Five (5) working days of being served with the Order.
v. That an order is hereby directing and compelling the West African Examination Council (WAEC) of 21, Hussey Street, Yaba, Lagos, Nigeria through its Director General or any other designated officer of the Council to produce the LEDGER containing the results of all the candidates who sat for the Senior Secondary School Certificate Examination in May/June, 1981 conducted by the Council at Ede Muslim High School situate at P.O.Box 6 Yidi Road, Ede, State of Osun, and to file same before this

Honourable Court within Five (5) working days of being served with the Order.
vi. That an order is hereby directing and compelling the West African Examination Council (WAEC) of 21, Hussey Street, Yaba, Lagos, Nigeria through its Director General or any other designated officer of the Council to serve on all the parties to this suit with the said copies of the filed affidavit and the LEDGER under reference in prayers VI & VII (sic) above within Five (5) working days of filing. (Underline ours)

In compliance with the above orders, one Osedeinde, Henry Sunday Adewunmi, Deputy Registrar/Head of School Examination Department with the West African Examination Council Deposed to the following affidavit thusly-
AFFIDAVIT OF COMPLIANCE OF ENROLLED ORDER DATED 11TH SEPTEMBER, 2018
I, Osindeinde, Henry Sunday Adewunmi, Male, Nigerian, Christian, of 21 HUSSEY STREET, YABA, LAGOS, do hereby make oath and state as follows that-
1. I am an employee of the West African Examination Council, employed as in this matter.
2. I have the consent of my employer, the West African Examinations Council to depose to this affidavit’

3. By virtue of my position as Deputy Registrar/Head of School Examination Department, I have read the Enrolled Order of this Honourable Court (specifically orders iv, v & vi) dated 11th September, 2018 directing and compelling the West African Examination Council to depose to an Affidavit confirming or denying the said orders contained in the said enrolled order and referred to in this paragraph and I wish to state as follows:
i. The said Candidate named in this suit known as Adeleke Ademola with Centre Number 19645 and Candidate Number 149 indeed sat for the Senior Secondary School Certificate Examination in May/June 1981 conducted by the Council at Ede Muslim High School situate at P.O.Box 6 Yidi Road, Ede, State of Osun.
ii. The copy of the RESULT LISTING referred to by the Court Order as the LEDGER containing the results of all the candidates (001-221) who sat for the Senior Secondary School Certificate Examination in the said School is herewith certified, attached and marked Exhibit WA1.
iii. I depose to this Affidavit believing the same to be true and in accordance with the subsisting Oaths Act.

The certified true copy

of the Result listing referred to in the Court order as the Ledger containing the results of all the candidates that sat for the senior secondary school certificate examinations at Ede Muslim High School Ede is attached to and exhibited with the said affidavit as Exhibit WA1. The said Deputy Registrar of the West African Examination Council confirmed in paragraph 3(i) and (ii) of his confirming affidavit that the appellant indeed as candidate No. 149 sat for the SSSC Examinations in May/June 1981 at Ede Muslim High School, Ede with centre No. 19645. I have carefully read Exhibit WA1 accompanying the said affidavit. The appellant is listed as No. 149 therein.

The Ledger shows the detailed results of the appellant as – English Language 9 and all other subjects X. The ledger has the official stamp of the West African Examination Council and a certified true copy stamp bearing the name of West African Examination Council and dated 14 September, 2018.

At the instance of the 1st and 2nd respondents, subpoena duces team and ad testificandum was issued by the trial Court compelling the attendance to Court of the Principal of Ede Muslim High School.

On 10-12-2018, one Kalidi Adejara Abass, Principal of Ede Muslim High School deposed to an affidavit thusly-
AFFIDAVIT OF FACTS RELATING TO THE WASC/WAEC MAY/JUNE 1981 RESULT OF SENATOR ADEMOLA ADELEKE
I, Kalidi Adejare Abass, Male, Adult, Nigerian, Muslim, of Ede Muslim, of Ede Muslim High School Ede, Osun State, do hereby make this Oath and state as follows:
1. That I am the Principal of Ede Muslim High School I, Ede, Osun State.
2. Except as otherwise stated, all the facts deposed to herein are facts within my knowledge, information and belief.
3. I know as a fact that he Candidate named in this suit known as Adeleke Ademola with centre Number 19645 and Candidate Number 149 indeed sat for the West African School Certificate Examination (WASC) in May/June 1981 conducted by West African Examination Council at Ede Muslim Grammar School, Ede (now Ede Muslim High School I, Ede) situate at P.O.Box 6, Yidi Road, Ede, Osun State.
4. That copy of the RESULT LISTING (Ledger) containing the result of all the candidates (001-221) who sat for the Secondary School Certificate Examination at Ede Muslim Grammar School Ede (now Ede Muslim

High School, Ede) is herewith attached and marked as Exhibit 1.
5. That the Register of Admission, which included Progress and Withdrawal of Ede Muslim Grammar School, P.O.Box 6 Yidi Road, Ede, Osun State within 1976-1981 is hereby attached herewith as Exhibit 2.
6. That the Certified True Copy of the Statement of Result and Testimonial issued to Adeleke Ademola by Muslim High School I Ede is hereby attached and marked as Exhibit 3 and 4 respectively.
7. Further to paragraph 6 supra, I know as a fact that the Registrar of Muslim High School I, Ede signed Exhibit 4 on my behalf because I was not present in school at the time of application for same.
8. Further to paragraph 6 and 7 supra, I know as a fact that there were lots of errors on the face of Exhibit 4 at the instance of the Registrar of Ede Muslim High School I, Ede.
9. I know as fact that I issued Exhibit 3 to the said Adeleke Ademola voluntarily.
10. That I solemnly swear to this Affidavit in good faith, conscientiously believing its contents to be true and correct and in accordance with the Oaths Acts, 2004.

The said Principal of Ede Muslim High School in

open Court on 11-12-2018, produced and tendered in evidence the documents attached to his above affidavits. The trial Court admitted them in evidence thusly –
1. Affidavit of facts Relating to the WASC/WAEC MAY/JUNE 1981 Result of Senator Ademola Adeleke sworn to before the commissioner of oath by the deponent dated 10th December, 2018.
2. The School Testimonial of Adeleke Ademola N.
3. Statement of Result of SSCE of Adeleke Ademola MAY/JUNE 1981 Candidates No. 19645/149.
4. Ede Muslim Grammar School, Ede (Admission Register of Admission Progress and withdrawal B/W 1975-1982.
5. General Certificate of Education Ordinary Level May/June 1981 WAEC. CENTRE No. 19645. Detailed Results by Subjects Principal Stamp on it. Dated 10th December, 2018.
Claimant Counsel: We respectfully urged the Court to admit all the documents so listed in evidence and marked accordingly.
Court: SAN.
SAN: No objection
Court: All the documents tender in Court by the subpoena witness i.e. The Principal of Ede Muslim Grammar School, Ede are taken in evidence and marked as Exhibit AA1, AA2, AA3 AA4 and AA5 respectively.

The statement of result and school testimonial presented along with FORM CF.001 by the appellant to the 4th respondent as evidence of his educational qualification are attached to the affidavit of the 2nd respondent in support of the originating summons as Exhibits PL 6 and PL 7 respectively. The Principal of Ede Muslim High School produced and tendered them in Court and they were received in evidence as Exhibits AA2 and AA3 respectively.

In paragraph 16 of the said affidavit in support of the originating summons, the 2nd respondent herein highlighted the information in Exhibits PL 6 (AA2) and PL 7 (AA1) that he believed are false. He stated that the information in Exhibit PL 6 that appellant sat for Senior School Certificate Examination (SSCE) organised by West African Examination Council (WAEC) and National Examination Council (NECO) in 1981 is false because it was issued in 1988, that Examination Council (NECO) had not come into existence in 1981 and 1988, that Examination Council (NECO) was established in 1999.

He also stated that Exhibit PL 7 states that Ede Muslim High School Testimonial is located in Osun State in

1988 when it was issued, that Osun State was created in 1991 and so did not exist in 1988. He pointed out that Principal who signed Exhibit PL 7 on 20th July, 1988 is the same Principal that signed Exhibit PL 6 on 24th July, 2018, 30 years after signing Exhibit PL 6, that the Principal could not have remained as principal for that length of time, that Senior School Certificate Examination (SSCE) did not exist in 1981, rather West African School Certificate Examination (WASCE) existed at the time, that the appellant dropped out of secondary school and did not complete his secondary school at Ede Muslim High School and that WAEC does not issue certificate to a student who failed all subjects or had results pending in all.

The Principal of Ede Muslim High School explained in his affidavit and oral testimony that Ede Muslim Grammar School and Ede Muslim High School Ede refer to the same school, the name having changed from Ede Muslim Grammar School to Ede Muslim High School Ede, that he issued and signed Exhibit PL 6 (AA2), that he did not issue and signed Exhibit PL 7 (AA3) and that the Registrar, Admissions of Ede Muslim High School Ede issued and signed

it, while he was absent at the time, that Exhibit PL 7 has lots of errors on its face.

The trial Court in its judgment decided the merit of the case concerning the belief of the 1st and 2nd respondents that Exhibits PL 6 (AA2) and PL7 (AA3) contain false information, thusly- In the case of Audu v. INEC (No. 2) (2010) 13 NWLR pt. 1212 pg. 456 at 507 paragraphs E – F per S. D. Beage J. S.C. said thus:-
In politically oriented litigations, where the allegation of presentation of forged certificate to INEC is in issue, the accusing party must prove that the certificate presented to the INEC was forged and that it was the candidate that presented the certificate and that the two ingredients must be prove beyond reasonable doubt.
I will like to adopt this two ingredient written above to answer the Claimants case.
The Claimant contention was that the said certificate was forged in proving their allegation, the counsel to the Claimant ask the Court to subpeon the principal Ede Muslim School to come and testify in which the principal tendered 5 documents Exhibits AA1, AA2, AA3, AA4 and AA5 the main issue is Exhibit AA2 and

AA3 the statement of result and testimonial of the 1st Defendant. Having close scrutining of the Exhibit AA3 tendered and the statement of result in the 1st Defendant counter affidavit, Exhibit senator 1 and the Exhibit PL5 of the Claimant which appear to be slightly different which created a doubt in the said document, AA3 statement of result tendered by the principal of Ede Muslim School which is not carrying any name of School on it and the one tendered by the 1st Defendant and PL5 was on Ede Muslim High School letter headed paper which create more suspicious of the authentication of the documents submitted to the 3rd Defendant.
In examining the witness i.e. principal Ede Muslim High School the Claimant counsel put a question to the witness:-
Question: Any different certificate apart from Exhibit AA5 will not be have emanated from your School?
Answer: Yes, it will not be from my School.
Question: If there is any other testimonial apart from the once you tender in Court from your School, it will never be from your School correct?
Answer: This is the only testimonial emanated for the School, Exhibit AA3 Statement.

Having admitted by the principal of Ede Muslim High School, that only Exhibit AA2 and AA3 tendered, anything out of that is not from the school now the question posed here is where did the 1st Defendant got Exhibit Senator 1 from?
Back to the issue of Exhibit AA2 tendered by principal of Ede Muslim High School which the Claimant contention that the issuance of the testimonial cannot be possible i.e. dated June 1988, which the principal orally admit error which Claimant counsel argued that an oral evidences cannot take the place of documentary evidence.
What comes to my mind at this point is the case of A.G. Bendel State v. UBA Ltd (1986) 4 NWLR pt. 337 pg. 547 at 5663 and Teju Investment And Property Co. Ltd Vs. Subair (2016) C.A. where it was held that:-
It is now firmly settled peradventure that documentary evidence is the best evidence. It is the prove of the contents of such document, and no oral evidence will be allowed to discredit or contradict the contents thereof,..
From the foregoing, I find it very difficult to admit the principal admission orally to the error in the AA2 and from the look of things, it appears to

have elements of fake and ply play in the issuing of the document. Now nothing left for the 1st Defendant to hang on.
Now the issue is whether the 1st defendant have attended Ede Muslim High School Edo Osun State, no doubt from all angel it was admitted that the 1st Defendant was admitted to Ede Muslim School in 1976 the issue is whether he has completed up to 5 year secondary school level. The contention of the Claimant is that the 1st Defendant is a dropout who has not completed his secondary school.
From the evidence Exhibit AA4 (Ede Muslim Grammer School Ede admission register of admission progress and withdrawal between 1975 – 1982.
No doubt the 1st Defendant Adeleke Ademola was admitted into Ede Muslim High School in September, 1976 with serial No. 273, as shown on Exhibit AA4.
On his progress in the School, the 1st Defendant was in the school from 1976 1980 which captured in Exhibit AA4. In 1981 column on Exhibit AA4 the 1st Defendant progress in School was Nil, which shows that he 1st Defendant neither completed the 5 years secondary School course.
From the content of Exhibit AA4 the Claimant has establish that the

1st Defendant was a drop out who never completed his secondary School from Ede Muslim High School.
At this junction after thorough digest of this suit, I come to the conclusion that the Claimant have prove their allegation against the Defendant and the Claimant case succeed. And entitled to the relief sought.

It is clear from this judgment of the trial Court that the appellants contention that the trial Court ignored and did not consider or evaluate the affidavit deposed to by West African Examination Council (WAEC) confirming that the appellant sat for the senior secondary school certificate examination in May/June, 1981 and the Ledger containing the results of all the candidates that sat for the examination in its judgment is valid. The failure of the trial Court to consider and evaluate the said confirming affidavit and ledger occasioned a substantial miscarriage of justice because if the trial Court had not ignored that evidence, it would have come to the conclusion that the information in the statement of result and school testimonial presented by the appellant to the 4th respondent that the appellant sat for the West African

School Certificate Examinations in May/June, 1981 at Ede Muslim High School is true and not false.

It was the 1st and 2nd respondents that applied to the trial Court to order West African Examination Council (WAEC) to depose to an affidavit confirming or denying that appellant sat for the West African School Certificate Examination (WASCE) in May/June, 1981 at Ede Muslim High School Ede and produce the ledger containing the result of all the candidates that sat for that examination at Ede Muslim High School. Yet when the West African Examination Council (WAEC) complied with orders of Court and deposed to and filed an affidavit confirming that indeed appellant sat for the said May/June, 1981 West African School Certificate Examination (WASCE) at Ede Muslim High School Ede and produced the ledger containing the details of all the results of all the candidates that sat for the examination at Ede Muslim High School Ede, which Ledger confirmed that the appellant did sit for the said examination at Ede Muslim High School Ede, the trial Court disregarded the evidence as if it never existed. The West African Examination Council (WAEC) confirming affidavit and

Ledger clearly resolved the issue of whether the statement of result and testimonial from Ede High School Ede submitted by the appellant to the 4th respondent along with his Form C.F.001 contain false information that he completed secondary school at Ede Muslim High School Ede and sat for the West African School Certificate Examination (WASCE) there in May/June, 1981. During trial proceedings in open Court, on 11-12-2018, the trial Court noted that the said exhibits, that is, the confirming affidavit and ledger are in its custody with its exhibit keeper and adjourned to 12-2-2019 for marking the exhibits. The trial Court on 12-2-2019 omitted to do so.
But they were already part of the records of the Court in the case and were already exhibits in the case waiting to be marked with identification numbers. Having been described by the Court as exhibits, even though they were not marked with numbers, they remained part of the evidence in the case. Even if the Court had not described them as exhibits, being in the Courts record in the case, it was bound to consider them in deciding the case. See Nwabude & Anor v. Ugodu & Ors (2011)

LPELR 9173 (CA) in which this Court held thusly- The trial Court in the instant case was proper to have looked at the documentary evidence in its file to resolve the conflict before it. This opinion of mine is supported by a plethora of decided authorities in which it has been held that a Court of law can look at a document in its file while writing its judgment or ruling even though the document was not tendered as Exhibit at the trial. See AKINOLA V. V-C UNILORIN(2004) 11 NWLR (Pt.885) 3 NWLR 610; AGBAHOMOVO V. EDUYEGBE (1999) 3 NWLR (PT. 594) 170; AGBAISI V. EBIKOREFE (1997) 4 NWLR (PT. 502) 630: OGBUNYIYA v. OBI OKUDO (1979) 3 LRN 318. In the instant case, the trial Court was to have taken a look at the Deed of Lease contained in the Courts file in this dispute. The comparison by the Court and the observation made thereafter have not violated the rules pleadings and fair trial.
Be that as it is, the said confirming affidavit was deposed to and filed in the trial Court as a process in the proceedings together with the accompanying Ledger and was part of the affidavit evidence before the Court. The case having been commenced

100

by Originating Summons, the trial was on affidavits. The Ledger was attached to and exhibited with the confirming affidavit as Exhibit WA1.
As held by the Supreme Court in Adamu v. The State (1991) 6 SC 17, a trial Court has a duty to consider all the evidence before it and that in discharging this duty, it must evaluate all the evidence before it. In Adeyemo v. Arokopo (1988) LPELR 173 (SC), it had restated that the duty of the trial Court is to consider all the evidence adduced carefully and make findings on them before coming to its judgment.
A trial cannot be fair and dispassionate where a trial Court fails to consider and evaluate material evidence essential to a proper and just determination of the case before it. It was a gross violation of the appellants right to a fair hearing for the trial Court to have ignored and refused to consider evidence that obviously would resolve the case in his favour.
Even the evidence it chose to consider, it did not evaluate properly. The trial Court considered that the statement of result Exhibit AA3 tendered by the Principal Ede Muslim High School is not on the letter headed paper of Ede

101

Muslim High School, while the one, Exhibit PL 5 attached to the affidavit in support of the originating summons and one attached to the appellants counter affidavit are on the letter headed paper of Ede Muslim High School Ede, and held that they appear to be slightly different which created a doubt in the said Exhibit AA3 and which create more suspicious of the authentication of the documents submitted to the 3rd defendant (sic). The trial Court appeared to ignore the relevant consideration that it was Exhibit PL 5, PL 6 and PL 7 that were submitted to the 4th respondent and the Principal Ede High School was merely to confirm if the information in the statement of result and testimonial submitted to 4th respondent are true or false.

He had appeared in Court and identified the statement of result as having been issued and signed by him and confirmed the contents as true. This is clearly stated in his affidavit already reproduced herein. If he chose to produce another copy of the details of the statement of result on plain sheet of paper, it is immaterial, considering that he has confirmed, as the Principal of the school, that

102

the appellant attended the school and sat for the West African School Certificate Examination (WASCE) there in May/June, 1981 and which fact is further confirmed by other exhibits particularly the West African Examination Council (WAEC) confirming affidavit and Ledger.

The trial Court wrongly interpreted the evidence elicited from the Principal of Ede Muslim High School during cross examination that Exhibit AA3 is the only testimonial and Exhibit AA5 is the only certificate that emanated from Ede Muslim High School Ede. The trial Court proceeded to ask the following question-
Having admitted by the principal of Ede Muslim High School, that only Exhibit AA2 and AA3 tendered, anything out of that is not from the school now the question posed here is where did the 1st Defendant got Exhibit Senator 1 from?

This question disregards the evidence of the Principal Ede High School Ede, that Exhibit AA2, the statement of result he tendered in Court is a certified true copy of the statement of result the school had issued to the appellant. In paragraph 6 and 9 of his affidavit of fact relating to the WASCE/WAEC May/June, 1981 RESULT OF

103

SENATOR ADEMOLA ADELEKE, the Principal Ede Muslim High School deposed thusly-
6. That the Certified True Copy of the Statement of Result and Testimonial issued to Adeleke Ademola by Muslim High School Ede is hereby attached and marked as Exhibit 3 and 4 respectively.
9. I know as a fact that I issued Exhibit 3 to the said Adeleke Ademola voluntarily.

The trial Court did not provide an answer to its question and left it unresolved. Paragraphs 6 and 9 of the affidavit of the Principal provide the answer. So Exhibit Senator 1 is from the copy of the statement of result the Principal had issued to the appellant. The holding of the trial Court that the Principals oral evidence that the there are errors in Exhibit AA2 and that from the look of things it has element of fakeness is not valid. Firstly, the principal in his evidence in Paragraph 8 of his affidavit stated that there were lots of errors on the face of the school leaving testimonial, Exhibit 4 attached to the said affidavit and that the errors were made by the Registrar of the school who issued and signed it in his absence. The testimonial was admitted in open Court as

104

Exhibit AA3. The Principal did not state that there were errors in the statement of result, Exhibit AA2 (Exhibit 3 attached to his affidavit) which he issued and signed. So the holding of the trial Court that the Principal admitted orally that there were errors in Exhibit AA2, the statement of result is not supported by the evidence. The holding of the trial Court that the statement of result Exhibit AA2 has elements of fakeness is perverse.

The holding of the trial Court that the appellant dropped out of Ede Muslim High School Ede in 1980 and did not school there in 1981 relying only on Exhibit AA4 is defeated by the WAEC conforming affidavit and Ledger, which confirm Exhibits PL 6 (AA2) and PL7 (AA3) that he sat for May/June 1981 West African School Certificate Examination (WASCE) at Ede Muslim High School Ede. If he had dropped out in 1980 or earlier then he would not have sat for May/June 1981 West African School Certificate Examination (WASCE) at Ede Muslim High School, Ede.

In any case, Exhibit AA4 did not say that the appellant dropped out of Ede Muslim High School Ede and did not sit for the May/June, 1981 West African School Certificate

105

Examination (WASCE) there. The letter written by Principal of Ede Muslim High School Ede on 24-7-2018 that accompanied the affidavit he deposed to with the attached exhibits reads that the appellant was admitted into the above named school in September 1976 and sat for WAEC May/June 1981. It is at page 169 of Vol.I of the record of this appeal. This evidence was ignored by the trial Court. It rather preferred to make inferences from Exhibit AA4, which inference is not supported by Exhibit AA4.

The oral testimony in open Court of the Principal of Ede Muslim High School that there were lots of errors on the face of the school testimonial (exhibit PL 7 or AA3) issued by the Registrar of the School is admissible evidence by virtue of S.128(1) Proviso (a) of the Evidence Act which allows the admission of oral testimonies of errors or mistakes in a document. The exact text of that provision reads thusly-
128. (1) When a judgment of a Court or any other judicial or official proceeding, contract or any grant or other disposition of property has been reduced to the form of a document or series of documents, no evidence may be given or

106

such judgement or proceeding or of the terms of such contract, grant or disposition of property except the document itself, or secondary evidence of its contents in cases in which secondary evidence is admissible under this act; nor may the contents of any such document be contradicted, altered, added, to or varied by oral evidence.
Provided that any of the following matters may be proved-
(a) Fraud, intimidation, illegality; want of due execution, the fact that it is wrongly dated, existence or want or failure, of consideration, mistaken in fact or law; want of capacity in which a contracting party acted when it is not inconsistent with the terms of the contract, or any other matter which, if proved, would produce any effect upon the validity of any document, or of any part of it, or which would entitle any person to any judgment, decree, or order relating to it.”
Therefore, the holding of the trial Court that the oral testimony of the Principal of Ede Muslim High School that there were lots of errors in the school testimonial, Exhibits PL 7 or AA3 is not admissible evidence, is not correct.

It is noteworthy that this testimony of the

107

Principal that there are lots of errors in the school leaving testimonial is not challenged or contradicted by the 1st and 2nd respondents. It is trite law that uncontradicted and unchallenged evidence must be accepted by the Court and acted upon as establishing the facts stated therein.

In any case as the Principal of the School and the custodian of the school records, he is in the best position to say that the school leaving testimonial which he identified as issued from his school has errors in it or not. If he says, as he has done, that there are lots of errors on its face, he must be believed and Exhibit PL6 (AA2) the statement of result, his affidavit, the WAEC confirming affidavit and the accompanying Ledger (Details of results) show that it is reasonable to believe him.

Errors or mistakes in the contents of a document cannot be treated as false information as the 1st and 2nd respondents characterised the errors in the testimonial in paragraph 16 of their affidavit in support of the originating summons. To prove false information in a document requires more than pointing out errors or mistakes or incongruities or discrepancies in the document

108

or asserting that the document is forged on account of the errors without more. I think that the appellant should have returned the testimonial back to the school for the errors in the school leaving testimonial issued to him to be corrected before he submitted same to the 4th respondent for the purpose of election or to anybody for any transaction. He did not do so and rather recklessly chose to use it as it is and thereby exposed himself the situation he has now found himself. Be that as it is such errors are of no moment because Exhibit PL6 and the West African Examination Council (WAEC) confirming affidavit and Ledger show that he satisfied the requirements of S.177(d) of the 1999 Constitution and is therefore qualified to contest the election of Governor of Osun State. As held by the Supreme Court inAGI v. PDP (2017) 17 NWLR (PT.1585) 386 at 454-455 Even in situations where a Governorship candidate makes inconsistent statements in Form CF001 and such a candidate is nonetheless qualified to contest the election under the provision of Section 177 of the 1999 Constitution, he would not be disqualified to contest the election.”

109

The appellant gave the statement of result PL6 to the 4th respondent to show he sat for the West African School Certificate Examination (WASCE) in May/June, 1981 in Ede Muslim High School Ede and failed English language with results in other subjects pending. He did not claim to have obtained the certificate. So there was no need for the argument that he can only be issued certificate if he passed certain subjects. He submitted the statement of result to show that he attended secondary school and wrote the secondary school certificate examination without passing. What the 1st and 2nd respondents did by their suit is to exploit the mistakes in the contents of the school leaving testimonial to create the impression that he gave false information that he attended Ede Muslim High School Ede and sat for the May/June 1981 West African School Certificate Examination (WASCE), even though he failed the examinations. The West African Examination Council (WAEC) confirming affidavit and accompanying Ledger confirmed the statement of result submitted to 4th respondent as true that he sat for the said examinations at Ede Muslim High School, Ede.

It was the 1st and 2nd

110

respondents that applied to the trial Court to order WAEC to depose to that affidavit and produce the ledger. It is their evidence. They are bound by the evidence. They cannot run away from the documents because they do not support their case against the appellant.

It is curious that the trial Court that ordered for this evidence, abandoned and refused to consider the evidence that settled and resolved the central singular issue in dispute before it, to wit, whether the appellant gave false information that he attended Ede Muslim High School Ede and sat for the May/June, 1981 West African School Certificate Examination (WASCE). It rather preferred to engage itself in pointing out the discrepancies in the testimonial and other irrelevant matters to show that it is doubtful if the appellant sat for the said examinations. This strange and wrong approach made it to reach the wrong conclusion that the appellant dropped out of Ede Muslim High School Ede and therefore could not have sat for the May/June, 1981 West African School Certificate Examination (WASCE) there.

The fact that the 1st and 2nd respondents continued to contend that the appellant gave

111

false information that he completed his secondary school education at Ede Muslim High School Ede and sat for the May/June, 1981 West African School Certificate Examination (WASCE) there, even after receiving the West African Examination Council (WAEC) confirming affidavit and Ledger which showed he sat for the said examinations, showed that the 1st and 2nd respondents did not genuinely and reasonably believe that the information in the statement of result submitted to the 4th respondent by the appellant is false. This is because the West African Examination Council (WAEC) in its said affidavit confirmed the information in the statement of result as true. The Ledger which lists of all the candidates who sat for the examinations in Ede Muslim High School Ede and the details of their results, again confirmed the information in the statement of result as true. The argument of learned Counsel for the 1st and 2nd respondents in this appeal, that The signature of the Principal (the subpoenaed witness) on Exhibit AA2 Testimonial was denied by the Principal who was not a staff of the school as at 1988, 30 years ago. Osun State has not been created as at 1988.

112

Also Exhibit AA3 Statement of Result had a letterhead design and fabricated and the signatures also miraculously transcribed on the document submitted by Appellant to the 4th Respondent in the glaring absence of any iota of evidence to prove that the signature on the statement of result was miraculously transcribed thereon and the letterhead design fabricated and in the face of the testimony of the Principal that he issued and signed the said statement of result, while the testimonial was issued and signed by the Registrar, further demonstrate that the 1st and 2nd respondents belief that the information in the statement of result the 3rd respondent gave to 4th respondent is false is not reasonable and genuine. In the face of the evidence they requested for, that is, the WAEC Confirming Affidavit and the Ledger (Exhibit WA1), which establish beyond any doubt that the 3rd respondents educational attainment met the requirement of S. 177(d) of the 1999 Constitution, their argument that he forged the statement of result to claim compliance with S.177(d) of the Constitution is unreasonable and meaningless.

In the light of the foregoing,

113

issue No. 2 is resolved in favour of the appellant.

On the whole, this appeal succeeds as it has merit. It is accordingly allowed. The judgment of the High Court of Federal Capital Territory in Suit No. FCT/HC/BW/CV/122/2018 and the consolidated rulings in motion No. FCT/HC/BW/M/141/2019 delivered on 2-4-2019 by O.A. Musa J, are hereby set aside. Rather, it is hereby adjudged that the claimants in FCT/HC/BW/CV/122/2018 failed to prove their claim and that they are not entitled to any of the reliefs claimed for by them. The questions raised for determination in their originating summons are hereby resolved against them. Their originating summons and the claim therein is hereby dismissed.

The 1st and 2nd respondents shall pay costs of 3 Million naira to the appellant. This is because it is not reasonably open to question that the appellant has incurred costs to engage counsel to prosecute this appeal on his behalf and to file and prepare the huge volumes of processes for this appeal. Having been put to such costs by this appeal, he is entitled to be compensated for them.

114

ADAMU JAURO, J.C.A.: I was afforded in advance a copy of the judgment just delivered by my learned brother, Emmanuel Akomaye Agim, JCA I am in agreement with the reasoning and conclusion contained therein, to the effect that the appeal has merit.

I adopt the said judgment as mine in allowing the appeal, and abide by consequential orders made including that on costs.
Appeal allowed.

MOHAMMED BABA IDRIS, J.C.A.: My learned brother EMMANUEL AKOMAYE AGIM, JCA afforded me the opportunity of reading before today a draft copy of the lead judgment just delivered.
I adopt the judgment as mine with nothing further to add.

115

Appearances:

N.O. Oke, SAN, Dr. Paul C. Ananaba,SAN, Kehinde Ogunwumiju, SAN with them, N. Owolade, Esq., S. Abednego, Esq. and I. Iheanacho, Esq. For Appellant(s)

B. J. Akomolafe, Esq. with him, A. Adeoye, Esq., J.U. Chukwudi, Esq. for 1st & 2nd Respondents.

Emmanuel Enoiden, Esq. with him, A. Farokun, Esq. and N.N. Asobiwhalu for 3rd respondent
For Respondent(s)

Appearances

N.O. Oke, SAN, Dr. Paul C. Ananaba,SAN, Kehinde Ogunwumiju, SAN with them, N. Owolade, Esq., S. Abednego, Esq. and I. Iheanacho, Esq. For Appellant

AND

B. J. Akomolafe, Esq. with him, A. Adeoye, Esq., J.U. Chukwudi, Esq. for 1st & 2nd Respondents.

Emmanuel Enoiden, Esq. with him, A. Farokun, Esq. and N.N. Asobiwhalu for 3rd respondent For Respondent