LawCare Nigeria

Nigeria Legal Information & Law Reports

VALENTINE & ANOR v. INEC & ORS (2022)

VALENTINE & ANOR v. INEC & ORS

(2022)LCN/16602(CA)

In The Court Of Appeal

(ABUJA JUDICIAL DIVISION)

On Tuesday, February 08, 2022

CA/ABJ/CV/18/2022

Before Our Lordships:

Stephen Jonah Adah Justice of the Court of Appeal

Elfrieda Oluwayemisi Williams-Dawodu Justice of the Court of Appeal

Danlami Zama Senchi Justice of the Court of Appeal

Between

1. ADINDU ONYEBUCHI VALENTINE 2. EGWUDIKE HYCENTH CHUKWUEBUKA APPELANT(S)

And

1. INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION (INEC) 2. ALL PROGRESSIVES GRAND ALLIANCE (APGA) 3. CHARLES CHUKWUMA SOLUDO 4. IBEZIM ONYEKACHUKWU GILBERT RESPONDENT(S)

 

RATIO

THE MEANING OF THE TERM “REASONABLE CAUSE OF ACTION”

The word “reasonable” means fair, proper, moderate, suitable under the circumstances. In the case of Barbus & Co. Nig. & Anor. v. Mrs. Gladys Oyiboka Okafor Udeji (2018) LPELR – 44501 (SC), the Supreme Court per Okoro, JSC, held that:
“The question may be asked, what is reasonable cause of action? Tobi, JSC, (of blessed memory), in Rinco Construction Company Ltd., v. Veepee Industries Ltd & Anor., (2005) LPELR 2949 (SC) at page 14 paragraphs E – G defined reasonable cause of action as follows:- “Reasonable cause of action means a cause of action with some chances of success. For a statement of claim to disclose a reasonable cause of action, it must set out the legal rights of the plaintiff and the obligations of the defendant. It must then go on to set out the facts constituting infraction of the plaintiffs legal right or failure of the defendant to fulfil his obligation in such a way that if there is no proper defence, the plaintiff will succeed in the relief or remedy he seeks”. Also reported in (2005) 9 NWLR (Pt. 929) 85 and (2005) 3-4 SC page 1. See also Ibrahim v. Osim (1988) 3 NWLR (Pt. 82) 257, Oshoboja v. Amuda & Ors. (1992) 6 NWLR (Pt. 250) 690, SPDC Nig., Ltd., Ltd & Anor., v. X.M. Federal Ltd & Anor (2006) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1004) 189. The law is trite that whenever issue of reasonable cause of action is raised, it is the statement of claim or, as in this case the averments in the affidavit in support of an Originating Summons or Motion that ought to be considered. So long as the statement of claim or the affidavit in support of the originating Motion discloses some cause of action, or raises some question which can be decided by a Judge, there is reasonable cause of action. The mere fact that the case is weak, and not likely to succeed, is no ground for striking it out or dismissing it. See Yusuf & Ors. v. Akindipe & Ors., (2000) 8 NWLR (Pt. 669) 376.”
The law in its posture and frame is settled that what is reasonable is relative based on the facts and circumstances of the case. In Hado (Nig.) Ltd & Anor v. Chrisbrown Int’l Ltd. & Anor., Eko, JCA, (as he then was) made a primary statement of the law on this issue when he held that:
“It is settled, from the authorities that a cause of action means the factual situation stated by the plaintiff, which if sustained, entitles him to the remedy against the defendant. It is that set of facts which gives the plaintiff the right to sue the defendant. It comprises every fact which is the material to be proved to enable the plaintiff to succeed. See Egbe v. Adefarasin (1985) 3 SC 214, Thomas v. Olufosoye (1986) 1 NWLR (Pt. 8) 669. The reasonable cause of action is that cause of action which, in law, has some chances of success and which sets out the legal rights of the plaintiff and the obligations of the defendant. Rinco Const. Co v. Veepee Ind. Ltd (2005) 9 NWLR (Pt. 929) 85. Since in law, no action can arise from an immoral or illegal cause, no cause of action founded on such immoral or illegal cause can be a reasonable cause of action”.
PER ADAH, J.C.A.

STEPHEN JONAH ADAH, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): This appeal is against the Judgment of the Federal High Court, Abuja Division, coram: Taiwo O. Taiwo, J., delivered on 1st day of December, 2021.

The appellants were the plaintiffs while the respondents were the Defendants at the trial Court.

From the record before us, this matter was instituted by the appellants on the 19th of July, 2021 before the trial Court vide an Originating Summons. The Originating Summons was framed to answer and consider some question and reliefs couched as follows:
1. WHETHER by the combined legal effect of the provisions of Sections 6(6), 36, 176(1), 178(4), 186, 187(1) & (2) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) and First Schedule (Part 1) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended), Section 31 (5) and (6) of the 2010 Electoral Act (as amended) together with the 3rd Defendant’s declaration on oath in PART A of his 2021 INEC Form EC -9 – Affidavit in support of Personal Particulars dated 1st July, 2021, the 3rd Defendant who seeks to contest election in Aguata II – Anambra Constituency, is qualified to contest in Anambra State Governorship election scheduled to hold on 6th day of November 2021 or any other nearby date, having been sponsored by the 2nd Defendant for a non-existent State Constituency of Aguata II – Anambra?
2. WHETHER by the combined legal effect of the provisions of Sections 6(6), 36, 176(1), 178(4), 186, 187(1) & (2) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) and First Schedule (Part 1) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended), Section 31 (1), (2), (5) and (6) of the 2010 Electoral Act (as amended) together with the 4th Defendant’s declaration on oath in PART A of his 2021 INEC Form EC -9 – Affidavit in support of Personal Particulars dated 2nd July, 2021, the 4th Defendant who seeks to contest election in Awka II Anambra State, is qualified to contest in the Anambra State Governorship election scheduled to hold on 6th day of November 2021 or any other nearby date, as Deputy Governor, having been sponsored by the 2nd Defendant for a non-existent State Constituency of Aguata II Anambra?
3. WHETHER upon the construction and interpretation of the Constitutional provisions of Sections 6(6), 36, 176(1), 178(4), 186, 187(1) & (2) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) and First Schedule (Part 1) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended), Section 31 (2), (5) and (6) of the 2010 Electoral Act (as amended) and decided judicial authorities, the 3rd and 4th Defendants, whose names and their 2021 INEC Forms EC – 9 were received by the 1st Defendant (INEC) as the 2nd Defendant’s (APGA’s) Governorship and Deputy Governorship Candidates, having made false declaration under oath in their 2021 INEC Forms EC – 9 dated 1st July, 2021 and 2nd July 2021, respectively declared to be contesting election into Aguata II – Anambra Constituency and Awka II Anambra State INSTEAD of Anambra State Constituency and presented same to the 1st Defendant, which information forms official Federal Government of Nigeria records with 2nd Defendant (INEC), are qualified and eligible to contest the Anambra State Governorship Election scheduled to hold on 6th November, 2021 or thereabout?
4. WHETHER upon the combined construction and interpretation of the Constitutional provisions of Sections 6(6), 36, 176(1), 178(4), 186(5) 187(1) & (2) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) ​ and First Schedule (Part 1) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended), Section 31 (1), (2), (5) and (6) of the 2010 Electoral Act (as amended) and upon consideration of the 3rd and 4th Defendant’s INEC Forms EC – 9, the 1st Defendant is permitted by law to allow the 3rd and 4th Defendants to contest for the position of Governor and Deputy Governor of Anambra State at the Anambra State Governorship Election scheduled to hold on 6th November 2021 or thereabout?
5. If the answer to issue/question 1, 2, 3 and/or 4, above are in the negative, whether upon the community construction, interpretation and application of the Constitutional provisions of Sections 6(6), 36, 176(1), 178(4), 186, 187(1) & (2) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) and First Schedule (Part 1) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended), Section 31 (2), (5) and (6) of the 2010 Electoral Act (as amended) the 3rd and 4th Defendants stands disqualified from contesting the forth-coming Anambra State Governorship election, slated to hold on 6th November, 2021 or any other date thereabout on the platform of the 2nd Defendant or any other political party by reason of the fact that the 3rd and 4th Defendants in their declarations on oath inn their 2021 INEC Form EC – 9 presented a false/non-existent Constituency of Aguata II – Anambra Constituency and Awka II Anambra State respectively in support of their nominations as candidates for the Anambra Governorship election.
6. Whether by the combined effect of the interpretation and application of Sections 6(6), 36, 176(1), 178(4), 186, 187(1) & (2) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) and First Schedule (Part 1) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended), Section 31 (1), (2), (5) and (6) of the 2010 Electoral Act (as amended), can the 3rd and 4th Defendants be said to be validly nominated and contest election as the Governorship and deputy Governorship Candidates of the 2nd Defendant for the Anambra State Governorship election slated to hold on 6th November, 2021 or any other nearby date?
7. If the answer to issue/question 6 above is in negative, whether this Honourable Court can invoke its statutory powers under Section 6(6) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) to issue an order disqualifying the 3rd and 4th Defendants as the Governorship and Deputy Governorship Candidates of the 2nd Defendant in the said coming Governorship election in Anambra State on 6th November, 2021 or any other date thereafter and barring the 2nd Defendant (APGA) from fielding any other candidate in the said forth- coming Anambra State Governorship election any time it is slated to hold by the 2nd Defendant.

​Upon consideration of the above questions, the Plaintiffs claims against the Defendants jointly and severally as follows:
1. A Declaration that by the provisions of Sections 6(6), 36, 176(1), 178(4), 186(5) 187(1) & (2) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) and First Schedule (Part 1) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended), Section 31(1), (2), (5) and (6) of the 2010 Electoral Act (as amended) together with 3rd Defendant’s declaration on oath in his 2021 INEC Form EC 9 dated 1st July, 2021, 3rd Defendant who seek to contest election into Aguata II – Anambra, being bound by his declaration cannot validly be nominated as the Governorship Candidate of the 2nd Defendant for the Anambra State Governorship Election slated to hold on 6th November, 2021, or any other nearby date.
2. A Declaration that by the combined provisions of Sections 6(6), 36, 176(1), 178(4), 186, 187(1) & (2) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) and First Schedule (Part 1) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended), Section 31(1), (2), (5) and (6) of the 2010 Electoral Act (as amended) together with 4th Defendant’s declaration on oath in his 2021 INEC Form EC 9 dated 2nd July, 2021, 4th Defendant who seek to contest election into Awka II Anambra State, being bound by his declaration cannot validly be nominated as the Deputy Governorship Candidate of the 2nd Defendant for the Anambra State Governorship Election slated to hold on 6th November, 2021, or any other nearby date.
3. A Declaration that by the combined provisions of Sections 6(6), 36, 176(1), 178(4), 186, 187(1) & (2) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) and First Schedule (Part 1) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended), Section 31(1), (5) and (6) of the 2010 Electoral Act (as amended) the 3rd and 4th Defendants, are not qualified to contest the Anambra State Governorship and Deputy Governorship elections scheduled to hold on 6th November, 2021 or thereabout having been sponsored by the 2nd Defendant for a non-existent Constituencies of Aguata – II Anambra Constituency and Awka I Anambra State respectively.
4. A Declaration that by the construction and interpretation of the Constitutional provisions of Sections 6(6), 36, 176(1), 178(4), 186, 187(1) & (2) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) and First Schedule (Part 1) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended), Section 31 (1), (2), (5) and (6) of the 2010 Electoral Act (as amended) and decided judicial authorities, the 3rd and 4th Defendants, whose names and whose 2021 INEC Forms EC – 9 were received by the 1st Defendant (INEC) as the 2nd Defendant’s (APGA’s) Governorship and Deputy Governorship Candidates for the Anambra State 6th November, 2021 Governorship Election, having made false declaration under oath in their 2021 INEC Forms EC – 9 dated 1st July, 2021 and 2nd July 2021, declared to be contesting election into Aguata II – Anambra Constituency and Awka II Anambra State, INSTEAD of Anambra State Constituency and presented same to the 1st Defendant, which information forms official Federal Government of Nigeria records with 2nd Defendant (INEC), are NOT qualified and/or eligible to contest the said Anambra State Governorship Election scheduled to hold on 6th November, 2021.
5. A Declaration that upon the combined construction and interpretation of the Constitutional provisions of Sections 6(6), 36, 176(1), 178(4), 186, 187(1) & (2) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) and First Schedule (Part 1) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended), Section 31 (1), (2), (5) and (6) of the 2010 Electoral Act (as amended) and upon consideration of the 3rd and 4th Defendants’ Form EC – 9, the 1st Defendant is not permitted by law to allow the 2nd 3rd and 4th Defendants to contest for the position of Governorship and deputy Governorship of Anambra State at the Anambra State Governorship Election scheduled to hold on 6th November 2021 or thereabout.
6. An Order setting aside or nullifying forthwith the purported sponsorship and/or nomination of the 3rd and 4th Defendants by the 2nd Defendant to the 1st Defendant, in respect of forthcoming Anambra State Governorship Election scheduled for 6th November, 2021 or thereabout.
7. An Order compelling the 1st Defendant to remove from its list of nominated or sponsored candidates eligible to contest the forthcoming election into the Governorship position of Anambra State, scheduled for 6th November 2021 or thereabout, or any list, ballot paper, or election record or materials, the name and logo of the 2nd Defendant as well as the name of the 3rd and 4th Defendants.
8. An Order restraining the 2nd Defendant (APGA) from fielding any other Governorship Candidate upon the disqualification of the 3rd and 4th Defendants as prayed or from sponsoring any other candidate and contesting in the forthcoming Anambra State Governorship election, slated for 6th November, 2021 or any other date thereafter.
9. AND FOR SUCH OTHER OR FURTHER CONSEQUENTIAL ORDER OR ORDERS as this Honourable Court may deem fit to make as the circumstances of this case may require in the interest of justice.

The parties joined issues and at the end of the trial, the Court dismissed the Suit of the appellants with cost.

​Aggrieved by the decision of the trial Court, the appellants appealed to this Court vide their Notice of Appeal filed on 13th day of December, 2021. The 4th respondent, Ibezim Onyekachukwu Gilbert, cross-appealed via a Notice of Cross-Appeal filed on 14/12/2021. The Notice of Cross-Appeal is at pages 469 to 476 of the Record of Appeal.

The Record of Appeal was transmitted to this Court on the 10th day January, 2022. The appellants filed-in their brief on 17/01/2022 with appellants’ reply brief to the 1st respondent filed on 27/01/2022 while the reply brief to the 2nd and 3rd respondents was filed on 26/01/2022. Reply brief to the 4th respondent was filed on 25/01/2022. The 1st respondent’s brief was filed on 25/01/2022. The 2nd and 3rd respondents’ brief was filed on 25/01/2022. The 4th respondent/cross appellant’s brief was filed on 24/01/2022. At the hearing of the appeal, the learned counsel for the parties separately adopted their respective briefs and made their respective prayers.

The appellants in their brief of argument distilled Seven (7) issues for determination of this appeal. These Seven issues were framed as follows:
1. Whether having regard to the combined effects of the provisions of Sections 1 (1), 178 (4), 287 (1) & (2) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended), Section 31 (5) & (6) of the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended), the decision of this Honourable Court in the case of Progressive Action Congress v. INEC (2009) All FWLR (part 478) CA page 260 and the State of Affidavit Evidence before the Court, the appellants need be misled by the information contained in the 2021 INEC affidavit Form EC-9 of the 3rd and 4th respondents for the information to be false and 3rd and 4th respondents disqualified as candidates in the November 6, 2021 Anambra State Governorship Election as wrongly held by the trial Court? (Distilled from Ground 1).
2. Having regard to the express provisions of Sections 1(1), 178 (4), 287 (2) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended), Sections 31 (1), (5) & (6) of the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended), the State of affidavit evident before the Court and the State of decided Judicial authorities, the trial Court and was right when it held that the appellants have failed to convince the Court that the 2nd 3rd and 4th respondents supplied false information to the 1st respondent which the 1st respondent knowingly and willfully accepted? (Distilled from Ground 2).
3. Whether the trial Court was wrong to have completely ignored and refused to apply the express provisions of Section 287 (1) & (2) of 1999 CFRN (as amended) vis-a-vis the decision of this Honourable Court in the case of Progressive Action Congress v. INEC (2009) All FWLR (part 478) CA page 260 and other relevant superior Judicial decisions in the instant case of the appellants without stating any reason in view of the state of pleadings of the parties and uncontradicted evidence placed before the trial Court? (Distilled from Grounds 3 and 8).
4. Considering the provisions of our extant laws upon which the case of the appellants are predicated, the appellants’ Suit as constituted, the overwhelming affidavit and documentary evidence placed before the Court vis-a-vis the binding declarations of the 3rd and 4th respondents in their 2021 INEC affidavit Form EC – 9 regarding the Constituency where they seek to contest election into the Office of Governor and Deputy Governor of a non-existent state constituencies, the trial Court was right when it held that appellants’ Suit disclosed no reasonable cause of action and proceeded to dismiss the case of the appellants? (Distilled from Ground 4).
5. Whether the appellants did not prove their case beyond reasonable doubt having regard to the uncontroverted affidavit and documentary evidence placed before the Court by the appellants. (Distilled from Ground 5).
6. Having regard to the affidavit and documentary evidence placed before the Honourable Court by the appellants, the respective binding declarations of the 3rd and 4th respondents regarding the non- existing state Constituencies where they seek to contest election as Governor and Deputy Governor, the decisions of this Honourable Courts in the case of Progressive Action Congress v. INEC (2009) All FWLR (part 478) CA page 260, other decided Judicial authorities, the learned trial Judge could have correctly held that the appellants’ Suit which seek for Judicial construction and interpretation of the provisions of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) and the provisions of the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended) do not help the deepening of our democracy, must fail, is not necessary, has wasted the time of the Court and thereafter awarded punitive cost of Two Million Naira (2,000,000.00) against the appellants? (Distilled from Grounds 6 and 9)
7. Whether the trial Court was right for failure to consider and appraise the appellants’ Further and Better Affidavits and the attached Exhibits with the Reply on Points of Law respectively to the Counter Affidavits of the 2nd & 3rd and 4th respondents, before arriving at its decision. (Distilled from Ground 7).

​The 1st respondent distilled three (3) issues namely:
1. Whether having regard to the facts of the case of the appellants as constituted vis-a-vis the applicable laws, the trial Court was right to have held that the appellants failed to convince the Court that the 3rd and 4th Defendants supplied false information that will disqualify them from contesting as the Governorship and Deputy Governorship Candidates of the 2nd respondent in the Anambra State Governorship Election conducted on 6th November, 2021. (Distilled from grounds 1, 2, 3, 7 and 8 of the Notice of Appeal).
2. Whether the trial Court was right to have held that the case of the appellants on allegation of submission of false information is criminal in nature which requires proof beyond reasonable doubt. (Distilled from Grounds 5 of the Notice of Appeal).
3. Whether the trial Court was right to award cost against the appellant after it (the trial Court) held that the case of the appellants did not disclose any reasonable cause of action as such, it wasted the time of the Court. (Distilled from Grounds 4 and 6 of the Notice of Appeal).

​At pages 4 to 5 of the Joint Brief of the 2nd and 3rd respondents, three (3) issues were distilled by them. They are:
1. Whether the learned trial Judge was not right in holding that the appellants failed to establish that the 3rd and 4th respondents supplied false information in their Form EC9 to the 1st respondent, having regard to the provisions of Section 31 of the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended). (Grounds 1, 2, 3, 5 8 and 9).
2. Whether the learned trial Judge was not correct when he held that the appellants failed to convince the Court that the action is reasonable. (Grounds 4 and 6).
3. Whether the learned trial Judge failed/refused to consider appellants’ Further and Better Affidavit, the Exhibits and the Reply on Points of Law and if so, did the appellants suffer any miscarriage of Justice. (Ground 7).

The 4th respondent in his own Brief, distilled a sole issue for determination. This issue was framed as follows:
Whether or not the Court below came to the right conclusion that the case of the appellants must fail and accordingly dismissed it.

​The formulation of issues for determination is the basic process put in our appellate procedure to ease the burden of determining the numerous complaints of the parties in an appeal over the decision of a lower Court. Issues for the determination of appeal, are short questions raised against one or more grounds of appeal and are meant to be a guide to the arguments and submissions to be advanced in support of the grounds of appeal. It is a succinct and precise question either of law or of fact for determination by the Court. An issue is a disputed point or question to which parties in an action have narrowed their several allegations and upon which they are desirous of obtaining either decision of the Court on question of law, or of the Court on question of facts. See – Chief Okoromaka v. Chief Odiri (1995) 7 NWLR (Pt. 408) 411; Imonikhe v. The Attorney General of Bendel State (1992) 6 NWLR (Pt. 248) 396; Ngilari v. Mothercat Ltd. (1993) 8 NWLR (Pt. 311) 370.
The hallmark of the exercise of formulating issues for determination is therefore, to assist the Court in narrowing down the real issues in controversy arising from the grounds of appeal. For such an exercise to be fruitful, it is significantly important that issues formulated for determination are concise, precise and direct to avoid beclouding the principal issues in contention with subsidiary or ancillary issues. See Kekere-Ekun, JSC, in the case of Onyekwuluje & Anor v. Benue State Government & Ors (2015) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1484) 40.

In the instant case, the parties in their respective briefs have raised diverse issues for determination. The seven issues raised by the appellants from their presentation are more encompassing the whole complaints generated by all the parties before the Court. I shall therefore, use these issues which will cater for the issues raised by the respondents in this appeal. I shall equally follow the scheme of argument adopted by the learned counsel for the appellants in resolving these issues. I shall therefore, take issues one, two and three together.

Issues One, Two and Three:
These issues are – Whether having regard to the combined effects of the provisions of Sections 1 (1), 6(6)(B), 178 (4), 287 (1) & (2) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended), Section 31 (5) & (6) of the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended), the decision of this Honourable Court in the case of Progressive Action Congress v. INEC (2009) All FWLR (part 478) CA page 260 and the State of Affidavit Evidence before the Court, the appellants need be misled by the information contained in the 2021 INEC affidavit Form EC-9 of the 3rd and 4th respondents for the information to be false and 3rd and 4th respondents disqualified as candidates in the November 6, 2021 Anambra State Governorship Election as wrongly held by the trial Court?
Having regard to the express provisions of Sections 1(1), 178 (4), 287 (2) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended), Sections 31 (1), (5) & (6) of the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended), ​the State of affidavit evident before the Court and the State of decided Judicial authorities, the trial Court and was right when it held that the appellants have failed to convince the Court that the 2nd, 3rd and 4th respondents supplied false information to the 1st respondent which the 1st respondent knowingly and willfully accepted? and
Whether the trial Court was wrong to have completely ignored and refused to apply the express provisions of Section 287 (1) & (2) of 1999 CFRN (as amended) vis-a-vis the decision of this Honourable Court in the case of Progressive Action Congress v. INEC (2009) All FWLR (part 478) CA page 260 and other relevant superior Judicial decisions in the instant case of the appellants without stating any reason in view of the state of pleadings of the parties and uncontradicted evidence placed before the trial Court?

The learned counsel for the appellants gave a precis of the case of the appellants at page 4 of his brief. He made a bullet of the points as follows:
a) That the 4th Respondent is a member of the 2nd Respondent (APGA) and his name and his 2021 INEC Affidavit Form EC9 (Exhibit 4 at pages 38 to 52 of the Record of Appeal) was received by 1st Respondent (INEC) on the 6th July, 2021 from the 2nd Respondent as the Deputy Governorship Candidate of the 2nd Respondent and the running mate to the 3rd Respondent and in its 2021 INEC Affidavit Form EC9, the 4th Respondent made a binding declaration on Oath that he is the person seeking election into the office of Deputy-Governor in the Awka II – Anambra Constituency Code: 04;
b) By 4th Respondent’s own showing, he is not seeking election into the office of Deputy- Governor in Anambra State Constituency as is the constituency for the purposes of Governorship election in Anambra State by the combined effect of Sections 1(1) and 178(4) of the 1999 CFRN (as amended) and First Schedule (Part 1) to the 1999 CFRN (supra);
c) While Section 178 (4) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (CFRN) (as amended) has made Anambra State a constituency for the purposes of Governorship election in the State, by virtue of the Nigeria Atlas of Electoral Constituencies published by 1st Respondent (INEC) (“Exhibits Plaintiff’ Further 5”) at pages 265 to 272, particularly at page 270 of the Record of Appeal, Awaka II – Anambra, Code No: 04 which the 4th Respondent bindingly declared on Oath to be seeking election into the office of Deputy – Governor is a non-existing constituency in Nigeria;
d) The Appellants have at the trial Court maintained that the 4th Respondent who vouched, swore and made a binding declaration on Oath to be seeking election into the office of Deputy Governor in the Awka II – Anambra Code No: 04 Constituency is not seeking election into the office of Deputy – Governor of Anambra State Constituency by the combined effect of Sections 1(1) and 178(4) of 1999 CFRN (supra) and the 4th Respondent therefore is disqualified from contesting the November 6, 2021 election into the office of Deputy – Governor in the Anambra State Constituency;
e) Differently too, the Appellants case is also that by the combined effect of Sections 1(1) and 178(4) of 1999 CFRN (as amended) taken together with the First Schedule (Part l) to the 1999 CFRN (supra) and Section 31 (5) and (6) of the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended), the Appellants reasonably believe that the information given by the 4th Respondent in his 2021 INEC Affidavit Form EC9 regarding the Constituency where he seek to contest election into the office of Deputy Governor is false, not being Anambra Constituency and the 4th Respondent is on this stretch also disqualified from contesting the November 6, 2021 Governorship election for giving false information to the 1st Respondent (INEC) in his 2021 INEC Affidavit Form EC9.

The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the 3rd and 4th Respondents’ binding declarations on Oath is clearly a certificate of the truth of the facts and particulars given by the 3rd and 4th Respondents. By their 2021 INEC Affidavit Form EC 9 on Oath, where any information given by any of them turns out to be false or not true against the 3rd and 4th Respondents, the 3rd and 4th Respondents would have presented false information or false certificate in the Form EC9 to the 1st Respondent (INEC). The learned counsel relied on the case of Peoples Democratic Party & Ors. v. Biobarakuma Degi-Eremienyo & Ors. (2020) LPELR – 49734 (SC).

The hallmark of the allegation is the contention that the 3rd and 4th Respondents bindingly declared and stated on Oath in their respective 2021 INEC Affidavit Form EC9 that they are seeking election into the office of Governor and Deputy Governor respectively in the Aguatta II Anambra and Awka II Anambra Constituencies, and not in the Anambra State Constituency which is the Constituency where the November 6, 2021 Governorship election is contested pursuant to Section 178 (4) and 1(1) of the 1999 CFRN (supra).

The learned counsel further submitted that the law is not that it should be lost on the Appellants or that Appellants have to be misled by the information contained in the Affidavit of personal particulars of the 3rd and 4th Respondents sworn on Oath not that there must be other elections being conducted such as to confuse the Appellants before the 3rd and 4th Respondent could be disqualified from the election pursuant to Section 1 (1), 178 (4) of the 1999 CFRN (as amended) and Section 31 (5) and (6) of the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended). That what is not true or correct is false. That in line with Section 178(4) of the 1999 CFRN (as amended), having a binding force on all authorities and persons throughout the Federal Republic of Nigeria by the implication of the provisions of Section 1(1) of the 1999 CFRN (as amended), the Appellants don’t need to be misled by the false information contained in the affidavits of personal particulars of the 3rd and 4th Respondents before Appellants can exercise their right to institute this suit and the 3rd and 4th Respondents disqualified as candidates in the November 6, 2021 Anambra State Governorship election in view of the 3rd and 4th Respondents binding false declarations of the on Oath in their various 2021 INEC Affidavit Form EC 9 that are also affirmed by the learned trial Judge in his judgment in lines 5 to 12 at page 454 of the Record of Appeal.

He placed heavy reliance on the cases of Progressive Action Congress v. INEC (2009) All FWLR (Pt. 478) CA at Page 319 to 320 paragraphs H – A, Ratio 7. He further relied on the cases ofArdo v. Nyako (2014) LPELR – 22878 (SC) and Uduma v. Arunsi (2010) LPELR 9133. Salim v. CPC (2013) LPELR 19928 (SC). He urged the Court to resolved these three issues in favour of the Appellants.

The 1st respondent in his own argument, canvassed that the allegation is criminal in nature and must be proved beyond reasonable doubt under Section 135(1), (2) of the Evidence Act, 2011. He relied on the case of Maihaja v. Gaidam (2018) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1610) 454 at 499.

The learned counsel further contended that the appellants did not challenge or appeal the findings of the trial Court in its judgment where he held as follows:
“l have carefully perused Form EC9 for the 3rd defendant i.e. exhibit 3. I can see that the said 3rd defendant marked that he was contesting for the position of Governor. He stated his constituency. In the affidavit in support of the particulars, he also clearly stated that he was contesting for the post of Governor, his constituency is Aguatta II, Anambra and the name of his political party… For the 4th Defendant is exhibit 4. I see that the 4th Defendant marked the post he was contesting for and also stated same in the affidavit in support of his particulars for that office…”

He submitted that these findings of the lower Court bind the parties since no appeal was raised on it. He submitted further that the case of Progressive Action Congress v. INEC (supra) heavily relied upon by the appellants is distinguishable from the instant case. This submission to my mind is unassailable. From the facts and the nature of the said case of Progressive Action Congress v. INEC (supra), the instant case is different. In that case which was a case claiming exclusion of the candidate of the party who indicated to be contesting for senate but filled a non-existing constituency and INEC did not put the candidate on the ballot paper. Here in the case at hand, no aspect of the information given by the 3rd and 4th Respondents was misleading. See the unchallenged findings of the trial Court at page 455 earlier mentioned. The Appellants, clearly on their own, revealed that the 3rd and 4th Respondents were contesting for the Anambra State Governorship and Deputy Governorship positions.

The learned counsel in addition submitted that Section 31 of the Electoral Act is an enabling provision. That if it is referring to the ground of qualification clearly stated any infraction must relate to the very point on which the qualification depends. He contended that cases are authorities for what they decided. That to rely on a case without relating it to the facts that induced it will amount to citing the case out of the proper context. He relied on PDP v. INEC & Ors. (2018) LPELR – 44373 (SC) 19 Paras B – C, FRN v. Nwosu (2016) 17 NWLR (Pt. 154) 226, Udo v. State (2016) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1525) 1 SC and Brittania O U (Nig.) Ltd., v. Sepiat Pet. Dev. Co., Ltd (2016) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1503) 541 SC. Putting their constituencies in their INEC Forms EC9 does not leave any person in doubt as to the positions the 3rd and 4th Respondents contested and that does not constitute one of the Constitutional requirements for qualification or a disqualifying factor to contest for Governorship or Deputy Governor of a state.

On the strength of the above, he urged the Court to affirm the decision of the trial Court as same is correct and unassailable and resolve the issues against the appellants.

I have painstakingly gone through the contention of the parties to this appeal. Let me say with emphasis that the issues generated here are wound round, the interpretation and operation of Sections 6(6), 36, 176, 178(4), 186, 187(1) & (2) of the 1999 Constitution and Section 31 (1 (2), (5) and (6) of the 2010 Electoral Act (as amended). All the provisions of the Constitution referenced are straightforward and by no means ambiguous. The only law that requires a deeper and thorough examination is Section 31 of the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended). Of relevance to us in this case is Section 31 of the Electoral Act. By Section 31, the law provides:
31. (1) Every political party shall not later than 60 days before the date appointed for a general election under the provisions of this Act, submit to the Commission, in the prescribed forms, the list of the candidates the party proposes to sponsor at the elections, provided that the commission shall not reject or disqualify candidate(s) for any reason whatsoever.
(2) The list or information submitted by each candidate shall be accompanied by an Affidavit sworn to by the candidate at the Federal High Court, High Court of State or Federal Capital Territory, indicating that he has fulfilled all the constitutional requirements for election into that office.
(3) The Commission shall, within 7 days of the receipt of the personal particulars of the candidates, publish same in the constituency where the candidates intends to contest the election.
(4) Any person may apply to the Commission for a copy of nomination form, affidavit and any other document submitted by a candidate at an election and the Commission shall, upon payment of a prescribed fee, issue such person with a certified copy of document within 14 days.
(5) Any person who has reasonable grounds to believe that any information given by a candidate in the affidavit or any document submitted by that candidate is false may file a suit at the Federal High Court, High Court of a State or FCT against such person seeking a declaration that the information contained in the affidavit is false.
(6) If the Court determines that any of the information contained in the affidavit or any document submitted by that candidate is false, the Court shall issue an order disqualifying the candidate from contesting the election.
​From the run of the provision of this law, there is nothing that requires any construction or that warrant deploying any sifting device to bring out the grains. The law is plain and simple. The approach of the Court in interpreting such a law is to adopt the literal Rule of Interpretation. This requires that words used in the law are given their clear and ordinary meaning unless to do so would lead to absurdity, injustice or inconsistency with the rest of the statute. See the case of Alhaji Ibrahim Hassan Dankwambo v. Jafar Abubakar & Ors., (2015) LPELR – 25716 (SC).
The direction of Section 31 (5) of the Electoral Act is very clear. Section 31 (5) thereof expressly states:
(5) Any person who has reasonable grounds to believe that any information given by a candidate in the affidavit or any document submitted by that candidate is false may file a suit at the Federal High Court, High Court of a state or FCT against such person seeking a declaration that the information contained in the affidavit is false.
This law, from all indication and conception does not afford any person an opportunity to mark Form EC 9 or any information supplied by the candidate as a script for errors. It is only for any person who has reasonable grounds or basis to believe that any information given by a candidate in the affidavit or any document is false.
The falsity of document or information that is required to deny a candidate of his goals is such as a partial statement of fact and the withholding of essential qualifications may make that which is stated absolutely false. It is not just picking up a clerical error. It is an intentional perversion of truth for the purpose of inducing another in reliance upon it to part with something valuable belonging to him or to surrender a legal right. I belief, it is akin to fraud. It is a false representation of a matter of fact, whether by words or by conduct, by false or misleading allegations or by concealment of that which should have been disclosed, which deceives and is intended to deceive another so that he shall act upon it to the advantage of the person making it.
See the definition of fraud in Ntuks & Ors., v. Nigerian Ports Authority (2007) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1051) 392, per Muhammad, JSC.

In the instant case, the false information is said to be given in the Form EC9 and affidavit of facts. The statement is said to be made by the 3rd and 4th Respondents in their Forms on Oath. The Form filled by the 3rd Respondent is annexed to the Writ as Exhibit 3. See pages 19 to 24 of the Record. Form EC 9 is meant for the use of many categories of the candidates. It reads:
“An affidavit in support of personal particulars”. It relates to particulars of persons seeking election to the Office/Membership of:
A – President
B – Vice President
C – Governor
D – Deputy Governor
E – Senator
F – Reps.
G – State House of Assembly
H – Chairman A/C
I – Vice Chairman
J – Councilor A/C
The constituency making up the Governorship of Anambra is well known. This is seen clearly from the provision of Sections 176(1), 178(4) of the Constitution. They read:
176.- (1) There shall be for each state of the Federation a Governor.
178.- (4) For the purpose of an election under this section a state shall be regarded as one constituency.
This shows clearly that you can only have one Governor per State and this makes it apposite to say that the issue of constituency cannot be falsified. It is baseless and absurd to allege that a candidate can falsify the constituency delineated for Governorship of a State. Under the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria, Anambra State has a specified constituency. Constituency is not a personal prerogative of a candidate. The appellants are not complaining of the personal information supplied by the 3rd and 4th Respondents in EC 9 and their affidavits of fact. They are not insinuating that they falsified age, certificate or educational qualification. It is constituency that is constitutional and statutory that they are alleging the 3rd to 4th Respondents falsified. This to say the least, is not only strange but, making a mockery of our law and trivializing the serious and weighty matters of the law as in Section 31 of the Electoral Act. This case to my mind is nothing but an abuse of the judicial process. Abuse of judicial process generally means that a party in litigation takes a most irregular, unusual and precipitate action in the judicial process for the sake of action qua litigation, merely to waste valuable litigation time. It is an action which is one (or more) too many; an action which could be avoided by the party without doing any harm to the matter in dispute. The process of the Court is used to overreach the adversary to the direct annoyance of the Court. the Court process is initiated with malice or in some premeditated or organised vendetta, aimed at frustrating either the quick disposal the matter or the abatement of the matter for no good cause. The Court process could also be said to be abused where there is no iota of law supporting it. In other words, the Court process is premised or founded on frivolity or recklessness. See Ntuk & Ors. v. NPA (2007) LPELR – 2076 (SC).

From the foregoing therefore, issues one, two and three are hereby resolved against the appellants.

Issues Four, Five, Six and Seven:
Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the decision of the trial Court questioning the purpose of the appellants’ suit, what it is meant to serve and also that he is not convinced that this action is reasonable is not correct, having regard to the documentary evidence placed by the appellants before the trial Court in support of appellants’ case. Counsel relied on the cases of Henry Stephens Engineering Ltd v. S.A. Yakubu (2009) LPELR-1363 (SC); Chief S. A. Dada & Ors v. Otumba Adeniran Ogunsanya & Anor. (1992) 3 NWLR (Pt. 212) 754; (1992) 4 SCNJ 162; Irene Thomas v. Olufosoye (1986) 1 NWLR (Pt. 18) 669; Adesola v. Abidoye & Anor (1999) 10-12 SC P.109; Section 287 (1) & (2) of the CFRN.

Learned counsel for the appellants argued that the appellants in their suit have not brought a criminal charge against the 3rd and 4th Respondents as that is not within the domain of the Appellants considering the provisions of Sections 6(6), 36, 176(1), 178(4), 186, 187(1) and (2) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) and First Schedule (part 1) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended), Order 3 Rule 1, 6, 7, 8 and 9 of the Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2019 pursuant to which the Appellants have predicated their suit. Counsel relied on the case of Odita v. COP (2012) LPELR-19947 (CA); Section 31 (5) and (6) of the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended).

​Learned counsel for the appellants further argued that the trial Court in its judgment dealt with issues not placed before it. He submitted that it is settled law that when an issue is not placed before a Court, such Court has no business whatsoever to deal with it as decisions of a Court of law must not be founded on any ground in respect of which it has neither received argument from or on behalf of the parties before it nor even raised by or for the parties or either of them. Counsel relied on the cases of Kraus Thompson org. Ltd v. Unical (2004) LPELR-1715 (SC); Amaechi v. INEC & Ors (2008) LPELR-446 (SC), (PP. 140, Paras. B); Metal Construction (WA) Ltd v. D.A. Migliore (1990) 1 NWLR (Pt. 126) 299; Obulor v. Oboro (2001) 8 NWLR (Pt. 714) 25; Kalgo & Anor v. Faruk & Ors (2008) LPELR-4495 (CA) AT (PP. 28 Paras. D; Marwa v. Nyako (2012) NWLR part 12296 Page 199 AT 271 Paras. F-H; Olubunmo & Ors v. Governor Ekiti State & Ors., LPELR-20405 (CA).

Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that rule of law emphasized on by the trial learned judge in this judgment, upon which also the Nigeria Constitution is founded primarily means that “everything must be done according to law”. “It means also that both government and political activities should be conducted and observed within the frame-work provided by the law”. Counsel relied on the cases of Obeya Memorial Hospital v. AG Federation & Anor (1987) LPELR-2163 (SC); Military Governor of Lagos State v. Ojukwu & Anor (1986) LPELR-3186) (SC); Modibo v. Mustapha Usman & 2 Ors. Counsel further submitted that the power to set aside such an order on costs wrongly exercised by the High Court is vested in the Court of Appeal. Counsel relied on Section 16 of the Court Appeal Act and the Court of Appeal Rules, and also the cases of Olusanya v. Osinleye (2013) LPELR-20641 (SC), (Pp. 22-23, Paras E); Emavworhe Etajata & Ors v. Peter Ologbo & Anor., (2007) 16 NWLR (Part 1061) 554.

Learned counsel for the appellants finally submitted that there is nothing on the record to show that those Exhibits/documents on which the Appellants herein heavily relied on were given due consideration they deserved.

In response, learned counsel for the 1st Respondent submitted that allegation of supply of false statement or making false declaration is criminal in nature and requires proof beyond reasonable doubt, for the appellants to succeed there is need for proof of those criminal allegations made against the 3rd and 4th Respondents beyond reasonable doubt. He cited the cases of Dikwa v. Modu (1993) 3 NWLR (Pt. 280) 183; Okonkwo v. Okagbue (1994) 9 NWLR (Pt. 368) Pg. 301, 325-326; Eboh v. Egbu (1994) 5 NWLR (Pt. 347) Pg. 703, 718; Maihaja v. Gaidam (2018) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1610) 454 Pp. 496 Paras. F-G; 502, Para G; Ngene v. Igbo (1991) 7 NWLR (Pt. 203) 358 AT 368 B; A.C.B v. Apugo (1995) 6 NWLR (Pt. 399) 65 AT 85D; Abubakar v. INEC (2020) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1737) 37 SC.

Learned counsel for the 1st Respondent submitted that the appellants did not allege an infraction of any of the sections of the Constitution. That Section 177 of the Constitution (supra) which is couched in a mandatory term by the use of the word “shall” prescribes the conditions which “shall” qualify a candidate to occupy the office of a Deputy Governor of State. That no other law can add or subtract from it unless enabled by the constitution. Counsel relied on the cases of INEC v. Musa (2003) 3 NWLR (Part 806) 72 AT page 205 para C-F; ANPP v. Usman (2008) 12 NWLR (part 1100) 1 AT 54-55; Agi v. PDP (2017) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1595) 386 AT 455 paras. A-C; PDP v. INEC & Ors (2018) LPELR- 44373 (SC) 19 paras B-C; FRN v. Nwosu (2016) 17 NWLR (pt. 154) 226; Udo v. State (2016) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1525) 1 SC; Brittania – U (Nig.) Ltd v. Seplat Pet. Dev. Co. Ltd (2016) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1503) 541 SC.

​Learned counsel for the 1st Respondent submitted that a cause of action is also combination of facts and circumstances which give rise to a right to sue or file a claim in Court for remedy. It includes all things which are necessary to give right of action and every material fact which has to be proved to entitle the plaintiff to succeed. Counsel relied on the cases of Egbe v. Adefarasin No. 2 (1987) 1 NWLR (Part 47) 1; Savannah Bank v. Pan Atlantic Shipping & Transport Agencies (1987) 1 NWLR (Part 49); Adimora v. Ajufo (1988) 6 SC; Idachaba v. Ilona (2007) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1030) 277; Dantata v. Mohammed (2000) 7 NWLR (Part 664) 181 AT 203; Okafor v. Nnodi (1963) 1 All NLR 373.

In response, learned counsel for the 2nd and 3rd Respondent submitted that the learned trial judge was correct in dismissing the Appellants’ case on the premise that they failed to establish that the 3rd and 4th Respondents were disqualified from contesting the Anambra State Governorship election by reason of rendering false information in their respective Forms EC9. Counsel relied on the cases of Agi v. PDP (2016) LPELR-42578 (SC); Nigerian Army v. Aminun-Kano (2010) 5 NWLR (Part 1158) 429; (2010) LPELR- 2013 (SC); PDP v. Oranezi (2018) 7 NWLR (Part 1618) 245; (2017) LPELR-43471 (SC); AG Abia State v. AG Federation (2002) 6 NWLR (part 763) 264 AT 391 to 392; INEC v. Musa (2003) 3 NWLR (part 806) 72 AT page 205 para C-F; AG Abia State v. AG Federation (supra); ANPP v. Usman (2008) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1100) 1 AT 54-55; Ugwu v. Ararume (2007) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1048) 367; Imam v. Sheriff (2005) 4 NWLR (Pt. 914) 80; FCSC v. Laoye (1989) 2 NWLR (Pt. 106) 652 AT 682 and 686; A.D v. Fayose (2005) 10 NWLR (Part 932) 151; Uduma v. Arunsi (2010) LPELR-9133; Salim v. CPC (2013) LPELR-19928 (SC).

Learned counsel for the 2nd and 3rd submitted that the use of the expression “…misleading and/or non-existent particulars…” is indeed instructive for at best that is essentially the basis of the Appellants’ case. However, Section 31 (5) and (6) of the Electoral Act do not deal with “misleading and/or non-existent particulars.” On this score the Appellants failed to bring their case under the jurisdiction of the Court based on Section 31 (5) and (6) of the Electoral Act 2010. On this score they ought to fail. Counsel relied on the cases of Bayo v. Njidda (2004) 8 NWLR (part 876) 544; Yakubu v. Jauroyel (2014) 11 NWLR (part 1418) 205; Adewale v. Olaifa (2012) 17 NWLR (Part 1330) 478; Ogboru v. Uduaghan (2013) 5-6 SC (part 11) 145; (2013) LPELR-20805 (SC) AT 19 paras. B-D.

Learned counsel for the 2nd and 3rd Respondents further submitted that the appellants complaint bothers on style adopted by his lordship. The law is however, trite that there is no particular style for writing a judgment as long as it reflects the case presented in Court. Counsel relied on the cases of Ajiboye v. FRN (2018) 13 NWLR (part 1637) 430; (2018) LPELR-44468 (SC); Ajao v. Alao (1986) 12 SC (Reprint) 134 AT 148; Inter-contractors Nig. Ltd v. NPFMB (1988) 1 NSCCC 759 AT 768; Ikumonihan v. State (2018) LPELR-44362 (SC).

​Learned counsel for the 4th Respondent submitted that the constitutional grounds for qualification/disqualification in Governorship elections have been specifically outlined in Sections 177, 182 and 187 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended). That this Court should reject the invitation of the Appellants to widen and extend constitutional grounds for qualification/disqualification to contest for office of Governor/Deputy Governor to Section 178 (4). That it is an invitation to embark on Judicial Legislation, which the Court below rejected. He relied on the cases of Kotoye v. Saraki (1994) 7 NWLR (Pt. 357); Olatunji v. FRN (2003) 3 NWLR (Pt. 807) 406; Tanarewa (Nig.) Ltd v. Plastifarm Ltd (2003) 14 NWLR (Pt. 840) 355; Adeokin Records v. Musical Copyrights Society of Nigeria (Ltd/Gte) (2018) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1643) 550 AT 564. Counsel further submitted that the lawmaker used “reasonable grounds” in Section 31 (5) for a purpose. If the element of “reasonableness” is unnecessary for a suit under section 31 (5), the section would have simply said: “Any person who has grounds to believe…” That it is trite that the lawmaker does not use any word in vain: Counsel relied on the cases of Orubu v. NEC (1988) 5 NWLR (Pt. 94) 323 AT 382; Savannah Bank Nig Ltd v. Ajilo (1989) 1 NWLR (Pt. 97) 305 AT 329; Kolawole v. Alberto (1989) 1 NWLR (Pt. 98) 382 AT 417; Tukur v. Governor of Gongola State (1989) 4 NWLR (Pt. 117 517 AT 579.

​Learned counsel for the 4th Respondent submitted that the position of the law is now settled that a complaint of presenting false information under Section 31 (5) and (6) of the Electoral Act must be rooted on a constitutional ground of qualification/disqualification for the office being contested. Even Section 31 (2) said so by mentioning fulfilment of “all the constitutional requirements for election into that office.” Counsel relied on the cases of Joe Odey Agi, SAN v. PDP & Ors (2017) 17 NWLR (Pt 1595) 386 AT 454-456; Nduul v. Wayo (2017) LPELR-44607 (CA); Nduul v. Wayo (2018) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1646) 548; (2018) LPELR-45151 (SC); Mohammed v. Wammako (2017) LPELR-42667 (SC); (2018) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1619) 573; Atiku Abubakar & Anor v. INEC & Ors (2020) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1737) 37 AT 110 B-C. Learned counsel finally submitted that a Court is no longer bound to consider and pronounce on every issue before it, if the issues have been subsumed in the issue the Court has distilled and adopted for determination. Counsel relied on the cases of Adebayo v. A.G Ogun State (2008) 2-3 SC (Pt. Il) 50; NTA v. Babatope (1996) 4 NWLR (Pt. 440) 75 AT 89; Okonji v. Njokanma (1991) 7 NWLR (Pt. 202) 131 AT 146.

Learned counsel for the appellants in their Reply Brief to the 1st Respondent submitted that by the binding force of the provision of Section 178 (4) of the 1999 constitution (as amended), the 3rd and 4th Respondents who declared on oath that they seek to contest election into the office of Governor and Deputy Governor in constituencies other than Anambra State and contrary to the said provisions of the 1999 constitution are not qualified as candidates in the November 6, 2021 Anambra State Governorship election. Counsel relied on the cases of Ede v. Chita (2016) LPELR-41031 (CA) (Pp. 25 Paras. C); State v. Ughanwa (2020) 3 NWLR (Part 1710); Ugwu v. Ararume (2007) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1048) 367 AT 498; Madumere & Anor v. Okwara & Anor (2013) LPELR-20752 (SC), (PP. 38, Paras. A). Solumade v. Kuti (2022) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1810) ratio 12; Odita v. COP (2012) LPELR-19947(CA); Yusufu & Anor v. Obasanjo (2003) 16 NWLR (Pt. 847) 554; Tukur v. Government of Gongola State (1989) 4 NWLR (Pt. 117) 592; Aqua Ltd v. Ondo sport Council (1988) 4 NWLR (Pt. 91) 622; NDIC v. Okem Ent. Ltd. (2004) 10 NWLR (Pt. 880) 107 AT 183 (Paras. c-D; Oke v. Oke (1974) 1 All NLR 1) 443 AT 450; Abasi v. State (1992) NWLR (Pt. 260) 383; Fortune International Bank Plc v. Pegasus Trading Office (GMBH) & Ors (2004) 15 C (pt.11) 164; Angos Dide & Ors v. Ebiotu Seleiletimibi & Ors (2008) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1110) Page 207 AT page 225, Paras. B-c; PDP & Ors v. Biobarakuma Degi-Eremienyo & Ors ​(2020) LPELR-49734 (SC); Adeyeye v. Oduoye & Ors (2010) LPELR- 3623 (CA).

Learned counsel to the appellants in his Reply to the 2nd and 3rd Respondents’ brief of argument submitted that legal consequences of a provision being subject to another is that the one it is made subject to will override the said provision. Therefore, Sections 177, 182 and 187 of the constitution cannot override the provisions of Section 178 (4) of the same constitution. Counsel relied on the cases of Yusufu & Ors v. Obasanjo (2003) 16 NWLR (Pt. 847) 554; Tukur v. Govt., of Gongola State (1989) 4 NWLR (Pt. 117)592; Aqua Ltd v. Ondo Sport Council (1988) 4 NWLR (Pt. 91) 622; NDIC v. Okem Ent. Ltd (2004) 10 NWLR (Pt. 880) 107 2 183 (Paras. C-D); Oke v. Oke (1974) 1 NLR (Part 1) 443 AT 450; Abasi v. State (1992) NWLR (Pt. 260) 383; Fortune International Bank Plc v. Pegasus Trading Office (GMBH) & Ors (2004) 15 C (Pt. 11) 164; PDP & Ors v. Biobarakuma Degi- Eremienyo & Ors (2020) LPELR-49734 (SC); Adeyeye v. Oduoye & Ors (2010) LPELR-3623 (CA) Ede v. Chita (2016) LPELR-41031 (CA) (PP.25 Paras. C); Ajayi v. Mil. Adm. Ondo State (1997) 5 NWLR (Part 504) 237; Anyanwu v. Ogunewe (2014) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1410) 437; Akere v. Governor Oyo State (2012) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1314) 240.
Learned counsel for the appellants in his Reply Brief to the 4th Respondent brief of Argument argued that the Constitution has specifically made Anambra State a constituency for the purpose of Governorship election therefore no other constituency can suffice or serve in place of it as the constituency where a person can qualify to seek to contest election as Governor or Deputy Governor in Anambra State. Counsel relied on the cases of Adeyeye v. Oduoye & Ors (2010) LPELR-3623 (CA); Ehuwa v. Ondo State Independent Electoral Commission & Ors (2006) LPELR-1056; PDP & Ors v. Biobarakuma Degi-Eremienyo & Ors (2020) LPELR-49734 (SC) Malhaji v. Gaidam (2017) LPELR-42474 (SC); Angos Dide & Ors v. Ebiotu Seleiletimibi & Ors (2008) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1110) Page 207 AT Page 255, Paras. B-C; Anyanwu v. Ogunewe (2014) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1410); Akere v. Gov. Oyo State (2012) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1314) 240; Solumade v. Kuti (2022) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1810) Ratio 12; Lafia Local Government v. Gov. Nassarawa State (2012) 17 NWLR (Part 1328) 94.  

These issues as earlier reproduced in this judgment cumulatively relate to the issue of having a reasonable cause of action. The learned trial judge was not convinced that there is any reasonable cause of action in this case. The appellants in their brief of argument contended that their cause was reasonable. They relied on the cases of Henry Stephens Engineering Ltd v. S.A. Yakubu (2009) LPELR – 1363 (SC), Thomas v. Dr. Olufosoye (1986) 1 NWLR (Pt. 18) 669, Chief S.A. Dada & 3 Ors., v. Otunba Adeniran Ogunsanya & Anor., (1992) 3 NWLR (Pt. 212) 754. They urged the Court to hold that their case disclosed reasonable cause of action.

The word “reasonable” means fair, proper, moderate, suitable under the circumstances. In the case of Barbus & Co. Nig. & Anor. v. Mrs. Gladys Oyiboka Okafor Udeji (2018) LPELR – 44501 (SC), the Supreme Court per Okoro, JSC, held that:
“The question may be asked, what is reasonable cause of action? Tobi, JSC, (of blessed memory), in Rinco Construction Company Ltd., v. Veepee Industries Ltd & Anor., (2005) LPELR 2949 (SC) at page 14 paragraphs E – G defined reasonable cause of action as follows:- “Reasonable cause of action means a cause of action with some chances of success. For a statement of claim to disclose a reasonable cause of action, it must set out the legal rights of the plaintiff and the obligations of the defendant. It must then go on to set out the facts constituting infraction of the plaintiffs legal right or failure of the defendant to fulfil his obligation in such a way that if there is no proper defence, the plaintiff will succeed in the relief or remedy he seeks”. Also reported in (2005) 9 NWLR (Pt. 929) 85 and (2005) 3-4 SC page 1. See also Ibrahim v. Osim (1988) 3 NWLR (Pt. 82) 257, Oshoboja v. Amuda & Ors. (1992) 6 NWLR (Pt. 250) 690, SPDC Nig., Ltd., Ltd & Anor., v. X.M. Federal Ltd & Anor (2006) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1004) 189. The law is trite that whenever issue of reasonable cause of action is raised, it is the statement of claim or, as in this case the averments in the affidavit in support of an Originating Summons or Motion that ought to be considered. So long as the statement of claim or the affidavit in support of the originating Motion discloses some cause of action, or raises some question which can be decided by a Judge, there is reasonable cause of action. The mere fact that the case is weak, and not likely to succeed, is no ground for striking it out or dismissing it. See Yusuf & Ors. v. Akindipe & Ors., (2000) 8 NWLR (Pt. 669) 376.”
The law in its posture and frame is settled that what is reasonable is relative based on the facts and circumstances of the case. In Hado (Nig.) Ltd & Anor v. Chris brown Int’l Ltd. & Anor., Eko, JCA, (as he then was) made a primary statement of the law on this issue when he held that:
“It is settled, from the authorities that a cause of action means the factual situation stated by the plaintiff, which if sustained, entitles him to the remedy against the defendant. It is that set of facts which gives the plaintiff the right to sue the defendant. It comprises every fact which is the material to be proved to enable the plaintiff to succeed. See Egbe v. Adefarasin (1985) 3 SC 214, Thomas v. Olufosoye (1986) 1 NWLR (Pt. 8) 669. The reasonable cause of action is that cause of action which, in law, has some chances of success and which sets out the legal rights of the plaintiff and the obligations of the defendant. Rinco Const. Co v. Veepee Ind. Ltd (2005) 9 NWLR (Pt. 929) 85. Since in law, no action can arise from an immoral or illegal cause, no cause of action founded on such immoral or illegal cause can be a reasonable cause of action”.
​To locate if there is a reasonable cause of action, one needs to look at the Originating Process. In the instant case, the appellant in his affidavit in support, at paragraphs 9, 10, 16, 17, deposed as follows:
9. The 3rd Defendant is a member of the 2nd Defendant. The 3rd Defendant’s name was received by 2nd Defendant on the 6th July, 2021 from the 2nd Defendant as the Governorship candidate of the 2nd Defendant for AGUATA II – ANAMBRA, CODE: SC/77/AN.
10. The 3rd Defendant by his own showing in his INEC Form EC- 9 – Affidavit in support of Personal Particulars dated 1st July, 2021 resides at Isuofia Road: Aguata LGA, Anambra State (Soludo Road) Umueze Village, Isuofia, Aguata LGA; a place within the Statutory jurisdiction of this Honourable Court.
16. That I know that there exists no Aguata – II Anambra Constituency in respect of Governorship Elections scheduled to hold on 6th November 2021 or thereabout. 

17. That the 3rd Defendant is bound by his declaration on oath deposed to before Commissioner of Oaths, FCT High Court on 1st July, 2021.

A look at the affidavit and the Exhibited documents in this case with due respect, does not by any dint of imagination disclose any reasonable cause of action. Of course, a successful submission that a plaintiff’s claim discloses no cause of action terminates the action in limine. In effect, in the absence of a reasonable cause of action or any cause for that matter, the appellant has no locus standi to sustain an action in the Court. See Uwazuruonye v. The Governor, Imo State & Ors., (2012) LPELR- 20604 (SC).

From the foregoing therefore, I am of the firm view that the trial Court got it right when he said he did not believe there was a reasonable cause of action in this case. Consequently, issues 4, 5, 6 and 7 are hereby resolved against the appellants.

From the foregoing consideration therefore, it is certain and conclusive that his appeal is bereft of any iota of merit. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

CROSS – APPEAL

In the 4th Respondent/Cross-Appellant’s Cross- Appeal, two issues were generated. The fulcrum of the cross-appeal was on the failure of the trial Court to consider in an in depth manner, the issues raised as issue one by the 4th Respondent. This issue is whether the cause of action has accrued at the time this matter was originated. This issue was captured by the learned trial judge in his judgment at page 442 of the record where it was stated to be the 1st issue raised by the 4th Respondent. That issue reads:
1. Whether or not an allegation of presenting false information to INEC under Section 31 (5) of the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended) can be made against a candidate whose names and personal particulars were never published by INEC under Section 31(3) of the Electoral Act (supra).
The learned trial judge did address this issues adequately well. The law does not say a complainant should wait for publication of the particulars by INEC. If a complainant is aware of the particulars and he wants to complain, he can without waiting for formal publication by INEC originate his action. The argument of the cross- appellant on the issue of lack of reasonable cause of action if pressed further would have given us the leverage to allow the cross-appeal in part. But considering the decision we have taken in the main appeal, revisiting it here will only result into an academic exercise. We have carefully gone through the arguments of the parties in this cross-appeal and we have found no reason to alter our decision in the appeal that the trial Court was right in dismissing the claim of the appellants.

It is in this respect that this cross-appeal is also dismissed. The Judgment of the learned trial judge in Suit No: FHC/ABJ/CS/711/2021, delivered on 1st day of December, 2021 is affirmed.

The parties are to bear their respective costs.

ELFRIEDA OLUWAYEMISI WILLIAMS-DAWODU, J.C.A.: I have had the opportunity of reading in draft the lead Judgment of my learned brother, Stephen Jonah Adah, JCA, and I am in total agreement with the reasoning and conclusion reached therein.

Carefully going through the processes before the Court leaves one in no doubt that the nomination of the 3rd and 4th Respondents as Governorship and Deputy Governorship Candidates respectively, should not be voided. Further, to hold that both the 3rd and 4th Respondents were not qualified or eligible for the offices of the Governor and Deputy Governor of Anambra State, in my respectful view, will not only be unnecessary technicality but avoidable denial of their respective rights.

In that regard therefore and with the fuller reasons contained in the lead Judgment, I also dismiss the appeal and affirm the Judgment of the learned trial Judge in Suit No: FHC/ABJ/CS/711/2021 delivered on the 1st December, 2021.

I make no order as to costs.

DANLAMI ZAMA SENCHI, J.C.A.: I was in conference of the panel of Justices that heard this Appeal and I have had the privilege of reading in advance the draft copy of the lead judgment by my learned brother, STEPHEN JONAH ADAH, JCA just delivered. The lead judgment substantially captured all my views I expressed during the conference and I agree with the findings and conclusion in the lead judgment that this Appeal lacks merit and I dismissed it.

Before I draw the curtain, I want to chip in by saying that I have perused all the processes filed by the Appellants at the lower Court. I have in particular looked at the questions asked in the Originating Summons, the Reliefs sought and the Affidavit supporting the Original Summons; my mind keeps on pondering as to whether the suit of the Appellants disclosed a reasonable cause of action?

In the case of BARBUS & CO. (NIG) LTD & ANOR V OKAFOR- UDEJI, (2018) LPELR 44501, the Supreme Court on how a reasonable cause of action can be determined held thus:-
“The question may be asked, what is reasonable cause of action? Tobi, JSC (of blessed memory), in Rinco Construction Company Ltd v Veepee Industries Ltd & Anor, (2005) LPELR 2949 (SC) at page 14 paragraph E- G defined reasonable cause of action means a cause of action with some chances of success. For a statement of claim to disclose a reasonable cause of action, it must set out the legal rights of the Plaintiff and the obligations of the Defendant It must then go on to set out the facts constituting infraction of the Plaintiff’s legal right or failure of the Defendant to fulfill his obligation in such a way that if there is no proper defence, the Plaintiff will succeed in the relief or remedy he seeks. ” See also Ibrahim V Osim (1988)3 NWLR (pt 82) 257, OSHOBOJA V AMUDA & ORS (1992)6 NWLR (PT 250) 690, SPDC (NIG) LTD & MOR V XM FEDERAL LTD & ANOR, (2006)16 NWLR (pt 1004)189. The law is trite that whenever issue of reasonable cause of action is raised, it is the Statement of Claim or as in this case, the averments in the Affidavit in support of an Originating Summons or Motion that ought to be considered So long as the Statement of Claim or the Affidavit in support of Originating Motion discloses some cause of action, or raises some questions which can be decided by a judge, there is reasonable cause of action.“

In the instant case, I have perused the 35 paragraph Affidavit of the Appellant filed at the Lower Court to determine whether the suit of the Appellants discloses a reasonable cause of action? (see pages 10-24 of the Record of Appeal) especially paragraphs 9 -25 of the Affidavit in support. The crux of the Appellants’ complaint in a nut shell was that the 3rd & 4th Respondents submitted false information to INEC i.e. by their 2021 INEC Form EC9, the Governor and Deputy Governor presented false information and non-existent constituency. The Appellants further averred at paragraph 29 of the Affidavit in support as follows: “That the Plaintiffs are interested in who becomes the Governor and Deputy Governor of Anambra State and not Aguata – II Anambra Constituency or Awka Il Anambra State.”

Now a close look at the Affidavit of personal particulars attached to the Affidavit in support of the Originating Summons marked Exhibit 3, the information given by the 3rd & 4th Respondents as regards the office being contested, the 3rd box is ticked indicating that the 3rd & 4th Respondent were vying for the positions of Governor and Deputy Governor respectively. And further down the Affidavit of personal particulars, the 3rd & 4th Respondents indicated Anambra State with Code 04. The Constituency whereby the 3rd Respondent entered Anambra: Aguata II does not mean that the 3rd Respondent was contesting Governorship of Aguata II. The information shown at (pages 19 and 20 of the Record of Appeal clearly showed that the 3rd Respondent was contesting for Governorship of Anambra State and not Governorship of Aguata II.

Thus, by the Appellants’ folly, where is the reasonable cause of action in the instant case? The Affidavit in support of the Originating Summons and the Appellant’s misconceived exhibit 3 and I hold the view that the 3rd & 4th Respondents were candidates of the entire Anambra Constituency and not Aguata Constituency. It therefore further established the fact that the Appellants have no locus standi and the present suit amounts to an abuse of Court process.

Accordingly, having dismissed the appeal, the Judgment of the Lower Court in suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/711/2021 delivered on 1st December, 2021 by Taiwo O. Taiwo, J is hereby affirmed.

CROSS-APPEAL:
I have had the opportunity of reading in draft the lead judgment of my learned bother Stephen Jonah Adah, JCA just delivered and I agree with the conclusion reached therein that the cross-appeal lacks merit and it is dismissed by me.

Appearances:

A.O. Ijeri Esq., with him, E.K. Okoko, Esq. – for Appellants/Cross Respondents For Appellant(s)

I.S. Mohammed, Esq. – for 1st Respondent
Dr. Onyechi Ikpeazu, SAN, and P.I.N. Ikweto, SAN, with: T. Nweke, Esq. – for 2nd and 3rd Respondents
C.I. Mbaeri, Esq., with him, E.K. Anwu, Esq. – for 4th Respondent/Cross Appellant For Respondent(s)