KUNLE YUSUFF & ANOR v. AKINTOLA OLUOKUN GEORGE & ORS (2019)

KUNLE YUSUFF & ANOR v. AKINTOLA OLUOKUN GEORGE & ORS

(2019)LCN/13801(CA)

In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

On Monday, the 14th day of October, 2019

CA/IB/EPT/OY/REP/14/2019

JUSTICES

JIMI OLUKAYODE BADA Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

NONYEREM OKORONKWO Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

FOLASADE AYODEJI OJO Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

Between

1. KUNLE YUSUFF

2. PEOPLES DEMOCRATIC PARTY – Appellant(s)

AND

1. AKINTOLA OLUOKUN GEORGE

2. ALL PROGRESSIVES CONGRESS (APC)

3. INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION (INEC) – Respondent(s)

RATIO

WHETHER OR NOT A PETITIONER MAKING ALLEGATONS OF CORRUPT PRACTICES IN ELECTION PETITIONS, MUST LEAD COGENT AND CREDIBLE EVIDENCE TO PROVE THEM BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT

Furthermore, in OMISORE & ANOR V AREGBESOLA & ORS (2015) 15 NWLR (PT. 1482)205, the Supreme Court per Okoro, JSC held thus: I need to emphasize that in Election Petitions, where allegations of corrupt practices are made, the petitioner making these allegations must lead cogent and credible evidence to prove them beyond reasonable doubt because they are in the nature of criminal charges. Being criminal allegations, they cannot be transferred from one person to another. It is personal. Thus it must be proved as follows:

1. That the respondent whose election is being challenged personally committed the corrupt acts or aided, abetted, consented or procured the commission of the alleged corrupt practices.

2. That where the alleged act was committed through an agent, that the agent was expressly authorized to act in that capacity or granted authority; and

3. That the corrupt practice substantially affected the outcome of the election and how it affected it. See AREGBESOLA VS. OYINLOLA (2011) 9 NWLR (PT. 1253) PG.458 AT 557; AUDU VS. INEC (NO. 2) (2010) 13 NWLR (PT. 1212) 456 AT 544.” PER OJO, J.C.A.

WHETHER OR NOT FINDING ON STANDARD OF PROOF NOT APPEALED AGAINST IS DEEMED ADMITTED

The Appellants did not appeal against the finding on the standard of proof. They are deemed to have admitted that these allegations needed to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and were not proved. This finding remains valid and binding on all the parties. See ANYANWU VS. OGUNEWE & ORS (2014) 8 NWLR (PT. 1410) PG.437; OBASANJO & ANOR VS. BUHARI & ORS (2013) 17 NWLR (PT. 850) 510 AND FIRST BANK OF NIG. PLC VS. OZOKWERE (2014) 3 NWLR (PT. 1395) 439. PER OJO, J.C.A.

WHETHER OR NOT A PETITIONER WHO ALLEGES OVER VOTING IN AN ELECTION PETITION HAS THE DUTY TO PROVE SAME

It is settled law that it is not enough for a Petitioner in an election petition to allege over voting. He has the duty to prove same. To discharge that responsibility, the law requires the Petitioner to do the following:

1. Tender the voters register

2. Tender the statement of results in the appropriate forms which would show the number of accredited voters and number of actual votes.

3. Relate each of the documents to the specific area of his case in respect of which the documents are tendered

4. Show the figure representing the over voting, if removed would result in victory for the Petitioner.

See HARUNA VS. MODIBBO (2004) FWLR (PT. 238) PG. 740, (2004) 16 NWLR (PT. 900) PG. 487; KALGO VS. KALGO (1999) 6 NWLR PT. 608 PG. 639; LADOJA VS. AJIMOBI (2016) 10 NWLR (PT. 1519) PG.87 AT 148, PARAS. B-E; SHINKAFI VS. YARI (2016) 7 NWLR (PT. 1511) PG. 340 AND INIAMA VS. AKPABIO (2008) 17 NWLR (PT. 1116) PG. 225.

Furthermore, where a Petitioner alleges non-compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act, he has the duty to prove;

a) That the corrupt practice or non-compliance took place and

b) That the corrupt practice or non-compliance substantially affected the result of the election.

See Section 138 (1b) and 139 (1) of the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended) and the cases of AWOLOWO VS. SHAGARI (2001) FWLR (PT. 73) PG. 53 AND BUHARI VS. OBASANJO (2005) ALL FWLR (PT. 258) PG. 1604; (2005) 2 NWLR (PT. 910) PG. 241. PER OJO, J.C.A.

WHETHER OR NOT A COURT IS ALLOWED TO ACT ON ANY DOCUMENT NOT TENDERED AND ADMITTED IN EVIDENCE BEFORE THE COURT

I also agree that a Court is not allowed to act on any document not tendered and admitted in evidence before the Court. In fact, no Court is allowed to go outside the gamut of evidence before it to shop for materials upon which to use to decide a case before it. See Skye Bank Plc v. Chief Moses B. Akinpelu (2010) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1198)179, Oparaji v Ohanu (1999) 9 NWLR (Pt. 618)290, Olagbemiro v Ajagungbade III (1990) 3 NWLR (Pt. 136)37 at 63, Sommer & Ors v Federal Housing Authority (1992) 1 NWLR (Pt. 219(548 at 557-558. PER OJO, J.C.A.

WHTHER OR NOT A PERSON TO TENDER A DOCUMENT IS THE MAKER

The law is trite that the person to tender a document is the maker. Where a person who is not the maker tenders it and he may in certain circumstances the Court will not attach any probative value to it as the veracity and credibility of such documents can only be established through the maker. See LAMBERT VS. NIGERIAN NAVY (2006) 7 NWLR (PT. 980)514 AT 547 PARAS. A-E; FLASH FIXED ODDS LTD VS. AKATUGBA (2001) 9 NWLR (PT. (717) PG. 46 AT 63 and AWUSE VS. ODILI (2005) 16 NWLR (PT. 952) PG. 416 AT 488. ?PW1. PER OJO, J.C.A.

FOLASADE AYODEJI OJO, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): This is an appeal against the Judgment of the National and State House of Assembly Election Petition Tribunal, Oyo State holden at Ibadan in Petition No:EPT/OY/REP/04/2019 delivered on 16th August, 2019 wherein the Tribunal dismissed the Petition in its entirety.

The 1st Appellant as the candidate of the 2nd Appellant and the 1st Respondent as the candidate of the 2nd Respondent participated in the election conducted into the House of Representatives for Akinyele/Lagelu Federal Constituency on 23rd February, 2019. At the conclusion of the election, the 3rd Respondent declared the 1st Respondent winner of the election and returned him as elected. Dissatisfied with the said declaration and return, the Appellants filed a Petition at the lower Tribunal on the 15th of March, 2019. The grounds for the Petition are as follows:

i. That the election was invalid by reasons of irregularities, corruption, electoral malpractices or non-compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended)

?ii. That the Respondent was not duly elected by majority of lawful

votes cast at the election.

The Appellants as Petitioners therefore prayed the Tribunal for the following reliefs:-

?WHEREOF, the Petitioner prays as follows:

(a) That it may be determined that the results of the election into the membership of the Akinyele/Lagelu Federal Constituency held on the 23rd of February, 2019 in the following Wards and Units of Akinyele/Lagelu Local Government were affected by irregularities, malpractices and non-compliance with the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended).

Ward 4 units 6 and 5

Ward 5 units 8 and 11

Ward 7 unit 4

Ward 8 units 11, 15, 16, 8, 21, 27, 42, 25, 26, 32, 40

Ward 9 units 5 and 6

Ward 11 unit 02

Ward 10 unit 07

?(b) That may be determined that the results of the election into the membership of Akinyele/Lagelu Federal Constituency held on 23rd of February, 2019 in the following wards and units in Lagelu Local Government, ward 1 unit 3, unit 4, unit 5, unit 6, unit 8, unit 9, ward 2 unit 1, unit 2, ward 3 unit 1, unit 2, ward 4 unit 2, unit 4, unit 6 and unit 9, ward 6 unit 3, unit 4, unit 6, ward 7 unit 3, unit 9 were affected by irregularities,

malpractices and non-compliance with the Electoral Act, 2010 (As Amended). That it may be determined that the 1st Respondent was not validly elected as a member of Akinyele/Lagelu Federal Constituency having not scored the majority of the lawful votes in the election to the membership of the House of Representatives held on the 23rd day of February, 2019.

(c) AN ORDER of this Honourable Tribunal declaring the 1st Petitioner, KUNLE YUSUFF as the candidate that scored the highest number of lawful votes cast in the election to the membership of House of Representatives representing Akinyele/Lagelu Constituency held on the 23rd day of February, 2019.

OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE AN ORDER DIRECTING THE 3RD RESPONDENT (INEC) to conduct a rerun election in the affected areas.”

See pages 31 ? 32 of the Record.

Issues were joined by the parties on the settled pleadings. The 2nd Respondent however did not file a Reply to the Petition. After conducting a pre-hearing conference, the Lower Tribunal proceeded to hear the Petition. The Appellants as Petitioners called fifteen (15) witnesses and subpoenaed one witness while the 1st Respondent

called seven (7) witnesses. The 2nd Respondent who did not file a Reply to the Petition called no witness. The 3rd Respondent who filed a Reply to the Petition did not call any witness. At the close of evidence, Counsel filed their respective final written addresses which they adopted as their final oral arguments.

The Appellants who are dissatisfied with the Judgment of the Tribunal filed a Notice of Appeal containing fifteen (15) Grounds on the 5th of September 2019. See pages 904 ? 919 of the Record.

The Appellants filed an Appellants Brief of Argument on 20th of September, 2019; a reply Brief to the 1st Respondent?s Brief on the 28th of September, 2019 and a Reply to the 3rd Respondent?s Brief on the 2nd of October, 2019.

The 1st Respondent filed a 1st Respondent?s Brief of Argument on the 25th of September, 2019. The 3rd Respondent filed a 3rd Respondent?s Brief of Argument on the 27th of September, 2019.

At the hearing of this appeal on the 4th of October 2019, J. D. Olaniyan of Counsel adopted the Appellants Brief of Argument and the Reply Briefs filed on behalf of the Appellant as the Appellants oral

arguments and urged us to allow the Appeal.

Learned Counsel to the 1st Respondent, Abiodun Amole, Esq., adopted the 1st Respondent’s Brief of Argument as his oral arguments in opposition to the appeal. He however abandoned the Preliminary Objection contained in the Brief of Argument. The said Preliminary Objection having been abandoned was consequently struck out. Learned Counsel thereafter urged us to dismiss the Appeal.

Learned Counsel to the 3rd Respondent, Babajide Onadele, Esq., adopted the 3rd Respondent?s Brief of Argument as his oral submission in urging us to dismiss the Appeal.

The Appellants in their Brief of Argument identified four (4) issues for determination to wit:

1. Whether the Honourable Tribunal evaluated the Appellants? evidence or placed probative value thereon to reach its decision. (Grounds 1, 4, 5, 11, 13 & 14)

2. Whether the Appellants placed sufficient evidence before the Tribunal to ground allegation of non-compliance and the substantiality of same; with the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended) particularly in form of over-voting, cancellation of election and mutilation of result sheets.

(Grounds 10, 12 & 15)

3. Whether the Honourable Tribunal was right to have considered one relief and jettisoned the other reliefs placed before the Honourable Court especially where there is a relief in the alternative, among other issues placed before the Court but which were not pronounced upon. (Ground 2)

4. Whether the Honourable Tribunal was right to have held that the Appellants had no relief against Akinyele Local Governments Area, when there are reliefs in respect of Akinyele/Lagelu Federal Constituency which consist of Akinyele and Lagelu Local Government Areas and where the various units and wards being challenged and upon which evidence were led were well spelt out in the Petition (Grounds 3, 6 & 7).

For his part, the 1st Respondent formulated the following issues for determination:

1. Whether the Tribunal failed to evaluate the Appellants? evidence and ascribe probative value thereto before arriving at its decision that the Appellants? Petition lacked merit and therefore dismissed same. (Grounds 1, 4, 5, 11, 13 and 14).

?2. Whether the Appellants adduced or proffered cogent, compelling and

credible evidence before the Tribunal and therefore proved or established the various allegations of electoral malpractices, irregularities and non-compliance contained in the Petition (as to succeed as per the reliefs sought) regard being had to their pleadings, the oral testimony of their witnesses as well as the INEC documents purportedly relied upon in proof of their case which were neither tendered in evidence nor given upon by their maker as to make the Tribunal ascribe probative/evidential value to them. (Grounds 10, 12 and 15)

3. Whether the Tribunal was bound to consider and make pronouncements on the alternative relief sought by the Petitioners upon declining to grant the main relief. (Ground 2)

4. Whether the parties as well as the Hon. Tribunal were not bound strictly by the Appellants? own pleadings that complained about ?Akinyele/Lagelu Local Government Area? and could deviate or go outside same. (Ground 3, 6 and 7)

The 3rd Respondent adopted the four issues formulated for the Appellants as his.

?Upon a careful perusal of the record, the Grounds of Appeal and the Briefs of parties I am of the view that

the four issues distilled by the Appellants would suffice in the determination of this Appeal. Learned Counsel for the Appellants in the Appellants Brief of Argument argued issues 1 and 2 together and further argued issues 3 and 4 together. I shall adopt the same sequence in the resolution of this appeal.

ISSUES ONE (1) AND TWO (2)

1. Whether the Honourable Tribunal evaluated the Appellants? evidence or placed probative value thereon to reach its decision. (Grounds 1, 4, 5, 11, 13 & 14)

2. Whether the Appellants placed sufficient evidence before the Tribunal to ground allegation of non-compliance and the substantiality of same with the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended) particularly in form of over-voting, cancellation of election and mutilation of result sheets. (Grounds 10, 12 & 15)

?In arguing Issue No. 1 which borders on evaluation of evidence adduced on record by Appellants? witnesses, Learned Counsel for the Appellants stated the settled position of the law to wit: that the Lower Tribunal who had the opportunity to hear and observe the countenance of witnesses had the primary duty to evaluate the evidence and

ascribe probative value to it. He craved in aid the cases of HASHIDU VS. GOJE (2003) 15 NWLR (PT. 843) 352 AT 391 PARAGRAPH H; SALAKO VS. DOSUNMU (1997) 8 NWLR (PT. 517) 37; OLUBODUN & 4 ORS. VS. LAWAL (2008) ALL FWLR (PT. 434) PG. 1468 AT 1510 PARAGRAPHS A ? D. He went on to submit that based on this settled position of the law, the lower Tribunal failed to appropriate probative value to the evidence of the witnesses on record.

After giving a brief review of the evidence adduced by PW1 to PW16 before the Tribunal he submitted that apart from PW3 every other witness called by the Appellants gave evidence of what they directly perceived in the election. He contended that despite the evidence of the witnesses as summarized by it, the lower Tribunal still failed to give probative value to the evidence, jettisoned same thereby falling short in its expected duty. He relied on the cases of PDP VS. SYLVA (2012) ALL FWLR (PT. 637) 606 AT 645 ? 646 PARAGRAPHS G ? A; EMIRATES AIRLINES VS.S NGONADI (2014) ALL FWLR (PT. 741) 1603 AT 16 37 F; OYEKOLA VS. AJIBADE (2004) 17 NWLR (PT. 902) 356 (2005) ALL FWLR (PT. 242) 436. He also referred to the

finding of the lower Tribunal at page 899 of the record to submit that the Tribunal only picked three of the Appellants witnesses and generalized same on the entire evidence adduced on behalf of the Appellant. He contended that the complaint of the Appellants are unit based and for which reason the Appellants called various agents from various collation centres to testify on their behalf. He submitted that failure to consider the evidence of all the witnesses and the documentary evidence by the Tribunal occasioned a miscarriage of justice. He submitted further that the lower Tribunal failed to consider Exhibit P23 to ascertain the incidence or otherwise of the alleged over voting. Learned counsel argued that from the oral evidence adduced on behalf of the Appellants and the documentary evidence tendered, the Appellants proved allegations of over voting, cancellation, alteration and mutilation of results by credible evidence and urged us to so hold. He cited the cases of AFOLALU VS. THE STATE (2010) 43 NSQR 227 AT 248; MOSES VS. THE STATE (2010) 41 (PT. 2) NCQR 758 AT 790 to submit that proof beyond reasonable doubt does not translate to proof beyond shadow of doubt.

It is counsel?s further submission that ward supervisors, local government collation agents and state collation agents are competent witnesses as long as their evidence is direct within the meaning of Section 125 of the Evidence Act and urged us to hold that the Appellants witnesses who gave evidence of what they personally witnessed on the day of election are competent witnesses. He relied on the cases of LASUN VS. AWOYEMI & ORS (2009) LPELR ? 11912 (CA) 47 ? 43 PARAGRAPHS F ? A; OMISORE VS. AREGBESOLA (2015) 15 NWLR (PT. 1482) 205 AT 324 PARAGRAPHS A ? C.

On the alleged non-compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act, Learned Counsel submitted that the Appellants tendered Exhibit P7 (FRM EC 40G) which shows that elections were cancelled in two polling units and called witnesses to speak to the Exhibit. This according to him go to show that the Appellants led credible and uncontroverted evidence in proof of the allegation of over voting which the lower Tribunal should have accepted as unchallenged. He relied on the cases of NACENN (NIG.) LTD. VS. BEWAC AUTO PROD. LTD. (2011) ALL FWLR (PT. 585) 280 AT

292) B ? C; OFORLETE VS. THE STATE (2000) FWLR (PT. 12) 2081 AT 2099 and IDOGHOR VS. IDOGHOR (2014) ALL FWLR (PT. 746) 538 AT 544 PARAGRAPHS E ? F.

On Exhibit P1 ? P24 tendered through PW3 an official of the 3rd Respondent, learned counsel argued that the documents having been tendered by the maker and evidence given thereon by the agents of the Appellants who were familiar with them, the lower Court was duty bound to evaluate them. He craved in aid of his submission the cases of ADELEKE VS. IYANDA (2001) 13 NWLR (PT. 729) PG. 20 PAGRAGRAPHS B ? D and ARABAMBI VS. ADVANCE BEVERAGES INDUSTRIES LTD. (2005) 19 NWLR (PT. 959) PG. 9 AT 31.

Learned counsel submitted further that the total number of affected votes in the units complained of is substantial enough to affect the result of the elections. He said the total number of votes in the units complained about is 9, 252 votes while the difference between the votes cast in favour of the 1st Respondent and the Appellant is 3, 510 votes. He argued further that where there are issues of over voting, mutilation/cancellation of results the proper attitude of the Court is to nullify

such results and order a re-run election in the affected areas. He went on to say this Court is clothed with the powers to so do and urged us to nullify the results for ward 8 unit 21 (Lagos Garage) in Akinyele and Ward 6 Unit 6 (Akankan village); Ward 4 Unit 2 (Community Grammar School, Ejioku) and Ward 6 Unit 3 (Ile Ago) in Lagelu Local Government Area of Akinyele/Lagelu Federal Constituency of the House of Representatives.

Furthermore, in the Appellants brief of argument counsel after a review of the evidence adduced by witnesses by the 1st Respondent submitted that the evidence of the witnesses assisted in establishing the case put up by the Appellants. He submitted that evidence elicited under cross examination on matters that are pleaded on which issues are joined is admissible. On the failure of the 2nd and 3rd Respondents to call evidence, counsel argued that such is an admission of the allegation made by the Appellants and entitles the Appellants to the reliefs sought. On the alternative relief sought by the Appellants, counsel argued that the failure of the lower Tribunal to consider the alternative relief based on the evidence before it was very fatal.

Learned Counsel to the 1st Respondent in the 1st Respondents Brief of Arguments submitted that contrary to the submission of the Appellants counsel, the lower Tribunal evaluated the evidence before it, and ascribed probative value before arriving at its decision. He referred to pages 884 ? 890 of the record where the Tribunal evaluated the evidence and pages 901 ? 902 where probative value and appropriate findings were made. He submitted that it was after evaluation, ascription of probative value and making findings of fact that the lower Tribunal reached the conclusion that the Petition was lacking in merit and awarded N20,000 costs in favour of the 1st and 3rd Respondents. He relied on the case of UDO VS. THE STATE (2006) 15 NWLR (PT. 1001) PG. 179 AT 190 PARAGRAPHS D ? E where it was held that a Judge is not enjoined to record every little detail of what transpired in proceedings but all that is required is to record salient and relevant proceedings ensuring substantive justice so that no miscarriage of justice is occasioned.

He argued further in the alternative that assuming without conceding that the Lower Tribunal

made a mistake in the way and manner it evaluated the evidence led before it, he said it is not every error or mistake in a judgment that vitiates or warrants the setting aside of the judgment except the mistake is substantial and has occasioned a miscarriage of justice. He cited in support the cases ofU.L.G.C. VS. INWANG (2010) 4 NWLR (PT. 1185) 529 AT 557 PARAGRAPHS A ? B and N.B.C. PLC VS. OLANREWAJU (2007) 5 NWLR (PT. 1027) PG. 255 AT 267 PARAGRAPHS C- D.

On whether the Appellants adduced cogent, compelling and credible evidence before the lower Tribunal in proof of the allegations made by them, learned Counsel to the 1st Respondent submitted the burden of proving the criminal allegations of electoral malpractices, over voting, irregularities and non-compliance made is on the Appellants by virtue of the provisions of Section 131 of the Evidence Act. He further relied on the cases of NDUUL VS. WAYO (2018) 16 NWLR (PT. 1646)548 AT 586, PARAS. C-D; ADIGHIJE VS. NWAOGU (2010) 12 NWLR (PT. 1209) PG.419 AT 467-468, PARAS. H-B; BUHARI VS. INEC (2008) 19 NWLR (PT. 1120)246 AT 350, PARAS. E-F; and others. Counsel argued further that the result of the

election challenged by the Appellants declared by the 3rd Respondent enjoys the presumption of regularity pursuant to the provisions of Section 168 (1) of the Evidence Act and that where a party such as the instant Appellants allege to the contrary they have a burden to rebut the presumption otherwise the results remain valid. He contended that the instant Appellants having failed to prove the allegations made there was nothing for the Respondents to rebut. He submitted further that the Appellants had a duty to prove that the non-compliance complained about substantially affected the outcome of the election which they failed to do. He stated that the Appellants called a total number of sixteen (16) witnesses in proof of their case in a Federal Constituency with 26 Wards and 273 Polling Units. He said in that situation the Appellants cannot be held to have proved their case. He relied on the cases of EZE VS. OKOLOAGU (2010) 3 NWLR (PT. 1180)183 AT 229, PARAS. C-H where it was held that a party who called 5 witnesses in proof of allegation of non-voting in five polling units out of 1,084 polling booths in six Local Government Areas cannot be said to have

captured the entire constituency.

Learned Counsel argued further that the alleged electoral malpractices are criminal in nature for which the law requires proof beyond reasonable doubt. He submitted that the Appellants did not tender any INEC documents before the Tribunal to prove the electoral malpractices alleged which according to him is very fatal. This he said is because PW3, Rahman Shakirudeen Adeniyi who produced the documents did so based on a subpoena duces tecum. He was invited to produce the documents listed in the subpoena (Exhibit P3). He said in the circumstance PW3 lacked the capacity to tender the documents purportedly tendered through him. He relied on Section 219 of the Evidence Act which provides that a person summoned to produce a document does not become a witness by such and cannot be cross-examined until he is called as a witness. He craved in aid the cases of INEC VS. ACTION CONGRESS (2009) 2 NWLR (PT. 1126) 524 AT 595-598, PARAS. H-B; AKONO VS. NIGERIAN ARMY (2000) FWLR (PT. 28) PG. 221 AND HASKE VS. MAGAJI (2009) ALL FWLR (PT. 461) 887 and others on the position that a person served with a subpoena duces tecum can only produce a

document before a Court of law as opposed to tendering same. He submitted that there is a difference between production of a document before a Court and tendering same and argued that the documents used by the Appellants were not tendered or placed before the Tribunal by PW3.

Counsel argued further that the witnesses for the Appellants who gave evidence on the INEC documents produced by PW3 are not the makers of the documents and as such not competent to give evidence on them. He submitted that only documents tendered by the maker have probative value. He cited a plethora of authorities in support of his argument including NYESOM VS. PETERSIDE (2016) 7 NWLR (PT. 1512) PG. 452 AT 522-523, PARAS. G-A; BELGORE VS. AHMED (2013) 8 NWLR (PT. 1335) 60 AT 100, PARAS. E-F AND IKPEAZU VS. OTTI (2016) 8 NWLR (PT. 1513) PG.38 AT 93, PARAS. A-B.

Learned Counsel further submitted that the evidence of PW3, PW9, and PW12 constitute hearsay evidence which according to law is not credible evidence. He craved in aid the cases of IKPEAZU VS. OTTI (2016) 8 NWLR (PT. 1355) PG.60 AT 93, LADOJA VS. AJIMOBI (2016) 10 NWLR (PT. 1519) PG.87 AT 159, PARAS. D-F AND SARAKI VS.FRN

(2018) 16 NWLR (PT. 1646) PG.405 AT 464, PARAS. G-H. He submitted that Section 126 of the Evidence Act provides that for oral evidence proffered by parties to be admissible, it must be direct and based on facts within the personal knowledge of the witness. He therefore urged us to hold that the allegations of irregularities, non-compliance with the provision of the Electoral Act and malpractices alleged in the Petition were not proved by oral and documentary evidence at the trial.

He further urged us not to believe the Appellants witnesses as their testimonies were pre-arranged and stand discredited. This he said is because a cursory look at the witness statements on oath of all the Appellants witnesses allege that the same thing occurred in all the 26 wards and 273 Polling Units that make up Akinyele/Lagelu Federal Constituency and such evidence should not be believed. He relied on the case of AJADI VS. AJIBOLA (2004) 16 NWLR (PT. 898) PG.79 AT 201, PARAS. G-H.

For his part, learned Counsel to the 3rd Respondent in the 3rd Respondent?s Brief of Argument argued mainly on the same line as the 1st Respondent?s Counsel. He referred us to

pages 897-902 of the Record where the lower Tribunal evaluated the evidence, ascribed probative value and made finding of facts before coming to the conclusion that the Petition lacked merit. He pointed out that the lower Tribunal evaluated the evidence adduced by PW1, PW2, PW 3, PW5, PW9, PW12, PW14, PW15 and PW16 and submitted that the assertion of the Appellants that the Tribunal used the evidence of three witnesses to generalise on the evidence of all Appellants? witnesses cannot be true.

Learned Counsel to the 3rd Respondent cited cases including BUSARI VS. ADEPOJU (2017) ALL FWLR (PT. 878) PG.464 to support his position that the burden of proof in election Petitions is on the Petitioner who will fail if no evidence is led at all by either party to the proceedings. On what the Appellants were required to prove in other to establish allegation of non-compliance and over voting, he cited the cases of OLOFIN VS. RASAKI (2016) ALL FWLR (PT. 830) PG.1281 AND EMERHOR VS. OKOWA (2017) ALL FWLR (PT. 896) PG.1868 AT 1905 C.

He went on to review the evidence of the Appellants? witnesses and urged us to note that the evidence was not tied to

any of the exhibits dumped on the lower Tribunal. He submitted that the lower Tribunal was right when it discountenanced the evidence of the witnesses and urged us to so hold. He relied on the case ofAMACHREE VS. GOODHEAD (2009) ALL FWLR (PT. 461) PG.911 AT 940 C-E AND ACTION CONGRESS OF NIGERIA VS. LAMIDO (2012) ALL FWLR (PT. 630) PG.1316 where it was held that a Court cannot assume the duty of tying documentary exhibits to specific aspect of the case for a party who has not himself done so.

Learned Counsel further submitted that the Appellants who sought declarative reliefs from the lower Tribunal must succeed on the strength of their own case and not on the weakness of the defence. He argued that the sixteen witnesses called by Appellants to prove allegation of irregularities, malpractices and non-compliance gave evidence under cross-examination that there was due accreditation, voting and that results were announced in their presence. This he said showed substantial compliance in the conduct of the election. He submitted further that Exhibits P4 – P16 produced in Court by PW3 pursuant to a subpoena duces tecum were not properly received in evidence

and should have been expunged from the Record by the lower Tribunal and urged us to discountenance the documents and expunge them from the Record.

The Appellants filed a Reply Brief to the 1st Respondent?s Brief and a reply to the 3rd Respondent?s Brief of Argument. The law is settled that the function of a Reply Brief is to respond to new arguments or points raised in the Respondent?s Brief of Argument. It is not an opportunity to re-open, fine tune or amplify arguments already treated by parties in their Briefs of Argument. See ABUBAKAR & ORS VS. YAR?ADUA (2008) 19 NWLR (PT. 1120) PG.1; NYESOM VS. PETERSIDE & ORS (2016) 1 NWLR (PT. 1492) PG.71; OKESUJI VS. LAWAL (1991) 1 NWLR (PT. 170) PG.661; MOZIE & ORS VS. MBAMALU & ORS (2006) 15 NWLR (PT. 1003) PG.466. I have gone through the Reply Briefs filed by the Appellants and I find them to be in the main a repetition of the arguments already contained in the Appellants Brief of Argument and I so hold. I shall therefore discountenance all the repeated arguments and refuse to consider them.

Now, to a resolution of the two issues.

Upon a reflection on the

arguments of Appellants Counsel under the said issues 1 and 2, it is clear that their discontent in the main is that the lower Tribunal failed to evaluate and ascribe probative value to the evidence of the witnesses for the Appellants and also that the lower Tribunal was in error when it held that the Appellants failed to prove by credible evidence the allegation of non-compliance with the Electoral Act, particularly in the form of over-voting, cancellation of election and mutilation of result sheets. I shall begin with the later complaint.

The lower Tribunal at page 899 of the Record held as follows:

Some of the allegations of electoral malpractices and irregularities of cancellation of results, thuggery, and connivance to favour the 1st and 2nd respondents are criminal in nature which requires proof beyond reasonable doubt. The apex Court held so in MARITIME MGT ASSOCIATES INC. VS. NAT. MARITIME AUTH. (2012) 12 SCNJ PT.1, P. 128 165-166 L. 38-3 held per Galadima JSC, that:-

?The purport of S. 138(1) of the Evidence Act is that:- If the commission of a crime by a party to any proceedings is directly in issue in any

proceeding civil or criminal, it must be proved beyond reasonable doubt.?

The apex Court has held further and severally, too that, the burden to prove criminal allegation never shifts. See Lekan Olaoye v The State (2018) 1 SCNJ pt. 2 p. 307/344-345 L. 35-1; Held per Sanusi, JSC, where it was held: –

?The onus of proof in criminal cases does not shift as the burden throughout lies on the prosecution in criminal trial which must prove the guilt of the accused.?

We are guided accordingly and hold, therefore, that even though this is a civil proceeding, the duty to prove allegations which are criminal in nature is on the Petitioners and the said burden of proof does not shift until the said standard of proof is discharged by the petitioners.?

The above is the unassailable position of the law.

At paragraphs xvii, xviii of the Petition contained in page 18 of the Record, the Appellants alleged the incidence of fraud, malpractices and irregularities as to cancellation and alteration identified on result sheet of Akinyele Local Government as follows:

?(xvii) In Akinyele Ward 8, Unit 15, Iyane Sasa 1,

your Petitioner aver that the number of registered voters on the register at the Polling Unit is 736 and the total number of the accredited voters is 258. The result recorded by the 3rd Respondents officer is full of alterations and irregularities, malpractices and corrupt practices which were against the provision of the Electoral Act and the manual for election.

(xviii) In Akinyele Ward 8 Unit 011 at HLA School Ojoo II, the Petitioner aver that the numbers of Registered Voters on the Voters Register is 1462. The number of accredited Voters is 450, the total number of valid votes as recorded by the 3rd Respondent officer is 393 as captured on the EC 8B (II) while the total number of invalid votes is also captured on the EC 8B (II) as 66. The total number of vote cast on the EC 8B (II) is 422. But from the calculation of scores of all the parties on the EC 8B (II), the total number of votes cast is 349 against the 393 recorded by officer of the 3rd Respondent on the EC 8B (II). Also the record is full of alterations, irregularities, corrupt practices and non-compliance with the Electoral Act and the manual that regulates the election.?

See also paragraphs vii ? xxv at pages 24 ? 27 of the record where the Appellants as Petitioners also allege fraud, malpractices and irregularities in Lagelu Local Government. The allegations in all of the above quoted paragraphs which revolve around alteration, cancellation of entries in result sheets without countersigning deliberately to cover up acts of corrupt practices, electoral malpractices at the named units during the election in question are all criminal in nature. Allegation of alteration and/or cancellation of entries made in result sheets of polling units by their very nature impute crime. This being so, the Appellants as Petitioners at the lower Tribunal had a bounden duty to prove them beyond reasonable doubt. See GUNDIRI VS. NYAKO (2014) 2 NWLR (PT. 1391) PG.211 AT 255, PARA. A; NWOBODO VS. ONOH (1984) 1 SCNLR 1 AT 17; KALU VS. UZOR (2006) 8 NWLR (PT. 981) PG.68 AT 87-88; AJADI VS. AJIBOLA (2004) 18 NWLR (PT. 898) PG.91 AT 163-164; CHIME VS. ONYIA (2009) 2 NWLR (PT. 1124) PG.1 AT 62-63, PARAS. F-C.

In MARK VS. ABUBAKAR (2009) 2 NWLR (PT. 1124) PG. 79 AT 183-184, PARA. G, this Court held as follows:

?The issue of fraud is

akin to jurisdiction and whenever it is raised a Court ought, in the circumstances, consider same and arrive at a just finding and punish the culprit where necessary.?

The Appellants who in their pleadings raised the issue of fraud that is alteration of election result sheets had the burden to prove by credible evidence that the Respondent is the culprit who committed the act or that he authorized his agents to so do. This is because the Respondent cannot be held liable for the criminal acts of another person. See EBOH VS. OGUJIOFOR (1999) 3 NWLR (PT. 595) PG.419; ANAZODO VS. AUDU (1999) 4 NWLR (PT. 594) PG.215; GABRIEL A. ADEDIRAN VS. GANIYU A. LADAPO & ORS. (1991) 1 LECN 110 AT 121.

In OYEGUN VS. IGBINEDION (1992) 2 NWLR (PT. 226) PG.747 AT 760, PARAS. F-H, this Court per Nasir, P.C.A. (as he then was) held as follows:

From the above authorities, it is clear that for the Appellant to be held responsible in this Appeal for the acts of Chief Isekhure it has to be proved by credible evidence that the Chief was an agent of the Appellant or that the Chief (D.W. 5) was acting on special or general authority of the Appellant or

those of somebody who was an agent of the Appellant. The Tribunal found as a matter of fact that the Chief was not an agent of the Appellant and that the Appellant was aware of what the Chief was doing in support of the Appellant?s campaign. It was also found by the Tribunal that the Oba of Benin had not authorised the action of the Chief. It seems to me that even if the Oba and his Chiefs solicited gratis for votes in support of the Appellant, the Appellant ought not to be held liable or accountable for any illegality committed in the process unless clear element or authorisation or request can be proved. In any event, the accusation is for a criminal offence created under Section 102(2) and punishable under Section 107 of Decree 50. Whoever alleges such offence must prove them beyond reasonable doubt.?

Furthermore, in OMISORE & ANOR V AREGBESOLA & ORS (2015) 15 NWLR (PT. 1482)205, the Supreme Court per Okoro, JSC held thus:

I need to emphasize that in Election Petitions, where allegations of corrupt practices are made, the petitioner making these allegations must lead cogent and credible evidence to prove them beyond

reasonable doubt because they are in the nature of criminal charges. Being criminal allegations, they cannot be transferred from one person to another. It is personal. Thus it must be proved as follows:

1. That the respondent whose election is being challenged personally committed the corrupt acts or aided, abetted, consented or procured the commission of the alleged corrupt practices.

2. That where the alleged act was committed through an agent, that the agent was expressly authorized to act in that capacity or granted authority; and

3. That the corrupt practice substantially affected the outcome of the election and how it affected it.

See AREGBESOLA VS. OYINLOLA (2011) 9 NWLR (PT. 1253) PG.458 AT 557; AUDU VS. INEC (NO. 2) (2010) 13 NWLR (PT. 1212) 456 AT 544.”

I have carefully examined the Appellants? Petition at pages 1-196 of the Record, the Petitioners? Reply to 3rd Respondent?s Reply to the Petition at pages 432-492 of the Record as well as Petitioners? Reply to 1st Respondent?s Reply to the Petition at pages 432 ? 492 of the Record as well as the Petitioners Reply to the 1st

Respondent?s Reply to the Petition at pages 493 ? 555 of the record. I note that there is nowhere in the entire gamut of the Petition and the replies where the Appellants pleaded the identity of any person who altered the results or who was authorized by the 1st Respondent to so do. The Petitioner pleaded that the alleged acts were perpetrated by agents of the Respondents but they failed to mention which of the agents and for which respondents such agent acted. There is also no averment that the alleged alterations and entries were authorized or authored by the 1st and 2nd Respondents.

None of the witnesses who testified for the Appellants at the lower Tribunal placed liability on the 1st and 2nd Respondents or any person authorized by them. In any case, there is no pedestal on which such evidence can stand. Little wonder then, when the lower Tribunal merely identified the criminal nature of some of the allegations made in the Petition and said no more. There was no evidence to evaluate in relation to the criminal allegations made by the Appellants in the Petition. The Appellants did not appeal against the finding on the standard of proof.

They are deemed to have admitted that these allegations needed to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and were not proved. This finding remains valid and binding on all the parties. See ANYANWU VS. OGUNEWE & ORS (2014) 8 NWLR (PT. 1410) PG.437; OBASANJO & ANOR VS. BUHARI & ORS (2013) 17 NWLR (PT. 850) 510 AND FIRST BANK OF NIG. PLC VS. OZOKWERE (2014) 3 NWLR (PT. 1395) 439. My conclusion on this point is that the Appellants failed to prove the criminal allegations on the election results emanating from Ward 8, Unit 15, Iyana Sasa I and at Ward 8, Unit 011 at HLA School Ojoo II both in Akinyele Local Government and I so hold. I further hold that the allegation of fraud, malpractices at Lagelu Ward 1 unit 003, St. Stephen Pry. Sch polling unit; Lagelu Ward 1 Unit 004, Ajara/Opeodu polling unit; Lagelu Ward 1 unit 005 Ajara/Oju-Irin Onikokoro II polling unit, Lagelu Ward 1 unit 006 I.D.C. Pry Sch. Ajara polling unit; Lagelu Ward 1 Unit 009, Otun Olode Village polling unit; Lagelu Ward 2 Unit 001, Salvation Army School, Apatere polling unit; Lafelu Ward 2 Unit 002 St Paul?s Primary School, Igbaro polling unit; Lagelu Ward 3, Unit 001 Lagelu

Court Hall Olorunda; Lagelu Ward 4 unit 006, Comm. Primary School, Arikuyeri polling unit; Lagelu Ward 4 unit 009, Olowo polling unit; Lagelu Ward 7 unit 003;Isale Osun Lalupon polling unit; Lagelu Ward 7 Unit 009 Ajiwogbo Egan Polling Unit and Lagelu Ward 7 all situate in Akinyele/Lagelu Federal Constituency were not proved.

The complaint of the Appellants that the lower Tribunal failed to evaluate and ascribe probative value to the evidence of their witnesses can be conveniently taken along with the complaint of non-compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act including over-voting. I shall therefore take both complaints together. On this point, the lower Tribunal at pages 901-902 of the Record found as follows:

?We shall now go ahead to weigh the evidence of the petitioners in this petition to see if the standard of proof of non-compliance stated in the above Supreme Court judgments have been met. The petitioners stated the various malpractices and non-compliance in the units of the wards and Local Governments affected and concluded that valid votes as scored by the parties upon which the reliefs in the petition are based are as below: –

APC PDP

Scores of parties as declares On form EC8D 19,280 15,770

Less: votes affected by total Votes exceeding accreditation (over voting) – 746 461

Less: votes affected by non-Recording of accreditation — 4,363 2,804

Less votes affected by ballot Verification/accreditation – 4,663 2,004

Scores of parties after Deduction – 9,352 9,661

?The Petitioners stated that the above are the lawful scores of the parties after the deductions of the votes affected by the alleged malpractice, irregularities and non-compliance. According to the petitioners, the 1st petitioner won the election with votes of 9,352. The petitioners and witnesses have not given any evidence before us to show and establish how they arrived at the various scores or figures used for the above deductions. Documentary evidence as to the above various deductions have not been tendered before us. There is also no evidence before us to show how the petitioners did their calculation and arrived at the above alleged valid votes for the parties. That is to say that, the arithmetical formula arrived at and used has not been explained

nor given in evidence to assist the Tribunal. Put differently, there is no evidence or convincing evidence from the petitioners as to how they arrived at the highest votes scores of 9,661 for PDP and 9352 for the APC. There is no evidence specifically identifying and or connecting the particular polling unit?s results from where the various figures were deducted.?

The contention of the Appellants before us is that the lower Tribunal failed to properly assess the evidence before it in arriving at its decision to dismiss the petition. This being so, I find it imperative to first ascertain what the Appellants allege in their petition to be non-compliance with the provision of the Electoral Act and over-voting as I believe it would assist in the determination of whether the lower Tribunal did a proper evaluation of the evidence before it and whether the said evidence constitute credible proof of the allegations.

The allegation of non-compliance and irregularities made by the Appellants in their Petition filed at the Lower Tribunal include failure to follow the procedure prescribed for the conduct of election contained in the Manual for

Election, over voting, disruption of voting exercise, not forming queue to ascertain number of voters prior to commencement of election, lack of proper accreditation and non-usage of card reader.

1. Tender the voters register

2. Tender the statement of results in the appropriate forms which would show the number of accredited voters and number of actual votes.

3. Relate each of the documents to the specific area of his case in respect of which the documents are tendered

4. Show the figure representing the over voting, if removed would result in victory for the Petitioner.

Furthermore, where

a Petitioner alleges non-compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act, he has the duty to prove;

a) That the corrupt practice or non-compliance took place and

b) That the corrupt practice or non-compliance substantially affected the result of the election.

Still on the allegation of over voting, it is not enough for the Petitioner to allege and prove over voting. He must in addition show that the said over voting enured in favour of the winner of the election.

To discharge the burden placed on them the Appellants called fifteen witnesses. They also caused to be subpoenaed one Rahman Shakirudeen Adeniyi who was a Deputy Director and Head of Department Operations with the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) the 3rd Respondent. He came before the lower Tribunal based on the subpoena duces tecum. A subpoena duces tecum is a process by which a Court at the instance of a party summons a person

to produce documents specified therein believed to be in his possession or under his control. See Section 218 Evidence Act, 2011; and FAMAKINWA VS. UNIBADAN (1992) 7 NWLR (PT. 255) PG.608 AT 626, PARAS. F-G.

Furthermore, Section 219 of the Evidence Act, 2011 provides as follows:

?A person summoned to produce a document does not become a witness by the mere fact that he produces it and cannot be cross-examined unless and until he is called as a witness.”

It follows therefore that PW3 who was summoned to produce documents and who came to Court upon service on him of a subpoena duces tecum and who produced the documents so requested was not a witness before the lower Tribunal. He could not give evidence and did not give evidence, he could not and was not subjected to cross-examination. He only appeared in Court to produce the documents. See pages 850 ? 854 of the Record.

On the status of the documents produced in Court through him, this Court in the case of Famakinwa vs. Unibadan (supra) at 624 – 625, per Salami JCA held as follows:

The word produce, therefore, means no more than ?bring

forward? or ?to bring out? or ?to put on stage?. A person who brings forward a document cannot be said to have given it in evidence not to talk of his having capacity to give and tender it in evidence particularly when the person served with the subpoena duces tecum has the option or liberty to cause it to be produced in Court through any other person of his choice.

It is, therefore, my firm view that Section 192 merely authorizes a subpoena duces tecum to be issued to a person to deliver to the Court a document either personally or through any other person he may consider suitable for the assignment. Once such a document is delivered or caused to be delivered to Court the person?s obligation is discharged and cannot be sworn or cross-examined. But the delivery of the document in Court pursuant to Section 192 of the Evidence Act does not relieve the person who summoned an adverse party to produce a document of the burden of proving the document by having it admitted in evidence by tendering it through a person who has capacity to do so.?

I am at one with the reasoning of my learned brother quoted above and I

wholly adopt it as mine. Premised on the foregoing, it is my firm view that PW3 who appeared in Court in furtherance of a subpoena duces tecum lacked the capacity to tender the documents marked as Exhibits P4 – P16 in evidence and I so hold. The documents at best could have been marked for identification purposes. In the circumstance the documents marked Exhibits P4 ? P16 do not constitute documentary evidence before the lower Tribunal and I so hold. The Appellants at whose instance the documents were produced had the responsibility to tender the documents properly before the Court through a competent witness. The documents could only have been tendered through PW3 after he was sworn by taking an oath or by affirmation and he must present himself for cross-examination by the Respondents. All these did not happen. The Respondents did not have the opportunity to cross-examine PW3 on Exhibits P4 ? P16 and as such reliance on such documents by the Court would have constituted a breach of the respondents? right to fair hearing as guaranteed under Section 36 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal republic of Nigeria (as amended). See AKONO VS. THE NIGERIAN ARMY

(2000) 14 NWLR (PT. 687) PG. 318. The lower Tribunal was therefore right when it refused to attach probative value to Exhibits P4 – P16 and held as follows:

?It is not in dispute that the PW3 is a subpoenaed witness and cannot be sworn, give evidence, not be cross examined on such documents. The practice in our legal system in this regard is that when a party discovers that the documents or evidence he needs to present in support of his case or claim are in possession of his opponent, against who he requires such documents, he applies before the Court or Tribunal for an order to compel or direct such party to present the documents to aid his case. This was what exactly happened in this petition in respect of the appearance of the PW3 before the Tribunal. We want to point out clearly that such a witness in theory is a witness called by the Court, but as a fact and in practice such a witness is normally ordered to appear at the instance and for the benefit of the party that require the documents in his possession. The jurisprudence and or the rationale behind the Court or Tribunal accepting to sign a subpoena is to assist a party present

his case to be heard on its merit and or in the interest of justice, particularly when the claim is against the party in whose possession the documents needed are. After having signed a subpoena by a Court or Tribunal and such documents are presented, it is left for the party that needs such document to do the needful, as the Court or Tribunal itself does not have any interest in the said documents.?

As rightly found by the lower Tribunal, the ball was in the court of the Appellants to decide what to do with the documents after the production by the subpoenaed Witness PW3. From the record of proceedings, it is clear that the documents produced by PW3 and marked Exhibits P4 ? P16 were never tendered in evidence by any other witness called by the Appellants. The documents produced are:

1. Distribution Forms for all the polling units in Akinyele/Lagelu Federal Constituency-marked as Exhibit P4.

2. Election Guidelines and Manual for 2019 Elections- marked as Exhibit P5.

?3. Voters? Register used in the conduct of election on 23rd of February, 2019 for all polling units in Akinyele/Lagelu Federal Constituency- marked as

Exhibit P6

4. Form EC40G for all the polling units in Akinyele/Lagelu Federal Constituency- marked as Exhibit P7

5. Permanent Voters? Card Distribution Register for all the Polling Units in Akinyele/Lagelu Federal Constituency- marked as Exhibit P8

6. Electoral Officers? Report for each of the Wards in Akinyele/Lagelu Federal Constituency- marked as Exhibit P9

7. Collation Officers? Report for each of the Wards in Akinyele/Lagelu Federal Constituency-marked as Exhibit P10

8. Forms EC8A (II) Unit Results of each Local Governments in Akinyele/Lagelu Federal Constituency- marked as Exhibit P11

9. Forms EC8B (II) Ward Collation Result- marked as Exhibit P12

10. Forms EC8C (II) Local Government collation result for all the Local Governments in Akinyele/Lagelu Federal Constituency- marked as Exhibit P13

11. Forms EC8B (II), EC40G, EC40H(I), EC404 (I); EC8D II; EC40G (II), EC8D (II), EC8E (II), EC40H (4), EC8C- marked as Exhibit P14

12. Voters Registers of Unit (6) Akinyele Local Government? marked as Exhibit P15

?13. Polling Unit Booklet- marked as Exhibit P16.

I wish to reemphasize that in the present circumstance, the above stated documents were not properly tendered and admitted in evidence. They cannot therefore be used by the Tribunal as part of the documentary evidence before it and I so hold. See NIGERIAN PORTS PLC VS. BEECHAM PHARMACEUTICALS PTE LTD. & ANOR. (2012) 18 NWLR (PT. 1333) 454. In the case of WASSAH & ORS VS. KARA & ORS (2015) 4 NWLR (PT. 1449) PG. 374, the Supreme Court, per Okoro, JSC held that:

?I also agree that a Court is not allowed to act on any document not tendered and admitted in evidence before the Court. In fact, no Court is allowed to go outside the gamut of evidence before it to shop for materials upon which to use to decide a case before it. See Skye Bank Plc v. Chief Moses B. Akinpelu (2010) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1198)179, Oparaji v Ohanu (1999) 9 NWLR (Pt. 618)290, Olagbemiro v Ajagungbade III (1990) 3 NWLR (Pt. 136)37 at 63, Sommer & Ors v Federal Housing Authority (1992) 1 NWLR (Pt. 219(548 at 557-558.?

?The documents marked Exhibits P4 – P16 are not in evidence and could not have been used by the lower Tribunal. I am not unaware that

Appellants? witnesses PW1-PW16 adduced evidence in support of the alleged over voting amongst other alleged non-compliance with the Electoral Act. These witnesses particularly PW4 – PW16 identified the documents produced by PW3 and sought to speak to the documents through their statements on oath adopted before the Tribunal as their evidence in chief. Learned Counsel for the Appellants submitted they are competent to so do. I am afraid they cannot for the reasons that the documents were not properly before the Court and they could not have been tendered through them as they were not the makers. The law is trite that the person to tender a document is the maker. Where a person who is not the maker tenders it and he may in certain circumstances the Court will not attach any probative value to it as the veracity and credibility of such documents can only be established through the maker. See LAMBERT VS. NIGERIAN NAVY (2006) 7 NWLR (PT. 980)514 AT 547 PARAS. A-E; FLASH FIXED ODDS LTD VS. AKATUGBA (2001) 9 NWLR (PT. (717) PG. 46 AT 63 and AWUSE VS. ODILI (2005) 16 NWLR (PT. 952) PG. 416 AT 488. ?PW1 ? PW16 who are not the makers of Exhibits P1, P2,

P17, P18, P19, P22, P2?3 and P24 and documents marked Exhibits P4 – P16 produced by PW3 cannot competently answer questions under cross examination in relation to the veracity and credibility of the said documents. The lower Court was therefore right when it refused to ascribe any probative value to them. The end result is that the said documents are just there without any use.

In AWUSE VS. ODILI (2005) 16 NWLR (PT. 952) PG. 416 AT 510 – 511, PARAS. G – A, this Court held as follows:

?In a further case of TERAB VS. LAWAN (1992) 3 NWLR (PT. 231) 569 AT 590, the Court of Appeal per Aikawa JCA held and said:-

?… the correct view of the law is that a party relying on documents in proof of his case must specifically relate each of such documents to that part of his case in respect of which the document is being tendered. The Court cannot assume the duty of tying each of a bundle of documentary exhibits to specific aspect of the case for a party when that party has not himself done so. The foundation of the principle is that it is an infraction of fair hearing for the Court to do in the recess of its chambers what a party has

not himself done in advancement of his course in open Court.?

Furthermore, in the case of ONIBUDO & ORS. VS. AKIBU & ORS. (1982) 13 NSCC 199 AT 211, LINES 28-45, the Supreme Court held:

?It needs to be emphasized that the duty of a Court is to decide between the parties on the basis of what has been demonstrated, tested, canvassed and argued in Court. It is not the duty of a Court to do cloistered justice by making an inquiry into the case outside Court even if such inquiry is limited to examination of documents which were in evidence, when the documents had not been examined in Court and their examination out of Court disclosed matters that had not been brought out and exposed to test in Court and were not such matters that, at least, must have been noticed in Court.?

I hold that Exhibits P4 ? P16 have no probative value while Exhibits P1, P2, P17, P18, P19 and P22 ? P24 constitute hearsay evidence and therefore inadmissible in evidence.

The Appellants by their petition filed at the Lower Tribunal seek the nullification of the results in the following units:

?i. In Akinyele/Lagelu Local

Government Area- Ward 4 Units 6 and 5; Ward 5 units 8 and 11; Ward 7 unit 4; Ward 8 units 11, 15, 16, 8, 21, 27, 42, 25, 26, 32, 40; Ward 9 units 5 and 6; Ward 11 unit 02; Ward 10 unit 07.

ii. In Lagelu Local Government Area- ward 1 unit 3, unit 4, unit 5, unit 6, unit 8, unit 9, ward 2 unit 1, unit 2, ward 3 unit 1, unit 2, ward 4 unit 2, unit 4, unit 6 and unit 9, ward 6 unit 3, unit 4, unit 6, ward 7 unit 3, unit 9.

As I stated earlier the Appellants called witnesses who testified as PW1, PW2, PW4 ? PW16 to give evidence in support of their case. All the witnesses adopted their statements on oath filed before the Tribunal as their evidence in chief.

The status of the witnesses with respect to the election in question as stated by them in evidence is as follows:

PW1 was a party agent in Ward 8 Unit 32, Akinyele Local Government

PW2 was a collation agent at Ward 14 Lagelu Local Government

PW4 was a party agent at Ward 4 Unit 004, Lagelu Local Government

PW5 was a party agent at Ward 8 Unit 016, Akinyele Local Government

PW6 was a party agent at Ward 4 Unit 2, Lagelu Local Government

?PW7 was a party

agent at Ward 9 Unit 005, Akinyele Local Government

PW8 was a party agent for Ward 6 Unit 6, Lagelu Local Government

PW9 was ward collation agent at Ward 8 Akinyele Local Government

PW10 was a party agent at Ward 8 Unit 001, Akinyele Local Government

PW11 was Ward collation agent Lagelu Local Government

PW12 was Ward collation agent at Ward 9, Akinyele Local Government

PW13 is the 1st Appellant who stated that he visited several polling units on the day of election

PW14 was Ward collation agent at Ward 2 Lagelu Local Government

PW15 was party agent at Ward 8 Unit 26, Akinyele Local Government

PW16 was party agent at Ward 7 Unit 003 Lagelu Local Government

The law is trite that pleadings are not human beings. They therefore require human beings to breathe life into them via oral evidence before the Court. See ALAO VS. AKANO (2005) 11 NWLR (PT. 935) 160 AT 180; DINGYADI VS. WAMAKO (2008) 17 NWLR (PT. 116) 395 AT 444 PARAGRAPHS D ? H.

In the case of OJOH VS. KAMALU (2005) 18 NWLR (PT. 958) PG. 523, the Supreme Court per Tobi, JSC at page 565 Paragraphs G ? H held as follows:

?Pleadings, not being human beings, have no mouth to speak in Court. And so they speak through witnesses. If witnesses do not narrate them in Court, they remain moribund, if not dead at all times and for all times, to the procedural disadvantage of the owner, in this con the appellant.?

The Appellants who sought the nullification of election results in various wards and polling units vide their pleadings in the petition and the reliefs claimed therein failed to call any witness in proof of their allegations against the election conducted in Ward 4 Units 6 and 5; Ward 5 units 8 and 11; Ward 7 unit 4; Ward 8 units 11, 15, 8, 21, 27, 42, 25 and 40; Ward 9 Unit 6; Ward 11 unit 02; Ward 10 unit 07 all in Akinyele Local Government Area. They also failed to call witnesses to prove the allegations contained in their petition against the way and manner election was conducted in Ward 1 Unit 3, unit 4, unit 5, unit 6, unit 8, unit 9; Ward 2 unit 1, unit 2; Ward 3 unit 1, unit 2; Ward 4 unit 6 and unit 9; Ward 6 unit 3, unit 4, and Ward 7 unit 9 all in Lagelu Local Government Area. The Appellants failed to proffer any evidence in support of their

allegation of malpractices in the above enumerated polling units. It follows therefore that the Appellants abandoned their pleadings in respect of the said polling units and I so hold.

I note that the complaints of the Appellants as stated in their petition are in respect of stated polling units. Some of the witnesses who testified on behalf of the Appellants in respect of some of the polling units are ward collation agents. The question now is whether the evidence of such ward agents in respect of events that occurred in polling units where they were not physically present is tenable.

The Supreme Court per Tobi JSC in the case of BUHARI VS. INEC (2008) 19 NWLR (PT. 1120) PG. 264 AT 424, PARAS. D – F held as follows:

?An agent is the representative of the candidate in the polling station. He hears every talk in the station. He also sees all actions and inactions in the Station. Any evidence given by a person who was not present at the polling unit or booth like the appellant is certainly hearsay. And here, I so regard paragraph 16 of the witness statement or deposition of the appellant. After all, he was not there. He was given the

information by the agents. The Million naira question is why did these agents not make statements as witnesses? In my view, agents are in the most vantage point to give evidence of wrong doing in a polling unit or polling booth. Can the appellant say in reality that he proved his case without calling any agent

PW2, PW9, PW11, PW12 and PW14 are Ward collation agents/supervisors. They are not agents at the polling units. They cannot therefore give evidence of what transpired at polling units where they were not physically present at the time the alleged incidents occurred. The point been made here is not that collation agents are not competent witnesses in line with Section 175 of the Evidence Act; they are by all means. They can however only give evidence of what they directly witnessed and distinguish such from information given to them by polling agents who reported to them occurrences at their respective polling units. See Section 126 of the Evidence Act 2011 which provides that oral evidence shall be direct. PW2, PW9, PW11, PW12 and PW14 failed to discharge this burden and I so hold.

?Their evidence is hearsay evidence which is

inadmissible in law and I so hold. The lower Tribunal was therefore right when it refused to attach probative value to the evidence of these witnesses.

The evidence-in-chief adduced by PW1, PW4 ? PW8, PW10 and PW15 who are party agents for the Appellants during the election referred to results, figures and data contained in documents produced by PW3 which were not tendered.

The lower Tribunal evaluated the evidence of the Appellants witnesses but was right when it refused to ascribe any probative value to them as they had none. I have painstakingly examined the evidence of all the witnesses for the Appellants before coming to this conclusion. Furthermore, there are no voters registers and election results of the polling units on record. The Appellants have not placed sufficient evidence on record to ground the allegation of non-compliance particularly that of over voting, cancellation of election and mutilation of result and I so hold.

I have held earlier on that the Appellants failed to prove the allegation of criminality against the Respondents beyond reasonable doubt. My conclusion is that Issues No 1 and 2 are resolved against the

Appellants and in favour of the Respondents.

ISSUES 3 AND 4

3. Whether the Honourable Tribunal was right to have considered one relief and jettisoned the other reliefs placed before the Honourable Court especially where there is a relief in the alternative among other issues placed before the Court but which were not pronounced upon. (Ground 2)

4. Whether the Honourable Tribunal was right to have held that the Appellants had no relief against Akinyele Local Government Area when there are reliefs in respect of Akinyele/Lagelu Federal Constituency which consist of Akinyele and Lagelu Local Government Areas. (Grounds 3, 6 & 7).

?Learned Appellants? Counsel in arguing these issues especially ISSUE NO. 4 questioned the dismissal of the Petition by the lower Tribunal after making a finding that there is no Local Government known as Akinyele/Lagelu Local Government. He submitted the Lower Tribunal had a duty to consider and pronounce on all issues raised or placed before it. He contended that where the Tribunal found the first relief defective as it did in this Petition, it was duty bound to pronounce on all the other reliefs claimed.

Failure of the Tribunal to consider and pronounce on the other two reliefs and the alternative reliefs he submitted occasioned a miscarriage of justice and urged us to so hold. He craved in aid the cases of EGHAREVBA VS. OSAGIE (2010) ALL FWLR (PT. 513) PG.1256 AT 1262, PARAS. E-F; CHIGBU VS. TONIMAS NIG LTD (1999) 3 NWLR (PT. 593) 115; OLUFEAGBA VS. ABDUL-RAHEEM (2010) ALL FWLR (PT. 512) 1033 AT 1096 PARAS C-D AND OKUNGBOWA VS. GOVERNOR, EDO STATE (2014) ALL FWLR (PT. 753) PG.1975 AT 2015 D-E. He therefore urged us to consider and review the evidence presented at the lower Tribunal and pronounce on all the reliefs in the Petition.

He further urged us to consider the alternative relief claimed based on the evidence before the lower Tribunal as the relief is known to law and capable of been granted. He relied on a plethora of authorities including TUKUR VS. YAR?ADUA & ORS (2011) LPELR- 8824 (CA) 33, PARAS. A-D; STANDARD TRUST BANK PLC VS. EZENWA ANUMNU (2008) 14 NWLR (PT. 1106) PG.125; RIJIYA & ANOR VS. TUKURANA & ORS (2013) LPELR- 22789 (CA) 16-17, PARA. C.

Learned Counsel submitted further that the Lower Tribunal ought to have

taken judicial notice of the fact that Akinyele/Lagelu Federal Constituency comprised of two local governments viz, Akinyele and Lagelu Local Governments. He cited several authorities on the need for a Court to do substantial justice and not dwell on technicalities. He argued that the Lower Tribunal should not have considered the first relief (relief A) in isolation as the units and wards challenged in the Akinyele/Lagelu Federal Constituency are well spelt out in the Petition. He went on to submit that where the Lower Tribunal felt so strongly on this issue like it did, it should have invited parties to address it on the point. He craved in aid the case of KRAUS THOMPSON ORG. LTD VS. UNICAL (2004) 9 NWLR (PT. 879) PG.631 AT 651 H.

Learned Counsel to the 1st Respondent in response submitted that evidence proffered by the Appellants before the Tribunal was such that could not sustain either the main reliefs or the alternative reliefs claimed. He relied on the cases of UZOR VS. D.F. (NIG) LTD (2010) 15 NWLR (PT. 1217) PG.553 AT 579, PARAS. E-F AND WILLIAMS VS. HOPE RISING VOLUNTARY FUNDS SOCIETY (1982) 2 SC 145 AT 152. He submitted further that the lower

Tribunal could not make out a case for the Appellants different from what is disclosed in their pleadings. He urged us to note that what the Appellants pleaded and presented before the lower Tribunal was Akinyele/Lagelu Local Government which was non-existent. He relied on the cases of OZOMGBACHI VS. AMADI (2018) 17 NWLR (PT. 1647) 171 AT 198, PARAS. F-H; ALAHASSAN VS. ISHAKU (2016) 10 NWLR (PT. 1520) PG.230 AT 260, PARA. B; AND ATANDA VS. COMM. L. & H., KWARA STATE (2018) 1 NWLR (PT. 1599) PG.32. He further referred us to page 903 of the record and urged us to hold that the Petition was not dismissed for the reason of the defect in Relief (A) but was dismissed for lacking in merit.

Learned Counsel for the 3rd Respondent submitted that it is only where the Appellants proved malpractices, irregularities and non-compliance with the Electoral Act that they are entitled to the alternative Relief which is for a re-run of the election. He argued that the Petitioners having failed to prove the above are not entitled to a consideration of the alternative relief. He further urged us to hold that the Appellants failed to demonstrate how the finding of the Lower

Tribunal that there is no Local Government known as Akinyele/Lagelu Local Government occasioned a miscarriage of justice.

Prayer Nos. 1 in the Appellants? Petition is contained at page 31 of the Record. It reads thus:

?That it may be determined that the results of the election into the membership of the Akinyele/Lagelu Federal Constituency held on the 23rd of February, 2019 in the following Wards and Units of Akinyele/Lagelu Local Government were affected by irregularities, malpractices and non-compliance with the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended).

Ward 4 units 6 and 5

Ward 5 units 8 and 11

Ward 7 unit 4

Ward 8 units 11, 15, 16, 8, 21, 27, 42, 25, 26, 32, 40

Ward 9 units 5 and 6

Ward 11 unit 02

Ward 10 unit 07.”

By the above reliefs, the Petitioners urged the Tribunal to hold that the result of the Wards stated therein were affected by irregularities, malpractices and non-compliance with the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended). It is the contention of the Appellants that reference to Akinyele/Lagelu Local Government Area in relief Nos. 1 is a slip which the Tribunal should have treated as such

in order to do substantial justice.

Section 3(6) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) provides as follows:

?There shall be seven hundred and sixty-eight local government areas in Nigeria as shown in the second column of Part 1 of the First Schedule to this Constitution and six area councils as shown in part II of that Schedule.?

Section 3(6) of the 1999 Constitution (supra) is specific on the Local Government Areas that constitute part of Nigeria. I therefore hold that contrary to the submission made by learned Counsel to the Appellant reference to Akinyele/Lagelu Local Government is not a mere slip. It is an issue of law. What constitutes a Local Government in Nigeria is determined by the Constitution. I have gone through the second column of the First schedule to the Constitution and there is nowhere Akinyele/Lagelu Local Government Area of Oyo State is listed as a Local Government in Oyo State. ?Part of the Appellants complaint is that the Lower Tribunal raised the issue of non existent Local Government Area suo motu without calling on parties to address it on same. I find the case of

UKAEGBU VS. NWOLOLO (2009) 3 NWLR (PT. 1127) PG. 194 very relevant on this point. In that case, the Supreme Court per Ogbuagu JSC at page 222 para G ? H held thus:

?I have also dealt with this point, because, it is now firmly established that an appellate Court, will and can on its own motion, consider a substantial point of law arising on the record, even though it is/was not included as one of the grounds of appeal, nor referred to by the/an appellant at the hearing before a lower Court. See the cases of Okokon Innua vs. Eke E.N. Basey Asuquo (1961) All NLR 576 at 577 ? per Idigbe, J.S.C. (of blessed memory); Ogbonna Nwangbo vs. Nwoji Alo (1972) 2 ECSLR 359 C 361; Ex-Parte Markham (1969) 343 page 150; and Knight vs. Haliwell (1974) L.R. 9 QB 416.?

Also in the case of Omokuwajo vs F.R.N.(2013) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1359) pg.300 at 332, Paras. D-F, the Supreme Court, per Rhodes-Vivour, JSC held thus:

?The need to give the parties a hearing when a Judge raises an issue on his motion or suo motu would not be necessary if:

(a) the issue relates to the Courts own jurisdiction

?(b) both parties are/were not aware

or ignored a statute which may have bearing on the case. That is to say where by virtue of statutory provision the Judge is expected to take judicial notice. See Section 73 of the Evidence Act.

There are exceptions to the general rule that when a Court raises an issue suo motu it must call the parties to address it on the issue. See OMOKUWAJO VS FRN (supra). To my mind, the present circumstance falls within the exception for the reason that both parties ignored a statute that has bearing on the case. i. e. Section 3(6) and Second Column of the First Schedule of the 1999 Constitution. I therefore find no merit in the submission of Appellants Counsel that the Lower Tribunal was wrong when it raised the issue suo motu without calling on parties to address it. The complaint of the Appellant on this point is discountenanced by me. Being a substantial point of law, the Lower Tribunal rightly raised it and made its findings.

It is trite that when a Claimant or a Petitioner as in this case seeks a relief before a Court of law or Tribunal, the language

must be specific, precise and concise. The language used should not be rigmarole, vague or casual as to leave the Defendant or Respondent in a state of speculation or conjecture as to the relief sought. See A.G. LAGOS STATE VS. A.G. FEDERATION & ORS (2003) 12 NWLR (PT. 833)1; NEKA B.B.B. MANUFACTURING COMPANY LTD VS. AFRICAN CONTINENTAL BANK LTD (2004) 2 NWLR (PT. 858)521. I wish to emphasize that Counsel holds a sacred duty to both his clients and the cause of justice to ensure that he is not casual in the reliefs sought before a Court of law.

I am not unaware of the power of a Judge to correct any error in his Judgment occasioned by clerical mistakes or accidental slip or omission. Such power does not however extend to correction, altering or amending the pleadings of a party. A Judge must not only be impartial at all times, he must be seen to be and as such should not do anything to fill in the gap in the case of a party or do anything to give the impression that he descended into the arena of conflict. See EHOLOR VS. OSAYANDE (1992) 6 NWLR (PT. 249) PG.524; ELIKE VS. NWAKWOALA (1984) 1 ANLR 505 AND CALABAR EAST COOPERATIVE THRIFT & CREDIT SOCIETY LTD & ORS VS. IKOT (1999) 14 NWLR (PT. 638) PG.225.

It is a further submission of Learned Appellants? Counsel that the Lower Tribunal had a duty to pronounce on all issues presented before it by the parties. I agree with Counsel that a Court of law, an Election Tribunal inclusive has a duty to pronounce on all issues properly raised by parties before it. There are however exceptions to this general rule.

The exceptions include:

1. When the issue is subsumed in another issue, there shall be no need to make a separate pronouncement.

2. When the Court of Appeal as an intermediate Court decides that it lacks jurisdiction, it becomes unnecessary to consider other issues.

3. When in the exercise of its discretionary power, the Court or Tribunal ignores irrelevant issues raised in the Briefs of Argument of parties so as not to observe the main or real issues relevant for the determination of the Case on Appeal.

4. When the Court/Tribunal intends to order a re-trial and a further consideration of issues will prejudice the fresh hearing to be ordered.

?5. When the issues are not properly raised by the parties before the Court.

See ADEBAYO VS. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF OGUN STATE (2008) 7 NWLR (PT. 1085) PG. 201; OSAREREN VS. FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA & ORS (2018) 10 NWLR (PT. 1627) PG. 221; IKECHUKWU VS. FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA (2015) 7 NWLR (PT. 1457) PG. 1; ONIFADE VS. OLAYIWOLA & ORS. (1990) 7 NWLR (PT. 161) PG. 130. In the instant appeal, the alternative reliefs sought by the Appellants are subsumed in the finding of the Lower Tribunal that the Petition is lacking in merit. The law is settled that when reliefs are sought in the alternative a Plaintiff will be granted such a relief as the set of facts established entitles him. A Plaintiff who fails to establish his entitlement to either the main relief or the alternative reliefs sought is entitled to a dismissal of his entire suit. The Court can dismiss the entire suit without pronouncing on the claims separately. See DONG & ORS. VS. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ADAMAWA STATE & ORS. (2014) 6 NWLR (PT. 1404) PG. 555; OSUJI VS. EKEOCHA (2009) 16 NWLR (PT. 1168) PG. 81 AND THE MV CAROLINE MAERSK SISTER VESSEL TO MV CHRISTIAN MAERSK VS. NOKOY INVESTMENT LTD. (2002) 12 NWLR (PT. 782) PG. 472.

I find it imperative to reproduce at this point what the Lower Tribunal said on the Relief (a) claimed by the Appellants. The Tribunal at page 903 of the Record held as follows:

?We are unable to appreciate the above relief because as already stated above, there is no evidence before us to show that there is any Local Government in the constituency known and or called Akinyele/Lagelu Local Government. We hold therefore, that the complaints in regard to the wards and units in the Akinyele/Lagelu Local Government are only imagined and or at large. The relief is refused. It is on all the above evaluation of evidence and findings that we resolve the issue for determination against the Petitioners and hereby dismiss that Petition for lacking in merit. The Petitioners shall pay the cost of Twenty Thousand Naira (N20,000.00) only, each to the first and 3rd Respondents.?

It is clear from the above that the Petition was not dismissed by the Tribunal solely on the consideration of the relief (a) in the Petition. The law is that when a case has been heard on its merit the proper order to make where a claimant fails to prove his claims is an order of

dismissal. See OGBECHIE & ORS VS. ONOCHIE & ORS. (1988) 1 NWLR (PT. 70) PG. 370; ODUNZE & ORS. VS. NWOSU & ORS. (2007) 13 NWLR (PT. 1050) PG. 1 AND OSUJI VS. EKEOCHA (2009) 16 NWLR (PT. 1166) PG. 81.

From all the foregoing, my firm view is that the Appellants? Petition was not dismissed on the basis of the defect in relief No. (a) but was dismissed for lack of evidence to substantiate the allegations contained in it. The Tribunal evaluated the evidence before it and rightly came to the conclusion that the Petition lacked merit and went on to dismiss it. I have no reason whatsoever to disturb the conclusion reached by the Lower Tribunal. ISSUES 3 and 4 are thus resolved against the Appellants.

Having resolved all issues against the Appellants, the inevitable conclusion is that this Appeal lacks merit and it is accordingly dismissed. The judgment of the Lower Tribunal in Petition NO. EPT/OY/HR/O4/2019 delivered on the 16th of August, 2019 is hereby affirmed.

The Appellants shall pay to each of the Respondents N100,000 (One Hundred Thousand Naira) costs.

JIMI OLUKAYODE BADA, J.C.A.: I had a preview

of the Lead Judgment of my Lord FOLASHADE AYODEJI OJO, JCA just delivered.

My Lord has adequately dealt with the issues in this appeal and I agree entirely with the reasons given therein as well as the conclusion that the appeal lacks merit.

The appeal is also dismissed by me.

NONYEREM OKORONKWO, J.C.A.: I agree.

Appearances:

J. D. Olaniyan, Esq. with him, Festus Adesiyan, Esq., Emmanuel Elijah Esq., M. O. Olayiwola, Esq., O. E. Ajala-Adeoye, Esq. and O. P. Adejinmi, Esq.For Appellant(s)

Abiodun Amole, Esq. with him, Oladoyin O. Fesobi (Mrs), George O. Onaho, Esq., Oladimeji Adeola, Esq. and Olusola Akintola, Esq.-for 1st Respondent

Babajide Onadele, Esq. -for 3rd Respondent.For Respondent(s)

Appearances

J. D. Olaniyan, Esq. with him, Festus Adesiyan, Esq., Emmanuel Elijah Esq., M. O. Olayiwola, Esq., O. E. Ajala-Adeoye, Esq. and O. P. Adejinmi, Esq.For Appellant

AND

Abiodun Amole, Esq. with him, Oladoyin O. Fesobi (Mrs), George O. Onaho,Esq., Oladimeji Adeola, Esq. and Olusola Akintola, Esq.-for 1st Respondent

Babajide Onadele, Esq. -for 3rd Respondent.For Respondent