- Michael v. Yuosuo
- ₦ 200
Michael v. Yuosuo
INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION
( INEC )
COURT OF APPEAL
( PORT HARCOURT DIVISION )
MICHAEL E. AKPIROROH, JCA ( Presided and Read the Lead Judgment )
ABOYI JOHN IKONGBEH, JCA
DAVID ADEDOYIN ADENIJI, JCA
27TH NOVEMBER, 2003
APPEAL - Fresh issue on appeal - Where issue to be raised relates to
the jurisdiction of court - Whether leave of the appellate court is required to
COURT - Appellate court - Leave of the appellate court to raise a fresh
issue on appeal - Whether required where the issue to be raised relates to the
jurisdiction of the court
COURT - Election matters - Undue technicalities therein - Duty on court
to refrain from placing reliance on
COURT - Issue of standard of proof - Whether can be raised without
leave of court
PETITION - Returning officer, electoral officer - Joinder of in an election
petition - Rationale for
ELECTORAL MATTERS - Undue
technicalities therein - Duty on court to refrain from placing reliance on
EVIDENCE - Standard of proof - Issue of - Whether can be raised without
leave of court
JURISDICTION - Fresh
issue to be raised on appeal - Where relates to the jurisdiction of court -
Whether leave of the appellate court required therefor
PLEADINGS - Claim - Main claim and alternative claim -Whether can be
granted at the same time
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Appellate court - Leave of the appellate court
to raise a fresh issue on appeal - Whether required where the issue to be
raised relates to the jurisdiction of the court
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Issue of standard of proof - Whether can be
raised without leave of court
AND PROCEDURE - Main claim and alternative claim -
can be granted at the same time
Whether in the circumstances of this case the Election
Tribunal had jurisdiction to entertain and determine the petition subject
matter of this appeal.
Whether exhibits A5 and B3 had any real evidential
value in law to justify the reliance placed on them by the Election Tribunal in
coming to the conclusion that the 1st respondent/ appellant was less than 30
years of age as at the time of contesting the election in issue.
Whether the petitioner proved, and in accordance with
the standard of proof required in law, that the 1st respondent was less than 30
years of age as at the time he contested the election in issue contrary to the
information he supplied in the INEC Form CF001 which he completed for the
purpose of the election.
Whether the Honourable Tribunal applied the correct
standard of proof and followed the right approach in the evaluation of evidence
in relation to the petitionerâ€™s allegation that voting
did not take place in certain
polling stations in Ewoama Ward 3 and
Ward 5 and if so, whether the petitioner proved that no election took place in
the polling units as alleged?(Grounds 5 , 12 and 3 of the appellantâ€™s grounds
of appeal ).
Whether the Election Tribunal was right in nullifying
the election of the 1st respondent/appellant and in declaring the
petitioner/respondent as the duly elected candidate? (Grounds 6 , 14 and 15 of
the appellantâ€™s grounds of appeal ).
This appeal is
from the decision of the Governorship and Legislative House Election Tribunal
sitting at Yenagoa in Bayelsa State delivered on 16 th July, 2003 in which the
Tribunal nullified the election of the appellant.
The facts of
the case are that the 1st respondent/cross-appellant filed a petition dated the
2nd day of June, 2003 wherein he claimed inter
A declaration that the 13,410 votes allegedly scored by
the 1st respondent in the aforesaid election are invalid and unlawful votes as
the 1st respondent was not qualified to contest the Bayelsa State House of
Assembly election in Brass Constituency 2.
A declaration that the 1st respondent was accordingly
not duly and validly elected and/or returned as the winner of the said Bayelsa
State House of Assembly election in Brass Constituency 2.
An order declaring the petitioner as the duly elected
candidate for the Bayelsa State House of Assembly election, Brass Constituency
2 held on the 3rd day of May, 2003, the petitioner having scored the highest
number of valid votes cast at the said election.
Sequel to the
service of the copies of the petition on the 1st respondent, he entered
appearance and filed a reply to the petition. At the end of the trial, the
Tribunal nullified the election of the 1st respondent/cross-appellant on the
ground that he was under the age of 30 years as at the date of the election.
Dissatisfied with the decision, the
appellant has now appealed to the Court of Appeal.