Disable Preloader

CaseLaw

Agbakoba V. INEC (2008) CLR 12(f) (SC)

Judgement delivered on December 19th 2008

Brief

  • Irregular procedure
  • Originating summons
  • Interpretation of Statute
  • Burden of proof in civil cases
  • Finding of fact
  • Oral evidence
  • Candidates – Substitution of
  • Unchallenged depositions
  • Factors to be considered in hearing an appeal
  • Section 32 of the Electoral Act 2006
  • Section 33 of the Electoral Act 2006
  • Section 34 of the Electoral Act 2006
  • Section 34(2) of the Electoral Act 2006
  • Section 59(c) of the Electoral Act, 2002
  • Section 69(c) of the Electoral Act, 2002
  • Section 145(1)(a) of the Electoral Act
  • Section 145(1)(b) of the Electoral Act
  • Section 145(1)(c) of the Electoral Act
  • Section 145(1)(d) of the Electoral Act
  • Section 140(1) of the Electoral Act, 2006s
  • Section 140(2) of the Electoral Act, 2006
  • Section 36(1) of the 1999 Constitution
  • Section 22 of the Supreme Court Act
  • Section 137 of the Evidence Act
  • Section 132(a) of the Evidence Act
  • Section 97(2)(c) of the Evidence Act
  • Section 109 of the Evidence Act
  • Section 178(2) of the 1999 Constitution
  • Section 285(2) of the 1999 Constitution
  • Section 251(1)(p),(q),(r) of the 1999 Constitution
  • Section 285(1)(a) of the 1999 Constitution

Facts

This appeal is filed by the plaintiff (appellant in this court) against the unanimous decision of the Court of Appeal of the Enugu Judicial Division sitting in Enugu given on 28th June, 2007, striking out the appellant's appeal as it has become a mere Academic exercise.

The plaintiff who is also the appellant in the Court of Appeal being totally aggrieved by the decision has brought this appeal by a notice of appeal dated and filed on 3rd of December, 2007, the leave of this court having earlier on been granted on 21st of November, 2007, to that effect. In the trial court, the plaintiff's suit which is hinged on the interpretation of Section 34 of the Electoral Act, 2006, vis-a-vis the substitution of the appellant by the 2nd defendant (2nd respondent) for the 3rd defendant (3rd respondent in this court) as its candidate for the Onitsha North and South Federal Constituency of Anambra State.

Issues

  • 1
    Whether the Court of Appeal was right to hold that the conduct by the 1st...
  • Read More