CaseLaw
Eyibo V. Abia (2012) CLR 7(h) (SC)
Judgement delivered on July 6th, 2012
Brief
Facts
The action culminating in this appeal was commenced by way of an originating motion at the Abuja Judicial Division of the Federal High Court. It was dated and filed on the 11th of February, 2011. The Appellant herein was the Applicant at the trial High Court. The Respondents herein were also the Respondents therein. However, while the 1st Respondent herein was the 3rd Respondent at the trial High Court, the 2nd and 3rd Respondents herein were therein the 1st and 2nd Respondents respectively.
Against the Respondents, the Applicant/Appellant claimed the following four reliefs:
The originating motion was supported by an affidavit of 33 paragraphs deposed to by the Appellant himself. On the 7th of April, 2011, the Applicant/Appellant filed a motion for an order of interlocutory injunction. On that same 7th of April, 2011, the Appellant filed an 18 paragraphs further affidavit in support of the originating motion. Again on the 13th of April, 2011 the Appellant through his counsel deposed to and filed a further affidavit of 8 paragraphs. And still on the 18th April, 2011 the Appellant deposed to and filed an additional further affidavit of 19 paragraphs. And on the 9th of May, 2011, in reaction to all these, the 1st Respondent as 3rd Respondent filed a Counter-Affidavit of 36 paragraphs with paragraphs 13 and 15 thereof running into many sub-paragraphs. Attached thereto were 51 Exhibits numbered DAN I - DAN 51.
After the addresses of counsel for the parties, the learned trial judge Abdu-Kafarati J. gave his judgment in which he allowed the claim. In the concluding paragraphs of the judgment, the trial Court reproduced paragraphs 6, 7, 8 and 11 of the further affidavit filed on the 7th of April, 2011 and concluded that the depositions therein were neither denied by the 2nd Respondent nor by the 3rd Respondent. Specifically, the court found and concluded at pages 465 -466 of the record as follows:
This piece of evidence was neither challenged by the 2nd Defendant nor the 3rd Defendant. Since the failure of the officers of the 2nd Defendant to arrive Eket for the primaries as communicated to the parties was not due to the fault of the plaintiff or the delegates present, the justice of the case demands that the plaintiff be returned as the candidate of the 2nd Defendant for Eket Federal Constituency. The 2nd Defendant having won the seat for Eket Federal Constituency, the plaintiff is to be returned as the winner of the said election and I so order. The plaintiff is to take the place of the 3rd Defendant. Prayers 1, 2 and 4 are granted as prayed."
The 1st Respondent herein who was the 3rd Respondent was aggrieved by the decision and proceeded an appeal to the Court of Appeal. Therein the parties filed and exchanged their briefs of argument. In its judgment delivered on the 27th of January, 2012, the appeal was allowed. In the concluding part of the judgment, the court below had this to say:
"On the whole, issues 1 and 2 of the Appellant as argued by the parties, are hereby resolved in favour of the Appellant, and against the 1st Respondent. The appeal on those issues is allowed. The judgment and the orders of the learned trial judge in the suit no FHC/ABJ/CS/177/2011 of 1st June, 2011 are hereby set aside. The justice of the matter, to borrow the phrase of the learned trial judge, demands that the said suit of the 1st Respondent be and it is hereby dismissed in its entirety, and that shall be the order of the trial Court. For avoidance of any doubt, and in case the 1st Respondent would have, on the authority of the orders in the suit no FHC/ABJ/CS/177/2011 made on 1st June, 2011, sneaked into the hallowed chambers of the House of Representatives purporting to represent Eket/Ibeno/Esit/Onna Federal Constituency, it is hereby ordered that the 1st Respondent shall forthwith vacate the seat for the Appellant"