Compulaw - 1st Indigenous Digital Law Library

Brief

Cause of action
Concurrent findings of facts by the lower courts
Withholding evidence
Documentary evidence
Affidavit evidence
Documentary evidence
Court processes
Credible evidence
Section 31 of the Electoral Act
Section 31(1) of the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended)
Section 31(2) of the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended)
Section 33 of the Electoral Act 2010
Section 35 of the Electoral Act 2010
Section 36 of the Electoral Act 2010
Section 33 of the Electoral Act 2010
Section 222(c) of the Constitution
Section 167(d) of the Evidence Act 2011
Section 104 of the Evidence Act 2011
Section 132(a) of the Evidence Act
Order 10 Rule 1 of the Court of Appeal Rules 2011

Facts

On the 18th of December, 2014, the 2nd respondent People’s Democratic Party (PDP) submitted the name of the 1st respondent to the 3rd respondent Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) as its nominated candidate alongside other candidates for election to the membership of the House of representative as member representing Onitsha North/South Federal Constituency of Anambra State.

The name of the appellant was also submitted by the 2nd respondent to the 3rd respondent as its candidate for the said Federal Constituency.

However, when the 3rd respondent published the list and particulars of the candidates submitted, the name of the 1st respondent was not there.

Consequently, the 1st respondent as plaintiff caused an Originating Summons to be issued against the present 2nd-4th respondents as 1st-3rd defendant. The appellant applied and was joined by order of Court as the 4th defendant.

At the end of the trial, the High Court granted the reliefs prayed for by the 1st respondent.

Aggrieved, the appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal which dismissed the appeal.

Dissatisfied, an appeal was filed to the Supreme Court.

Idu G. Emeka V. Hon. Chuba-Ikpeazu & 3 Ors (2017) CLR 3(c) (SC)

Judgement delivered on March 10th 2017

Brief

Facts

Issues