This is an appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal sitting at Port Harcourt delivered on the 12th February, 2013. The facts of the case that brought about the appeal are immediately stated below.

The appellants took out a writ on the 25th January, 2011 at the Port Harcourt Division of the Rivers State High Court against the respondents seeking certain declaratory and injunctive reliefs. Their case as pleaded and supported by evidence is that the appellants and the 2nd respondent were aspirants for the 1st respondent's primary election for the Bonny/Degema Federal Constituency seat. The primary election took place on 6th January 2011 at the Degema Local Government Council Headquarters. Using the appropriate list of and the delegates, on being accredited, voted. Ballot papers of each of the aspirants having been sorted out were placed in separate baskets. The counting which immediately commenced was disrupted. The election was terminated. Neither the result nor the winner of the election was declared.

On the other hand, respondents' case is that with the votes counted and the 2nd respondent declared the winner, the primary election was conclusive

At the end of trial, the court held that on the pleadings, the law places the burden of proof on the appellants. Having not discharged the burden, the court dismissed appellants' case. Aggrieved, they appealed to Court of Appeal, hereinafter referred to as the Lower Court, sitting at Port Harcourt on a notice filed on the 18th August 2011 containing six grounds. The appellants urged the Lower Court inter-alia for an order setting aside the trial court's judgment and the purported result of 1st respondent's 6th January 2011 primary election which declared the 2nd respondent winner and candidate of the 1st respondent for the Bonny/Degema Federal Constituency April 2011 general election

In its judgment delivered on 12/2/2013, having reversed the trial court's finding on whom the burden of proof on the pleadings of the parties rested, the Lower Court evaluated the evidence on record and on concluding that the findings of the trial judge are perverse, set aside his judgment. Even though the court allowed the appeal, it all the same refused the appellants two of their reliefs: the return of the first appellant as the winner of the 1st respondent's primary election and candidate for the April 2011 election on the ground that the primary election was not conclusive and the injunctive order to restrain 1st respondent from submitting 2nd respondent's name as its candidate the general election having already been conducted.

Dissatisfied with the decision, the appellants have further appealed to this Court.