n Compulaw - 1st Indigenous Digital Law Library
Disable Preloader

CaseLaw

Ugwu V. Ararume (2007) CLR 6(f) (SC)

Judgement delivered on June 8th 2007

Brief

  • Interpretation of statutes
  • Documentary evidencen
  • S.91(3) Evidence Act
  • Mischief Rule

Facts

The facts are that the Appellant emerged winner at the Governorship primaries conducted by the People’s Democratic Party for Imo State on the 14th of December 2006. The Appellant at the contest scored 2,061 votes as against the 36 votes scored by the 2nd Respondent Engineer Charles Ugwu. The name of the Appellant was forwarded to INEC by the 3rd Respondent as the Governorship candidate sponsored by PDP in compliance with the provisions of Section 32(1) and (2) of the 2006 Electoral Act, on the 14th of December 2006 as shown in Exhibits F and G The 3rd Respondent on the 19th of January 2007 forwarded the name of the 2nd Respondent to the 3rd Respondent under a letter dated 18th January 2007 Exhibit K as the candidate it was sponsoring for Imo State Governorship in April 2007.

The learned trial Judge, after taking the interlocutory matter of jurisdiction threw out the 1st Respondent's case. I did not see the trial Judge dismissing the suit and so I cannot say that; although the result at the end is the same thing. I should quote the two last paragraphs of the judgment at pages 573 and 574 of the Record:

  • "By the provision of Section 34 of the Electoral Act 2006. I find that a political party has the power to change its nominated candidate for another any time before 60 days to election. In its exercise of the power to change, it need to inform the INEC in writing not in any prescribed form of the change. It will also give INEC cogent reason for the change which INEC should be able to verify. In the instant case, the 3rd Defendant submitted the name of the Plaintiff as its Governorship candidate, informed INEC of its change of candidate and gave INEC a reason for the change. It is left for INEC to verify the reason or not. But pursuant to all the above, I will say that the political party is within its powers to so change its candidate and have so done as far as the parties on record are concerned."

The Court of Appeal did not agree with the learned trial Judge. That Court overturned the judgment of the learned trial Judge and allowed the appeal. At page 687 of the Record, Adekeye, JCA, said:

  • "Moreover, that pronouncement is not a judicial or judicious exercise of the discretion of the lower Court in the circumstances of the case. I shall not hesitate to conclude that the learned trial Judge failed to consider all the aspects of Section 34(1) and (2) of the Electoral Act and same has not met the justice of this case. I hereby allowed the appeal. Judgment of the lower Court is hereby set aside. No order as to cost."

    • The Court dismissed the cross-appeal.

    Dissatisfied, the Appellants have come to this Court.

Issues

  • 1
    Whether the decision of this Honourable Court in Onuoha v. Okafor (1983)...
    • Read More