CaseLaw
Utoo V. APC (2018) CLR 4(d) (SC)
Judgement delivered on April 20th 2018
Brief
Facts
The case of the appellant as can be gleaned from the record includes the following:
Appellant who is a member of the 1st respondent purchased an expression of interest, a nomination form of the 1st respondent to contest the primary election for the selection of a candidate of 1st respondent for the Federal House of Representatives for the Makurdi/Guma Federal Constituency of Benue State; that he was duly screened, participated and won the said primary election; that the other aspirant who contested the election with him is C. TERHIDE UTAN who came second; that the election was witnessed by the 3rd respondent who issued a report, Exhibit D; the result was declared in public though no certificate of return was issued to appellant by the 1st respondent's Chairman of Primary Election panel which compelled appellant to report to the Appeal Committee of the 1st respondent; that the said Committee affirmed the victory of appellant at the primary election as evidenced in Exhibit 'E', that the 2nd respondent did not participate in the election but was later purportedly imposed as the 1st respondent's candidate for the said Federal Constituency election.
It is also the case of appellant that the learned trial Judge dismissed the case of appellant despite the glaring facts as contained in Exhibits 'D' and 'E', amongst others, by holding, inter alia, that one BULUAN PETERS T, a total stranger to the primary election, was the one who scored the highest number of votes. The appeal before the lower Court was therefore as a result of the dissatisfaction of appellant with the said decision of the trial Judge which appeal, as noted earlier in this judgment was dismissed.
On the other hand, the case of the 1st respondent is that about four aspirants, including appellant and 2nd respondent, contested its primary election for nomination of a candidate for the election into the Constituency of the Federal House of Representatives in question, which nomination was won by one BULUAN PETERS who subsequently withdrew his candidacy and was duly substituted by 1st respondent with 2nd respondent who was 2nd at the said primary election.
As stated earlier in this judgment, the matter was heard and the case of appellant was dismissed resulting in an appeal to the lower Court which was also dismissed.