MARAFA & ORS v. DAN ALHAJI & ORS

CITATION: (2019) LPELR-47012(CA)

In the Court of AppealIn the Sokoto Judicial Division

Holden at Sokoto

ON MONDAY, 25TH MARCH, 2019Suit No: CA/S/32/19

Before Their Lordships:

TOM SHAIBU YAKUBU Justice, Court of AppealTIJJANI ABUBAKAR Justice, Court of AppealJAMILU YAMMAMA TUKUR Justice, Court of Appeal

Between

(201

9) LP

ELR-47

012(

CA)

1. SENATOR KABIRU GARBA MARAFA2. ALH SIRAJO GARBA3. ALH MUHAMMAD JIMA4. YAKUBU MUKHTAR5. BELLO ABUABAKAR6. ZUBAIRU MUSA B.7. ALH HAMZA TUKUR8. AUWALU ALHAZAI9. NASIRU MOHAMMED FARU10. HON ALH SALISU AMINU11. SA'IDU BARE BARI12. UMAR HASHIMU13. ALH SANI GOBIRAWA14. ALH SANI GYARE KADAURI15. ALH MUSA SAMARU16. ALH ABDULLAHI NAHUCE17. BASHAR ABDULLAHI18. ADAMU RABIU TSIKAU19. SHAFI'I MUSA20. ABUBAKAR UMAR21. MOHAMMED SANI22. BUHARI ABDULLAHI23. JUNAIDU MOHAMMED24. AMINU ABUBAKAR WUYA25. AHMAD S/ASKI26. YUSUF BABAN RAGO27. SARKI NA YALWA28. ZAYYANU DAHIRU29. LAWAL DAN MALIKI30. BELLO SHEHU31. DAN MALIKI32. UMMARU BUZU33. AISHA BALA34. UMAR SHUAIBU35. DAN JA'O RINI36. LAWALI MOHAMMAD YARGEDA37. SHUGABA DA AIKI38. ALH HAMISU MAI AIKI39. MURTAL A. MANDE40. MAMUDA SADA41. ALH HASSAN ABDULLAHI42. ALH BELLO MAI YARMAKA43. ABUABAKAR KOKARI44. ALH BELLO D/UMMA45. ALH IBRAHIM IMAM46. ALH IBRAHIM47. SHEHU UMAR48. MUSA DOGO49. SANI BATURE50. HASSAN GARBA ZUBU51. JABIR UMAR52. SHAHU TAJA53. MALAMI SULAIMAN54. ABUBAKAR BAWA55. SANI BATURE56. ABUBAKAR MUH'D57. ALH SANAMILA M GIDA58. SANI A DAHIRU59. SANI BALA SANKALAWA60. ALH AMINU KURAR MOTA61. ALH DANYABO WAZOJI62. UMARU ABDULLAHI63. ALH ISAH MAIDAJI64. ABUBAKAR AHMAD JAURI65. GARBA SARKIN RUWA66. MUSA LABBO GAMO67. AUWALI ALIYU68. BELLO IBRAHIM69. SAYYADI ABUBAKAR70. BELLO USMAN71. YUNUSA USMAN72. BELLO S/YAMMA73. DAHIRU ABDULLAHI74. RABIU HAMZA75. SHEHU HALIDU76. MUSA LUMU GYALANGE77. ALH ISAH DAN LARABAWA78. ALH LAWALI JIKA79. ABDUL'AZIZ BARAU MALAM ZA80. USMAN MUHAMMAD ALTINE81. SURAJO MUHAMMAD82. KHALID BUHARI83. ANAS ABUBAKAR84. RABI'I SHUGABA85. JAMILU MUHAMMAD86. BALA SABO87. YUSUF ADAMU88. MALLAM FALALU MATOYA89. ALIYU MUH'D S/GARI90. SULAIMAN BALA91. BELLO BARAU92. SANI DAN ABU93. ALIYU S/FAWA94. DAHIRU HALILU95. ATTO USUMAN96. SALISU SAMAILA97. UMARU MALLAN MAGAMI98. DAHIRU ZAKARI99. BASHAR MOHAMMED100. SALE MOH'D DANBA'U101. LAWALI DAN MAIGORO102. MAL. IDRIS MUSA103. ABUBAKAR 'YARRUWA104. TUKUR LUNGUFARU105. ALIYU MAI MAI106. HASSAN AHMAD107. YUNUSA ABDULLAHI108. ALH IBRAHIM NA KATSALLE109. ATTAHIRU RABIU110. SAHABI DANDA111. ABDULLAHI USMAN112. SAMAILA SANI BINGI113. ALH DANJUMMA MAFI114. ALH SADO GARBA115. LAWALI BALA116. ALH SHEHU ABI117. MANU NA TA'ALA118. GADO MAI MODI119. ABDURRAHMAN SHINGE120. WAKKALA KARINGUGA121. ANARUWANATA KWAIRE122. SURAJO AHMAD123. YA'U NAMA124. ALH SADIKU KATURU125. AKILU SULAIMAN126. ALH ISAH BAKAWI127. ALH GARBA DAN ILA128. RABIU IBRAHIM129. SANI MUSA130. ALH GARBA WANKE131. SARKIN PAWA DAN ABU132. ALH MAMMAN NA'ISA133. ALH SAHABI KILLUTU134. BARA'U ALIYU135. MAL DAYYABU ALARAMA136. ALH ABDULKADIR LIMAN137. ALH ABDULSALAM ABUBAKAR138. ALIYU SAYYADI139. SULE MUHAMMAD140. AMADU SARKIN(For themselves and all other aspirants/candidates who paid prescribed fees for procurement of Nomination forms for purpose of contesting the 1stDefendant's 147 Nos. Ward Executive Committee, 14 Nos. Local Government Executive Committees and State Executive Committee Election held on 5th, 12thand 19th June 2018 in Zamfara State, but were wrongly excluded or prevented from participating by voting or being voted for).

- Appellant(s)

(201

9) LP

ELR-47

012(

CA)

And1. SANUSI LIMAN DAN ALHAJI2. ALHAJI BABANGIDA ABDULLAHI3. KABIRU MANDE CHAFE, CHAIRMAN APC TSAFEL. G (Suing for themselves and on behalf of allState APC Members)4. MUKHTAR SHEHU IDRISS5. HON. IKIRA ALIYU BILBIS6. HON. TIJJANI YAHAYA KAURA7. HON. ABDUL-AZIZ YARI ABUBAKAR8. HON. SANUSI GARBA RIKIJI9. HON. ABDULMALIK ZUBAIRU10. HON. HUSSAINI ABUBAKAR MORIKI11. HON. IBRAHIM MUH'D B/MAGAJI12. HON. MUTTAKA MUH'D RINI13. HON. AHMAD SHARU ANKA14. HON. UMARU JIBO BUKKUYUM15. HON. MUSTAPHA GADO ANKA16. HON. MUH'D SANI AHMAD SANI17. HON. KABIRU MOYI B/MAGAJI18. HON. YAHAYA JIBRIL BUKKUYUM19. HON. TUKUR MUH'D DANTASAWA20. HON. IBRAHIM MUH'D K/KOSHI21. HON. YAKUBU IBRAHIM NABATURE22. HON. ALIYU MUH'D GAYERI23. HON. ALIYU MUH'D FALALE24. HON. SANUSI MUH'D LIMAN25. HON. DALHATU MAHMED MAGAMI26. HON. LAWAL M. LIMAN27. HON. ABUBAKAR IDRIS KURYA28. HON. YAHAYA SHAHU MARADUN29. HON. YAHAYA ABDULLAHI GORA30. HON. HARUNA ABDULLAHI D/SADAU31. HON. IBRAHIM ABU MARU32. HON. SHEHU BELLO MAI WURNO33. HON. ALYU ANGO KAGARA34. HON. ISAH ABDULMUMINU35. HON. ALIYU ABUBAKAR MC36. HON. ALIYU ABUBAKAR DANJIBGA37. HON. MANIR ALIYU G/JAJA38. HON. YUSUF AHMAD MORIKI39. ALL PROGRESSIVES CONGRESS (APC)40. INUWA ABDULKADIR, 1ST NATIONAL VICECHAIRMAN NORTHWEST ZONE OF APC41. INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORALCOMMISSION (INEC)42. HON. SANI AJI

- Respondent(s)

RATIO DECIDENDI

(201

9) LP

ELR-47

012(

CA)

1. ACTION - LOCUS STANDI: Meaning of locus standi; what the court considers in determining whether a plaintiff has locus standi"Locus standi connotes the legal capacity which a person has to enable him file an action in a Court of law. There is a symbioticrelationship between jurisdiction and locus standi. Hence in the determination of whether or not a person has the legal capacity tofile an action in a Court of law, the plaintiff's statement of claim is the only process that will be considered by the Court. That is, itis from the averments in the statement of claim only which the Court carefully scrutinizes in order to decipher whether or not itdiscloses the plaintiff's interest and how that interest arises in the subject matter of the action filed by him. Thomas v. Olufosoye(1986) 1 NWLR (pt.18) 669; Adesokan & Ors v. Prince Adegorolu & Ors (1997) LPELR -151 (SC); Abisi & Ors v. Ekwealor & Anor(1993) LPELR -44 (SC); Owodunni v. Registered Trustees of Celestial Church of Christ (2000)10 NWLR (pt.675)315; (2000) 6 S.C.(Pt.II) 60."Per YAKUBU, J.C.A. (Pp. 48-49, Paras. E-C) - read in context

2. APPEAL - INTERFERENCE WITH EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE: Circumstances in which an appellate Court will interfere withevaluation of evidence made by a trial Court"?It is apparent from the decision of the lower Court, that attention was not accorded to the materials before it, the lower Courtfailed to properly evaluate the evidence and come to a conclusion, this is certainly a case of the lower Court shutting its eyes tothe obvious, and remained persistently on the path of error thereby giving a decision that is perverse, a decision that is differentfrom what is reasonable or required, a decision that is against the weight of evidence. The law is settled that where the trial Courtfails to properly evaluate the evidence placed before it, the Appellate Court is in as good position as the trial Court to re-evaluatethe evidence placed before it, to ensure that justice is done to the parties, this is in accord with the provisions of Section 15 of theCourt of Appeal Act 2004. Having painstakingly perused the evidence before trial Court, I agree with the learned Counsel for theAppellants that the lower Court failed to properly evaluate the evidence before it. In ATOLAGBE V. SHORUN SC. 14/1984 on themeaning of what constitutes a perverse decision, OPUTA (JSC) (of blessed memory) said as follows:"Perverse simply meanspersistent error, different from what is reasonable or required, against the weight of evidence. A decision may be perverse wherethe trial Judge took into account matters not to be taken into account or where the judge shuts his eyes to the obvious."PerYAKUBU, J.C.A. (Pp. 80-81, Paras. D-E) - read in context

3. COURT - JURISDICTION: Importance of jurisdiction; effect where a Court lacks jurisdiction over a matter"The law has remained very well settled beyond per adventure, by a long and unbroken chain of judicial authorities of theSupreme Court and this Court to the unarguable conclusion that jurisdiction is the vires, the power, that a Court of law has andpossesses which enables it to take cognizance of, hear and adjudicate on any matter placed before it for its determination. That is,jurisdiction is the authority that a Court of law has in order to decide any matter that is laid before it in a formal way for itsdecision on such matters.Therefore, where any Court lacks the jurisdiction to try any matter filed before it, but goes ahead to determine it, such a decisionamounts to nothing as it will be declared a nullity by an appellate/higher Court, hence it will be tantamount to an exercise infutility. To underscore the criticality and quintessence of jurisdiction to adjudication, the Supreme Court in a plethora of decidedauthorities, one of which is Hon. Ehioze Egharevba v. Hon. Crosby Osadulor Eribo & Ors (2010) 9 NWLR (pt.1199) 411; (2010)LPELR -9716 (SC); (2010) 3 SCNJ (pt.ii) 441 @ 453-452, reiterated the law succinctly, per Adekeye, JSC., that:"Jurisdiction is a term of comprehensive import embracing every kind of judicial action. It is the power of a Court to decide amatter in controversy and presupposes the existence of a duly constituted Court, with control over the subject matter and theparties. Jurisdiction also defines the power of the Court to inquire into facts, apply the law, make decisions and declare judgment.Jurisdiction is equally to Court, what a door is to a house. That is why the question of a Court's jurisdiction is called a thresholdissue, because it is at the threshold of the temple of justice. Jurisdiction is a radical and fundamental question of competence, for ifthe Court has no jurisdiction to hear the case, the proceedings are and remains a nullity however well-conducted and brilliantlydecided they might have been. A defect in competence is not intrinsic but rather extrinsic to adjudication. Oloba v. Akereja (1988)3 NWLR (pt. 89) pg.508; Oloriode v. Oyebi (1984) 1 SCNLR pg.390; Ezomo v. Oyakhire (1985) 1 NWLR (pt.2) pg. 105; PetrojessicaEnterprises Ltd v. Leventis Technical Co Ltd (1992) 2 SCNLR pg.341; Barclays Bank v. Central Bank of Nigeria (1976) 6 SC pg.175;African Newspapers of Nigeria v. Federal Republic of Nigeria (1985) 2 NWLR pt.6 pg.137; Adeleke v. OSHA (2006) 16 NWLRpt.1006 pg.608; Attorney General Anambra State v. A-G Federation (1993) 6 NWLR pt. 302 pg.692; Saleh v. Monguno (2003)1NWLR pt. 801 pg. 221. The issue of jurisdiction being fundamental can be raised and challenged at any stage of the proceedings inthe lower Court, in the Court of Appeal or even for the first time in the Supreme Court. The issue of jurisdiction being so pivotal canbe raised suo motu by the Court so long as the parties are accorded the opportunity to react to the issue."The eminent and revered jurist Mohammed Bello, C.J.N. of blessed memory, in the judicial words on marble on jurisdiction, in ChiefUtuedo Utih & 6 Ors v. Jacob U. Onoyivwe & 5 Ors(1991) 1 SCNJ 25 @ 49, had stated eloquently and allegorically that:"Jurisdiction is the blood that gives life to the survival of an action in a Court of law and without jurisdiction, the action will be likean animal that has been drained of its blood. It will cease to have life and any attempt to resuscitate it without infusing blood intoit, would be an abortive exercise."The reason for the above stated allegoric analogy is not far fetched. And it is because the life of the flesh is in the blood. In otherwords, jurisdiction is the life in the action, placed before the Court of law for adjudication, such that the absence of it, renders theaction lifeless. In the locus classicus - Madukolu & Ors v. Nkemdilim (1962) All NLR 581; (1962) 2 SCNLR 341 @ 587-588, theFederal Supreme Court, had held on jurisdiction and competence of a Court, thus:"Put briefly, a Court is competent when -a. It is properly constituted as regards members and qualification of the members of the bench, and no member is disqualified forone reason or another; andb. The subject matter of the case is within its jurisdiction, and there is no feature in the case which prevents the Court fromexercising its jurisdiction; andc. The case comes before the Court initiated by due process of law, and upon fulfillment of any condition precedent to the exerciseof jurisdiction."The three conditions stated above must co-exist in respect of any action filed in a Court of law, before the Court can be invested orclothed with proper competence and the requisite jurisdiction, to entertain and adjudicate on it. The Military Administrator, BenueState & 20 Ors v. Captain Clement Abayol (Rtd) (2001) FWLR (pt.35) 604; (2001) 5 NWLR (pt.705) 19; Ishola v. Ajiboye (1994) 19LRCN 35; (1994) 6 NWLR (pt.352) 506; Matari v. Dan Galadima(1993) 3 NWLR (pt.281) 266; Attorney General, Anambra State v.Attorney General, Federation (1993) 6 NWLR (pt.302) 692; Odofin v. Agu (1992) 3 NWLR (pt.229) 350."Per YAKUBU, J.C.A. (Pp.42-46, Paras. C-E) - read in context

(201

9) LP

ELR-47

012(

CA)

4. COURT - JURISDICTION: What determines jurisdiction of Court to entertain a cause/matter"...Furthermore, the law has been well settled to the effect that in order for the Court to determine whether or not it possesses therequired competence to determine the cause of action placed before it, the processes that were filed in order to activate itsjurisdiction, which it needs to examine, are the writ of summons and the statement of claim only. And where the action was begunby originating summons, then it is the reliefs sought therein as well as the depositions contained in the affidavit in support of theoriginating summons, that would be examined in order to discern if the Court has the jurisdiction to entertain and determine theaction. These are the only processes from which the facts giving rise to the cause of action can be gleaned for the Court to inquireinto and determine whether it has the jurisdiction to determine the plaintiff's action. This is because, it is the plaintiff who invokesthe constitutional right for a determination of his right and accordingly the activation of the judicial powers vested in the Courts bythe Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 as amended. That is, it is the plaintiff's demand and not the defendant'sanswer to that demand that is a relevant issue for consideration at that stage. Therefore, ordinarily, it is the claim of the plaintiffonly and not the defence, which the Court looks at to determine its jurisdiction. Adeyemi & Ors v. Opeyori (1976) LPELR - 171 (SC)@ 21-22; Attorney General, Oyo State v. Nigeria Labour Congress (2003) 8 NWLR (pt.821) 1; Akande & 2 Ors v. Busari Alagbe &Anor. (2001) FWLR (pt.38) 1352; Attorney General Federation v. Guardian Newspaper Ltd & 5 Ors (1999) 9 NWLR (pt.618) 187;Messers N. V. Scheep & Anor v. The MV 'S Araz & Anor (2000) 15 NWLR (pt.691) 622; (2000) FWLR (pt.34) 556; National ElectricPower Authority v. Atukpor (2001) FWLR (pt.20) 626; General Sani Abacha & 3 Ors v. Chief Gani Fawehinmi (2000) 6 NWLR(pt.660) 228; (2000) FWLR (pt.4) 557; Okulate & 4 Ors v. Awosanya & 2 Ors (2000) 2 NWLR (pt.646) 530; Senator Yakubu Lado &Ors v. Congress for Progressive Change & Ors (2011) LPELR- 8254 (SC) @ 35; Inakoju v. Adeleke & Ors (2007) 4 NWLR (pt.1025) 1;Jev v. Iyortyom (2014) 14 NWLR (pt.1428) 575."Per YAKUBU, J.C.A. (Pp. 46-48, Paras. E-D) - read in context

5. ELECTORAL MATTERS - POLITICAL PARTY PRIMARY: Who can institute an action in court to complain about the conduct of apolitical party primaries"From the averments contained in the aforementioned paragraphs of the amended statement of claim and their reply to theappellants' statement of defense, it is evident that the 1st -38th respondents, being card carrying members of the 39threspondent, participated as aspirants in the primary election, allegedly conducted by the 39th respondent on 3rd and 7th October,2018, to pick its candidates for the Zamfara State Gubernatorial, National and State House of Assembly, to contest in the Februaryand March, 2019 General Elections. Their grouse was that having participated in the primary elections, the 39th respondent hadthe plan to reverse the results from the aforesaid primary elections and short change them, hence they had to approach the Courtbelow, in order to protect their rights and interests. I am quite satisfied that the 1st-38th respondents, by virtue of Section 156 ofthe Electoral Act, 2010, (as amended) by Electoral (Amendment) Act No.2 2011, which defines the word: "aspirant" as "a personwho aspires or seeks or strives to contest an election to a political office"; are aspirants who participated in the aforesaid primaryelection, allegedly conducted by the 39th respondent on 3rd and 7th October, 2018 and ipso facto, they each had locus standiwhen they filed their claim at the Court below. Isah Shuaibu Lau v. Peoples Democratic Party & Ors (2017) LPELR-42800 (SC) @ pp.24-26; Ardo v. Nyako (2014) 10 NWLR (pt.1416) 591."Per YAKUBU, J.C.A. (Pp. 51-53, Paras. E-A) - read in context

(201

9) LP

ELR-47

012(

CA)

6. ELECTORAL MATTERS - POLITICAL PARTY PRIMARY: Which Court has jurisdiction in respect of party primaries"I now turn my attention to the appellants' contention, to the effect that by virtue of Section 251(1) (r) of the 1999 Constitution ofthe Federal Republic of Nigeria, as amended, the Court below had no jurisdiction to have entertained and determined the 1st-38threspondents' action. In order to appreciate the import and dynamics of this issue, the provisions of Section 251(1) (r) of the 1999Constitution and Section 87(9) of the Electoral Act, 2010, as amended, are each reproduced as follows, respectively:"251(1) - Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Constitution and in addition to such other jurisdiction as maybe conferred upon it by an Act of the National Assembly, the Federal High Court shall have and exercise exclusive jurisdiction tothe exclusion of any other Court in civil causes and matters-(r) any action or proceeding for a declaration or injunction affecting the validity of any executive or administrative action ordecision by the Federal Government or any of its agencies;?Section 87(9) of the Electoral Act ,2010 as amended, says:"87 (9) Notwithstanding the provisions of the Act or rules of a political party, an aspirant who complains that any of the provisionsof this Act and the guidelines of a political party has not been complied within the selection or nomination of a candidate of apolitical party for election, may apply to the Federal High Court or the High of a State, or of the Federal Capital Territory, forredress."Indisputably, the law is no longer recondite, but very well settled to the effect that it is only members of a political party who haddesired to contest elections into political offices at the National, State and Local Government levels in Nigeria and whoconsequently participated in the party primaries conducted by their particular political party, but have some grouse against theconduct and/or outcome of primary elections, that can institute an action in Court and ventilate their grievances by virtue ofSection 87(9) of the Electoral Act, 2010 as amended. The decided authorities of the Supreme Court and this Court on this settledprinciple of the law, are a basketful. So, just a few of them will suffice: People's Democratic Party & Anor. v. Timipre Sylva (2012)13 NWLR (pt.1316) 85; (2012) All FWLR (pt.637) 606; (2012) LPELR- 7814 (SC); Senator Dahiru Gassol v. Alhaji Abubakar Tutare(2013) 14 NWLR (pt.1374) 221;(2013) LPELR-20232 (SC); Terver Kakih v. People's Democratic Party & Ors (2014) LPELR -23277(SC) @ 69-70; Heineken Lokpobiri v. Ogola & Ors (2016) 13 NWLR (pt.1499) 328 @ 389; Shinkafi & Anor v. Yari & Ors (2016) 7NWLR (1511) 340 @ 370; Olugbemi v. Lawrence (2017) LPELR - 42361 (SC); Lau v. People's Democratic Party, supra. The vexedquestion of whether or not it is the Federal High Court which has the exclusive jurisdiction to hear and determine any suitbordering on grievances complained of by aspirants who participated in political party primaries was succinctly resolved by theapex Court, in its aforementioned decisions, to the conclusive effect that both the Federal High Court, State High Court and theHigh Court of the Federal Capital Territory, have concurrent jurisdiction to hear and determine complaints by aspirants who hadparticipated in political parties' primary elections by virtue of Section 251(1) (r) of the 1999 Constitution, as amended and Section87(9) of the Electoral Act,2010, as amended. Instructively, in the most recent decision of the apex Court, that is, Lau v. PDP & Ors,(supra), on a similar matter that was filed, heard and determined at the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, withrespect to a complaint that arose from the conduct of the People's Democratic Party primary election for the selection of itscandidate, to contest in a legislative office general election; it was reiterated emphatically to the effect that the Federal HighCourt, the State High Court and the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, possess concurrent jurisdiction to hear anddetermine such matters. At pages 43-46 of the report, Augie, JSC., succinctly stated that:"The Current position of the law is that in exercising jurisdiction under Section 87(9) of the Electoral Act, the Federal High Courtand the High Court of a State or FCT have concurrent jurisdiction to hear and determine disputes arising from conduct of a party'sprimaries - see Salim v. CPC (Supra), wherein Peter-Odili, JSC, stated as follows "This Court would take the stand it took in Ucha v.ONWE (2011) 1 SCNJ 232 because of the brand new provision of Section 87(9) of the Electoral Act. It is therefore, to be said in viewof this novel provision that the previous all-embracing interpretation of Section 251 of the 1999 Constitution is given once theFederal Government or its Agencies are involved would have to be given a broad view in the co-existing situation of the provisionsof Section 87(9) of the Electoral Act and the sui generis nature of the subject matter, the Court of Appeal was in error in holdingthat the Federal High Court had the exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate on this pre-election dispute to the exclusion of the StateHigh Court. This is because the jurisdiction is exercisable by either the Federal High Court or State High Court or High Court of theFCT. And Lokpobiri v. Ogola (Supra). Wherein Muhammad, JSC said- Section 251 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) createsjurisdiction and make same exclusively exercisable by the Federal High Court only in respect of the subject matters theparagraphs under the section cover. Election and election related matters, be it stressed, have not been provided for by any of theparagraphs under Section 251 of the 1999 Constitution, the contrary submissions of Counsel in this regard are certainlymisinformed and their reliance on our decision in PDP V. Sylva (Supra) and Kakih v. PDP (supra) are without basis.Obviously the law is not static, particularly in election matters, and what the law makers have done with the enactment of Section87(9) of the Electoral Act, is to make more Courts available to aspirants, who complain that provisions of the Electoral Act andGuidelines of a political party, has not been complied with in nominating candidates.To insist on the narrow and limited jurisdiction exclusive to the Federal High Court under Section 251 (1) (q) (r) and (s) of the 1999Constitution when it comes to election related matters, is to close the doors that was opened to such dissatisfied aspirants to seekredress in the other High Courts other than Federal High Court. This I will not do; and this issue is resolved in favour of theAppellant..."?My Lords, drawing inspiration, which we are bound to, from the decisions of the Supreme Court, referred to above and since it isglaring and clear as crystal, that relief 16 (e) - (j) as endorsed in the amended statement of claim, at the Court below, wastargeted at the 3rd Defendant- the Independent National Electoral Commission (the 41st respondent herein), I have no doubt inmy mind that the Federal High Court does not possess an exclusive jurisdiction in this matter. I am of the considered and firmopinion that the Federal High Court, the State High Court, as in the instant case, and the High Court of the Federal CapitalTerritory, have concurrent jurisdiction to entertain and determine disputes which arise from the conduct of political parties'primary elections for candidates who seek and desire to contest elections into Executive and Legislative Offices. Therefore, I am inagreement with the submissions by the learned Senior Counsel for the 1st - 38th and 39th - 40th respondents, respectively, to theeffect that the learned trial judge was on firma terra, in his conclusion that he possessed the jurisdiction to entertain anddetermine the 1st-38th respondents' action."Per YAKUBU, J.C.A. (Pp. 53-59, Paras. A-F) - read in context

7. ELECTORAL MATTERS - NOMINATION AND SPONSORSHIP OF CANDIDATE: Whether a party seeking to nominate candidatesfor elections must hold primaries and submit the list of candidates it proposes to sponsor to INEC"Section 31 (1) of the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended) provides that:Every political party shall not later than 60 days before the date appointed for a general election under the provisions of this Act,submit to the Commission in the prescribed forms the list of the candidates the party proposes to sponsor at the elections.The above provision of the law, takes me to Section 87 (1) of the same Electoral Act the section also dealing with primary electionsprovides as follows:87(1). A political party seeking to nominate candidates for elections under this Act shall hold primaries for aspirants to all electivepositions."Per YAKUBU, J.C.A. (P. 74, Paras. B-E) - read in context

(201

9) LP

ELR-47

012(

CA)

8. ELECTORAL MATTERS - SELECTION/NOMINATION OF CANDIDATE: Whether the procedural guidelines for thenomination/selection of candidates as provided by the law must be followed"The Provisions of Sections 31(1) and 87(1) of the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended), and The All Progressives Congress guidelinesfor the nomination of candidates for the 2019 general elections - Direct primaries, prescribe the mode of producing candidates forthe 2019 elections, the procedure must be followed, whenever there is a specific provision regulating the procedure for doing aparticular act, that procedure must be followed, it is also trite that when a statute dictates a certain mode of doing something,then that method and no other must be employed in the performance of the Act, see: BERNARD AMASIKE V. REGISTRAR GENERAL,CORPORATE AFFAIRS COMMISSION (2010) LPELR-456 (SC)."Per YAKUBU, J.C.A. (Pp. 81-82, Paras. E-B) - read in context

9. ELECTORAL MATTERS - SELECTION/NOMINATION OF CANDIDATE: Whether the procedural guidelines for thenomination/selection of candidates as provided by the law must be followed"...Let me end with these words of admonition proffered by his Lordship AUGIE JSC in LAU V. PDP (Supra) at pages 66-67 thereof,thus"This is a hard and very bitter lesson for political parties to learn, they may have chosen candidates or eminent personalities theywant to present as candidates to INEC, but they have to play by the rules, the chosen candidates must comply with therequirements of the law; they must abide by the provisions of the Electoral Act, which creates a level playing field for all aspirants,who seek to contest elections. So, the political parties and their candidates must obey the Rules."Per YAKUBU, J.C.A. (P. 83, Paras.C-F) - read in context

10. ELECTORAL MATTERS - SELECTION/NOMINATION OF CANDIDATE: Whether the procedural guidelines for thenomination/selection of candidates as provided by the law must be followed"This is another instance of brazen impunity and flagrant disregard to the provisions of the Electoral Act and Political partyguidelines in the selection of candidates for the 2019 general Elections. It is no longer possible for politicians to throw caution tothe wind in the selection process of candidates and get away with it, right from the decision of the Supreme Court of Nigeria inLAU V. PEOPLES DEMOCRATIC PARTY (PDP) (2017) LPELR-42800 (SC), the Supreme Court of Nigeria sent out signal to politiciansthat developing and improving internal democracy in managing domestic affairs of political parties lies at their door step, if it isnot done right, the law has given room for judicial intervention. The judgment just rendered in this appeal is one of such instances.My Lord KEKERE-EKUN JSC, in his elaborate contribution to the decision in LAU V. PDP (Supra), said as follows:"I do not have much to add save to observe that once again we are faced with a situation where a political party in selecting itscandidates for an election has completely thrown caution to the wind and acted in flagrant disregard of the provisions of theElectoral Act and its own guidelines.There is a settled line of authorities to the effect that domestic or internal affairs of a political party are not justiciable, that theCourts will not dabble into membership of a party or who it chooses to sponsor for an election. See. Onuoha vs Sylva (2012) 13NWLR (pt. 1316) 85; APGA Vs Anyanwu (2014) 1-2 SC (pt. 1); Emenike vs PDP (2011) LPELR-1975 2 CA). However, in making itschoice, a political party must act within the law and must comply with its own constitution and guidelines. Prior to 2006, politicalparties acted with impunity in the selection, sponsorship and substitution of candidates for election. The absolute powers ofparties in this respect were curtailed to an extent by the introduction of Sections 32 and 34 (now Section 33 of the Electoral Act2010 (as amended) made specific provisions for the manner and time within which the substitution of a candidate could be madewhile Section 32(4) (now Section 35(4) of the Act, permitted the particulars submitted to INEC by a candidate to be challenged inCourt. A further amendment of the Electoral Act in 2010 vide Section 87(9) thereof provided that an aspirant who is dissatisfiedwith the conduct of his party primary election or who alleges non-compliance with the Electoral Act or the party's constitutionand/or guidelines in the selection or nomination of a candidate of a political party for election may seek redress at the FederalHigh Court, or the High Court of a State or Federal Capital Territory. The reason is not far-fetched. While the actual choice of acandidate is within the domestic affairs of the party, which is not justiciable, the party must adhere strictly to the provisions of theElectoral Act and its own Constitution and guidelines in carrying out the exercise. Section 87(9) empowers the Court to intervenewhere a party (as in this case) has acted arbitrarily and with impunity. See; Emenike v. PDP (2012) 12 NWLR (pt. 1315) 556 @ 603,E-G; Uzodinma v. Izunaso (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1279) 689 @ 717-719 G-B".Whenever a procedure for doing a particular process is set down by law, that and no other procedure must be followed."PerABUBAKAR, J.C.A. (Pp. 84-87, Paras. C-B) - read in context

11. EVIDENCE - EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE: Duty of a trial court to evaluate the entire evidence before it"I am convinced that the lower Court failed in its duty to properly evaluate the evidence placed before it by the Appellants in thisappeal, let me refer the decision in OVUNWO & Ors V. WOKO & Ors (2011) LPELR-2841 (SC), where my Lord CHUKWUMA ENEH JSC(of blessed memory) said: "I must however , respectfully observe at this stage vis a vis the lower Court's manner of couching itsjudgment in this appeal that every Judge reserves the right as to his own style of writing judgments whether sitting at the trial orappellate level of the Courts. All the same, what must be recognized as settled law is the duty to pronounce judgment on all issuesplaced before the judge for resolution. Without over simplifying this duty every judgment has to state the facts of the case, statethe points at issue requiring the Court to pronounce upon them, then the Courts decision with the reasons for same."Per YAKUBU,J.C.A. (Pp. 82-83, Paras. C-A) - read in context

(201

9) LP

ELR-47

012(

CA)

12. EVIDENCE - EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE: Duty of the trial Court as regards perception, evaluation and findings of fact"There is nothing wrong in setting the stage by stating the settled position of the law on evaluation of evidence, let me refer to thedecision of the Supreme Court of Nigeria in UMAR V. BAYERO UNIVERSITY KANO (1988) 7 SC (Pt. II) 1, where my law lord BELGOREJSC (Later CJN) said as follows:"It is the primary duty of the trial Court to evaluate evidence before it and make definite findings on such evidence. It has everyadvantage of doing this. The witnesses are before it and it is well placed to judge the demeanor of each witness. For examination-in-chief, cross examination and re-examination, the trial Court has an advantage over all appellate Courts of deciding who tobelieve or disbelieve. The record of proceeding, however detailed or comprehensive is not cinematograph or even live voiceaccompanying pictures but mere attempt to record what was said or demonstrated and not the demonstration of the evidenceitself. It is for this reason that unless it is expedient in exceptional circumstances, the appellate Court should not disturb thefindings of fact of trial Court. You can believe that person you can see and hear; similarly, the person you disbelieve. A Court ofAppeal merely sees the records and not the person whose voice and demonstration are written down. The exceptionalcircumstances could be incompetent evidence, evidence legally inadmissible like hear-say and some secondary evidence. Fortrials are only trials in law if based on lawful evidence; a judgment based on inadmissible evidence is no judgment and will bedeclared null and void".I also refer to the decision of this Court in AKINTOLA V. ADEGBITE (2007) ALL FWLR (Pt. 372) 1891 at 1898, delivered by my lawLord Augie JCA (as he then was) (Now JSC) on what constitutes proper evaluation of evidence, my Lord said as follows:"Evaluation of evidence entails the assessment of evidence so as to give value or quality to it; it involves a reasoned belief of theevidence of one of the contending parties and disbelief of the other or a reasoned preference of one version to the other. Theremust be on record how the Court arrived at its conclusion of preferring one piece of evidence to the other. In the instant case, thelower Court clearly enumerated its reasons for preferring the evidence of the respondent. See Oyekola v. Ajibade (2004) 17 NWLR(Pt. 902) 356; Idakwo v. Nigerian Army (2004) 2 NWLR (Pt. 857) 249; F.B.N. Plc v. Oniyangi (2000) 6 NWLR (Pt. 661) 497, Fasanyav. Adekoya (2000)15 NWLR (Pt. 689) 22, (2001) FWLR (Pt. 34) 516;Merchantile Bank of Nig. Plc. v. Nwobodo (2000) 3 NWLR (Pt.648) 297."Per YAKUBU, J.C.A. (Pp. 63-66, Paras. E-A) - read in context

13. EVIDENCE - ADMISSION AGAINST INTEREST: Effect where a party makes an admission against his interest"The law is well settled that where there are admissions against interest such admissions will be admissible against a person, suchevidence shall be viewed in relation to the entire evidence before the Court, see: KAMALU & ORS V. DANIEL NWAKUDU UKAUMUNNA & ORS (1997) LPELR-1657 (SC)."Per YAKUBU, J.C.A. (P. 79, Paras. E-G) - read in context

14. EVIDENCE - EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE: Procedure for the evaluation of evidence in civil cases"Now the case of the Appellants is that the lower Court failed to evaluate the evidence before it before arriving at its conclusion. Ihave gone through the entire judgment of the lower Court more particularly from pages 2234-2253 of the printed record and whatI find therein are the summary of the evidence led by all the parties the arguments of counsels and the issue distilled fordetermination by the lower Court. As far back as 1978 the Supreme Court in the case of Odofin & Ors v Mogaji & Ors (1978) NSCC275 at 277 stated the procedure to be followed in the evaluation of evidence in the following terms;"In other words, the totality of the evidence should be considered in order to determine which has weight and which has no weightat all. Therefore in deciding whether a certain set of facts was given in evidence by one party in a civil case before a Court inwhich both parties appear is preferable to another set of facts given in evidence by the other party, the trial judge, after summaryof all the facts, must put the two sets of facts on an imaginary scale, weigh one against the other then decide upon thepreponderance of credible evidence which weighs more, accept it in preference to the other, and then apply the appropriate law toit." See UKAEGBU & ORS V NWOLOLO (2009) LPELR 3337 (SC); EYIBOH V ABIA & ORS (2012) LPELR-20607 (SC); STALLION SEAFOODS LTD WARRINGTON V NOGUMWEGIE (2013) LPELR-20313 (CA); ANOSIKE VS DINYO (2016) LPELR-41397 (CA)The law is settled that in civil matters such as in the instant case the Court decides the case on the balance of probability orpreponderance of evidence and this the Court does by putting the admissible evidence adduced by the parties on the imaginaryscale weigh them and decides which is heavier not by the number of witnesses called or documentary evidence placed but by thequality or probative value of the evidence be it oral or documentary. In determining which is heavier, the judge will necessarilyhave regard to the following;- (a) Whether the evidence is admissible;(b) Whether it is relevant;(c) Whether it is credible;(d)Whether it is conclusive and (e) Whether it is more probable than that given by the other party. Finally, after invoking the law thatis applicable to the case the trial judge will then arrive at his final conclusion based on the evidence which he accepted. Evaluationof evidence is therefore the assessment of all the facts presented by the parties and the ascription of probative value to them.That duty remains foisted on the trial judge. See Baba v Nigerian Civil Aviation & Anor (1991) LPELR-69 (SC); EZEMBA V IBENEME& ANOR (2004)LPELR-1205 (SC).In my view the evaluation procedure adopted by the trial Court was not in consonance with the above principles on evaluation ofevidence. There is nothing in the judgment to show any attempt on the part of the lower Court to put the evidence adduced by theparties on the imaginary scale, scrutinize same to know which has probative value over the other before arriving at its conclusiongranting all the reliefs of the plaintiffs."Per TUKUR, J.C.A. (Pp. 89-92, Paras. F-D) - read in context

(201

9) LP

ELR-47

012(

CA)

TOM SHAIBU YAKUBU, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading

Judgment): This appeal stems from the Ruling and

Judgment of the High Court of Zamfara State delivered by

Shinkafi J, on the 25th day of January 2019 in Suit No.

ZMS/GS/52/2018 wherein the lower Court over ruled the

Appellants preliminary objection and gave judgment in

favour of the 1st to 38th Respondents and directed the

39th-41st Respondents to accept the names of the 1st to

38th Respondents as the candidates of the 39th

Respondent for election to the offices of Governor, National

and State Assembly elections fixed for 2019.

It is important to mention that the 1st to 38th Respondents

in this appeal were the Plaintiffs at the Court below. At the

Court below as per their amended statement of claim dated

13th November 2018 found at pages 22-29 of the additional

records of appeal. The Plaintiffs claimed the following

reliefs:

a) AN ORDER DECLARING as lawful and valid the

primary elections conducted by the APC (herein

Plaintiffs party) under the supervision of the 3rd

Defendants and security agent on the 3rd and 7th day

of October 2018 for the purpose of producing

1

(201

9) LP

ELR-47

012(

CA)

candidates to vie for the various elective office which

produce the Plaintiffs under the platform of the 1st

Defendant.

b) A DECLARATION that any decision or steps taken

to reverse the results of the primary election duly

conducted on the 3rd and 7th day of October 2018

and monitored by the 3rd Defendant is or will amount

to a nullity, void and of no effect whatsoever.

c) A DECLARATION that the 1st Defendant is bound

to recognize, accept and forward to the 3rd Defendant

the list of candidates that emerged winners in the

Governorship, National Assembly and State

Legislative Houses primary elections of the 1st

Defendant in Zamfara State held on the 3rd and 7th

October 2018 and monitored by the 3rd Defendant.

d) A DECLARATION that the 3rd defendant cannot

refuse or shut out the 1st Defendant from presenting

or forwarding to it the list of candidates that emerged

winners in the Governorship National Assembly and

State Legislative Houses Primary Elections in

Zamfara State having been conducted on 3rd and 7th

October 2018 to hold their primary elections.

e) A DECLARATION that the 3rd defendant cannot

refuse to accept and publish the list of candidates

that

2

(201

9) LP

ELR-47

012(

CA)

emerged winners of the Governorship, National and

State Legislative Houses Primary elections of the 1st

Defendant in Zamfara State submitted to it for the

2019 general elections.

f) AN ORDER of this Honorable Court directing the

3rd Defendant to accept and publish the list of

Governorship, National and State Legislative Houses

primary elections of the 1st Defendant in Zamfara

State held on the 3rd and 7th October 2018 and

monitored by the 3rd Defendant.

g) AN ORDER directing the 3rd defendant to accept

and accord due recognition to the list of candidates

that emerged winners in the Governorship National

and State Legislative Houses Primary Elections of the

1st Defendant in Zamfara State on 3rd and 7th

October 2018.

h) AN ORDER mandating or compelling the defendant

to recognize and accept the list of candidates that

emerged winners in the Governorship, National and

State Legislative Houses Primary Elections of the 1st

Defendant in Zamfara State held on 3rd and 7th

October 2018.

i) AN ORDER directing the defendants to recognize

only the result of the Primary election of the 1st

Defendant held on 3rd and 7th October 2018 in

Zamfara State.

3

(201

9) LP

ELR-47

012(

CA)

j) AN ORDER of perpetual injunction restraining the

defendants either by themselves, through their lawful

agents, privies or assign from taking any steps

towards cancelling/rejecting the result of the primary

election held on 3rd and 7th October 2018 and

monitored by the 3rd Defendant.

k) The cost of filing, and prosecuting this suit.

The Appellants then stated that, at all material times all the

Respondents except 39th Respondent admitted that after

two unsuccessful attempts to conduct primary elections,

they could not proceed to conduct primaries, but on the

part of the 39th Respondent it asserted that even though

primary elections were not conducted, it exercised its right

to present list of candidates agreed upon by consensus. I

must be quick to mention that the 1st to 38th Respondents

insisted that primary elections were conducted but the 39th

Respondent’s electoral officer for some reasons best known

to him refused to submit the list of winners of the primary

elections to the Independent National Electoral

Commission. The 1st to 38th Respondents sensing that

their list of successful candidates might be rejected by the

Independent

4

(201

9) LP

ELR-47

012(

CA)

National Electoral Commission rushed to Court and

instituted suit NO. ZMS/GS/52/2018, claiming the reliefs

set out herein before in this judgment.

The matter then went to trial, parties called witnesses and

tendered exhibits, at the end of the trial judgment was

entered in favour of the Respondents, the Appellants

became nettled by the decision and therefore made for this

Court on the 29th day of January 2019. Appellants filed

Notice of appeal containing two grounds on the 29th day of

January 2019, and additional grounds on the 7th of

February 2019. The Notices are found at pages 2256-2274

of the records of appeal volume 5.

The Appellants brief of argument was filed by learned

Counsel Maidawa on the 4th day of March 2019, wherein

learned Counsel nominated four issues for determination,

the issues are reproduced as follows:

1. Whether having regards to the provisions of

Section 251(1) (r) of the 1999 Constitution of the

Federal Republic of Nigeria, as amended, the Court

below has jurisdiction to adjudicate the claim of the

1st -38th Respondents. Distilled from ground No. 4.

2. Whether the Court below was right in placing

5

(201

9) LP

ELR-47

012(

CA)

reliance on materials, depositions and documentary

exhibits contained in and/or attached to the counter

affidavit and further affidavit by the 1st-38th

Respondents in opposition to the preliminary

objection, to hold that the 1st to 38th Respondents

are aspirants and have legal s tanding to

institute/maintain and or prosecute the claim in suit

No. ZMS/GS/52/2018- Distilled from additional

ground No 5.

3. Whether the Court below did discharge the duty

incumbent upon it to evaluate or properly evaluate

and ascribe weight to the evidence led by the parties

before it before coming to the Conclusion that the 1st

to 38th Respondents claim was proved and granting

the reliefs sought by them-Distilled from ground No.

2.

4. Whether the Appellants right to fair hearing

guaranteed by Section 36(1) of the 1999 Constitution

of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) was

breached by the Court below. Distilled from ground 1.

The Appellants also filed reply brief through learned

Counsel Abdulkadir, the reply was filed on the 8th day of

March 2019.

The brief of the 1st to 38th Respondents was filed by

learned Counsel Edeze, on the 6th day of March 2019,

Counsel

(201

9) LP

ELR-47

012(

CA)

6

(201

9) LP

ELR-47

012(

CA)

submitted four issues for determination, the issues are as

set out below:

1. Having regards to the provisions of Section 251(1)

(r) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of

Nigeria, (as amended), whether the lower Court has

jurisdiction to adjudicate on the claims of the 1st -

38th Respondents - (Distilled from ground No. 4).

2. Whether the lower Court was right in placing

reliance on materials, depositions and documentary

exhibits contained in/attaching to counter affidavit

and further affidavit fi led by the 1st -38th

Respondents in opposition to the preliminary

objections to hold that the 1st - 38th Respondents are

a s p i r a n t s a n d h a v e l e g a l s t a n d i n g t o

institute/maintain and or prosecute the claim in suit

No. ZMS/GS/2018- (Distilled from additional ground

No. 5).

3. Whether the lower Court properly evaluated the

evidence of all the parties before arriving at the

conclusion that the 1st -38th Respondents proved

their case to be entitled to the reliefs they sought-

(Distilled from ground No. 2).

4. Whether the Appellants right to fair hearing

guaranteed by Section 36(1) of the 1999 Constitution

of

7

(201

9) LP

ELR-47

012(

CA)

the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended), was

breached by the Court below- (distilled from ground

No. 1).

Learned Counsel Azie filed the 39th to 40th Respondents

brief on the 6th day of March 2019 where learned Counsel

also crafted four issues for determination on behalf of the

39th to 40th Respondents. The issues crafted for discourse

by the 39th-40th Respondents are similar to Appellants

issues and those of the 1st to 38th Respondents, they are

also reproduced as follows:

1. Having regards to the provisions of Section 251(1)

(r) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of

Nigeria, (as amended), whether the lower Court has

jurisdiction to adjudicate on the claims of the 1st -

38th Respondents - (Distilled from ground No. 4).

2. Whether the lower Court was right in placing

reliance on materials, depositions and documentary

exhibits contained in/attaching to counter affidavit

and further affidavit f i led by the 1st-38th

Respondents in opposition to the preliminary

objections to hold that the 1st- 38th Respondents are

a s p i r a n t s a n d h a v e l e g a l s t a n d i n g t o

institute/maintain and or prosecute the claim in suit

No. ZMS/GS/2018- (Distilled from additional ground

No. 5).

8

(201

9) LP

ELR-47

012(

CA)

3. Whether the lower Court properly evaluated the

evidence of all the parties before arriving at the

conclusion that the 1st -38th Respondents proved

their case to be entitled to the reliefs they sought-

(Distilled from ground No. 2).

4. Whether the Appellants right to fair hearing

guaranteed by Section 36(1) of the 1999 Constitution

of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended), was

breached by the Court below- (distilled from ground

No. 1).

Respondents number 41 filed no brief of argument, at the

hearing of this appeal, there was evidence of service on

them of the hearing date.

The brief of the 42nd Respondent was filed by learned

Counsel Ochidi on the 7th day of March 2019 wherein

Counsel identified a sole issue for determination

reproduced thus:

“Whether the trial High Court of Justice Zamfara

State had the requisite jurisdiction to have

adjudicated in suit NO. ZMS/GS/52/2018 instituted

before it by the 1st -38th Respondents regard being

had to the relevant provisions of the Electoral Act,

2010 (as amended)”.

Apart from the 42nd Respondent in this appeal, it appears

all the parties are in agreement that the issues for

(201

9) LP

ELR-47

012(

CA)

9

(201

9) LP

ELR-47

012(

CA)

determination are the issues crafted by the Appellant, I

need to mention that even the 42nd Respondents issue is a

fragment of the issues distilled by the Appellants. In all the

issues nominated by the Respondents are all in accord with

the Appellants issues, even though the Respondents did not

come out clearly to state that they adopt Appellants issues.

Let me go to the submissions of Counsel on the issues.

SUBMISSIONS OF COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANTS.

ISSUE ONE

Appellants complain under this issue is that the lower

Court lacked jurisdiction to hear and determine the suit of

the Respondents as Plaintiffs, contending that the nature of

the claim does not vest jurisdiction in the State High Court,

that the issue falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the

Federal High Court.

Learned Counsel for the Appellants submitted that upon a

proper interpretation of the provisions of Section 87 (5) of

the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended) the Court must take

into account the entire provisions of Section 251(1) of the

1999 Constitution. Learned Counsel said a community

reading of Section 251 (1) of the 1999 Constitution and

Section 87 (5)

10

(201

9) LP

ELR-47

012(

CA)

of the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended) would reveal that

the Federal High Court and State High Court share

concurrent jurisdiction on pre-election matters only when

the dispute to be resolved falls outside the scope of Section

251(1) (a)-(r) of the Constitution. It was also submitted on

behalf of the Appellants that the jurisdiction of the Federal

High Court becomes activated when the party or parties is

the Federal Government or its agency, the subject matter

of litigation falls within the scope of Section 251 of the

Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, and the

principal claim is targeted at the Federal Government or its

agency, Counsel relied on the decision in OLADIPO V

NCSB (2009) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1156) 563 at 585,

ODUTOLA V. UNILORIN (2004) 18 NWLR (Pt. 905)

416 at 462, and OBIUWEUBI V. CENTRAL BANK OF

NIGERIA (2011) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1247)465.

Learned Counsel for the Appellants said there is no doubt,

the National Electoral Commission the 3rd Defendant is an

agency of the Federal Government, and the subject matter

of the dispute is the act of the 3rd defendant foreclosing

the submission of the names of the Plaintiffs as successful

11

(201

9) LP

ELR-47

012(

CA)

candidates for the election, and the action falls under

Sections 251(1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic

of Nigeria and Section 87 (9) of the Electoral Act 2010 (as

amended). Counsel submitted that reading through the

statement of claim of the Respondents at pages 26-29 of

the records of appeal, it will be found that the subject

matter falls within the jurisdiction of the Federal High

Court. Coming to the principal reliefs, Counsel referred to

reliefs 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 in the certificate of judgment

contained at pages 925-929 of the records of appeal to

submit that the principal reliefs are against the

Independent National Electoral Commission and fall under

the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court.

Learned Counsel while referring to the decision in

ATTORNEY GENERAL V. UMAR (2008) 1 NWLR (Pt.

1068) 311, submitted that a Court must be vested with

jurisdiction to adjudicate over a matter that is before it,

that where a Court adjudicates over a matter without the

competence, power and capacity to hear the matter, any

decision arrived at by the Court will be a nullity for reasons

of lack of jurisdiction, in support of this submission Counsel

relied on

12

(201

9) LP

ELR-47

012(

CA)

the decisions in ADETONA V. I.G ENT LTD (2011) 7

NWLR (Pt. 1247) 535, and MOBIL PRODUCING NIG

UNLIMITED V. LASEPA (2002) 18 NWLR (Pt. 798) 1.

Learned Counsel also relied on GBILEVE V. ADDINGI

(2014) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1433) 394 to submit that the

matter falls under the jurisdiction of the Federal High

Court having regard to the relief sough and the provisions

of Section 251 (1) (r) of the Constitution of the Federal

Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended). The lower Court

therefore lacked power, competence and capacity to hear

and determine the claim. He urged this Court to so hold

and resolve this issue in favour of the Appellants.

ISSUE TWO

Submitting on this issue, learned Counsel for the

Appellants said the lower Court was in grave error, when in

determining the preliminary objection took into

consideration extraneous matters, that the lower Court

relied on the Counter affidavit, further affidavit and

attachments filed by the 1st to 38th Respondents in

opposition to the preliminary objection. Learned Counsel

r e f e r r e d t h i s C o u r t t o P E O P L E S V O I C E

COMMUNICATION LTD V. LAWAL & ANOR. (2004)

LPELR-6036 (CA) at 22-23, Paras B-F OLADEHIN V.

13

(201

9) LP

ELR-47

012(

CA)

CONTINENTAL TEXTILE MILLS LTD (1978)

LPELR-2543 (SC) at 15, Paras A-B, SAGAY V. SAJERE

(2000) LPELR-2976 (S.C) at 12 Paras B-C and

MENDRICK V. STATE (2018) LPELR-4554 (CA) at

43-44 E-C.

Learned Counsel referred this Court to ABISI V.

EKWEALOR (1993) NWLR (Pt. 302) 642, and AMAH &

ORS V. NWANKWO (2007) LPELR-8225 (CA) 18-20, to

submit that in dealing with the locus standi of a Plaintiff, it

is his statement of claim alone that has to be considered

with a view to ascertaining whether or not it has disclosed

interest and how much interest has arisen in the subject

matter of the action. Learned Counsel said the duty of a

Judge in determining locus standi is to diligently examine

the statement of claim to see if it discloses a cause of

action, Counsel referred to pages 2221-2223 of the records

of appeal where the learned trial Judge clearly stated that

he relied on paragraph 4(e) of the counter affidavit of the

Respondents paragraphs 4 and 5 of the Counter affidavit in

opposition to the Notice of preliminary objection filed by

the 4th -144th Defendants, and exhibits MAM1-MAM34 in

coming to the conclusion that the lower Court had

jurisdiction. Counsel

14

(201

9) LP

ELR-47

012(

CA)

said the lower Court relied on materials it ought not rely

on, that the lower Court was expected to limit itself to the

statement of claim and other materials of the 1st to 38th

Respondents. Counsel relied on paragraphs 1 and 5-15 of

the amended statement of claim dated 13th November

2018 at pages 22-29 of the records of appeal, wherein the

Plaintiff said they were card carrying members of the APC

Zamfara State, and pleaded that some of the members were

desirous of contesting election, Counsel said only aspirants

may institute an action challenging the conduct of a

primary election, learned Counsel referred to GARBA

LADO V. CPC (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1279) 689,

EMENIKE V. PDP & ORS (2012) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1315)

556 at 594, ADEBAYO & ORS V. PDP (2013) 17 NWLR

(Pt. 1382) 1 at 45 and EMEKA V. OKADIGBO (2013)

18 NWLR (Pt. 1382) 1. Learned Counsel urged this Court

to resolve this issue in favour of the Appellants and hold

that the 1st to 38th Respondents were not aspirants within

the clear contemplation of Section 156 of the Electoral Act

as amended, the Respondents therefore lack the legal

standing to institute the action. He urged that the suit be

struck out.

15

(201

9) LP

ELR-47

012(

CA)

ISSUES THREE AND FOUR

Issues number three deals with the way the evidence led by

the parties at the trial was evaluated, Appellant therefore

invited this Court to determine whether the lower Court

properly evaluated the evidence and ascribed the

appropriate probative value to same, and issue number four

is whether the right to fair hearing of the Appellants was

violated by the lower Court.

The learned Counsel for the Appellants argued that the

lower Court completely failed to evaluate the evidence and

this failure occasioned substantial miscarriage of justice. In

particular, Counsel referred us to pages 2208-2254 of the

records of appeal where Counsel said the grievance of the

Appellants could be unearthed. Counsel said the lower

Court from the records referred to completely failed,

neglected, and omitted to properly evaluate the evidence,

that at page 2234 lines 8 to page 2253 lines 25 the

evidence of the parties feature prominently, the arguments

canvassed by the respective Counsel for the parties, the

issues sought to be determined to reach a fair and just

conclusion on the claim, Counsel said the Court had the

advantage of going through

16

(201

9) LP

ELR-47

012(

CA)

the materials of the parties in order to arrive at a fair and

just conclusion. Rather than so doing, Counsel said the

learned trial Judge adopted an approach which visited

injustice to the claim of the Appellants, the Court just

casually concluded that the plaintiffs proved their case

against the defendants, Counsel relied on the words of the

learned trial Judge at pages 2253-2254 line 26.

Learned Counsel for the Appellants contended that there

was no attempt by the learned trial Judge to concrete his

belief on any pedestal because he did not show any

evidence of evaluation of the evidence, his conclusion was

scanty and therefore not justified having regard to the

evidence. Counsel concluded that the learned trial Judge

had a duty to evaluate the various pieces of evidence before

the Court. Counsel relied on the decision in OLADEHIN V.

CONTINENTAL TEXTILE MILLS LTD (1978)

LPELR-2543 (SC) at 15, and ABISI V. EKWEALOR

(1993) NWLR (Pt. 302) 642. Counsel said once there is

no evidence of evaluation the decision reached by the Court

will not stand, he cited, AREGBESHOLA V. OYINLOLA

(2011) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1253) 458 at 482.

Again Counsel submitted that where it is obvious that

17

(201

9) LP

ELR-47

012(

CA)

the lower Court failed to evaluate the evidence led by the

parties at the trial Court, the Appellate Court will intervene

and conduct proper evaluation of the evidence, he relied on

GABRIEL NDIBE & ANOR V. PARTICK SUNDAY

NDIBE (2008) LPELR-4178 (CA).

Counsel for the Appellants referred to the evidence of

Alhaji Ibrahim Birnin Magaji, sole witness for the 1st to

38th Respondents, his witness deposition made on the 13th

day of November 2018 found at pages 30-36 of the

supplementary records of appeal, Counsel relied on

paragraphs 11 and 12 of the witness statement on oath, the

witness according to learned Counsel gave insight into the

conduct of the primary elections in Zamfara State between

3rd and 7th October 2018, in the said paragraphs

Respondents said seven man Committee was appointed to

supervise the primary elections, that primaries were

conducted and the 3rd defendant supervised the conduct of

the primaries on 3rd and 7th October 2018.

Learned Counsel for the Appellants said the evidence of

PW1 did not help the case of the 1st to 38th Respondents

who insisted that primary elections were conducted.

Counsel conceded that a political party may

18

(201

9) LP

ELR-47

012(

CA)

take advantage of the provisions of sections of Section

31(1) of the Electoral Act to present candidates for elective

offices under the 1999 Constitution (as amended), in taking

such advantage, the political party must comply with the

provisions of Section 87 (1) of the Electoral Act, learned

Counsel went further to reproduce the provisions of Section

31(1) and 87 (1) of the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended) to

fortify his submissions, and submitted that when a law

creates a right and provides a procedure by which that

right may be exercised, that procedure prescribed must be

followed, he relied on the decision in OBUOBIPI V.

OBUFORIBO (2010) All FWLR (Pt. 546) 543 at 559 in

support of this submission.

Under cross examination by learned Counsel for the

Appellants, PW1 stated at page 2133-2136, 2138-2140,

2142-2142 of the records of appeal that he participated as

a contestant in the 2019 general elections as a candidate

for House of representatives representing Birnin

Magaji/Kaura Federal Constituency, he went further to list

out the other elective offices in the State, and that his

statement on oath was correct, and he did not lie to the

Court, that

19

(201

9) LP

ELR-47

012(

CA)

exhibit 3 is a list not a report, that Lawal Liman is the

Chairman of Zamfara State APC, and was neither a member

of the National Working Committee, nor a member of any

of the two committees appointed by the National Working

to conduct primaries in Zamfara State, Pw1 also stated that

he was not aware if Lawal Liman was appointed returning

officer, that in Exhibit 6, Lawal Liman signed the list of

successful of candidates, and the name of PW1 appeared as

number 4 in exhibits 3 and 3a. Pw1 said he only knew that

he won the primary elections from his testimony under

cross-examination.

Learned Counsel said the witness for the Plaintiffs admitted

that Lawal Magaji is still the Chairman of APC in Zamfara

State, that exhibit 2 is the APC Constitution and there is a

procedure for conducting primary elections under the APC

Constitution at pages 74-77 of the APC Constitution.

Again, learned Counsel for the Appellants went further to

dwell on the cross-examination where PW1 said he saw

exhibit 1A Regulation 14 (f) and confirmed that it is the

Electoral Committee of the National Working Committee

that should collate results and not the State Chairman of

the party.

20

(201

9) LP

ELR-47

012(

CA)

Witness also said he saw exhibit 4 a document emanating

from Independent National Electoral Commission, he said

he wouldn’t know his reaction to the said exhibit 4.

Learned Counsel for the Appellants said the evidence of

PW1 is not credible because on his own showing, it was the

state organ of the party that conducted primaries of 3rd

and 7th days of October 2018 and sent list of successful

candidates as required by Sections 31 and 87 of the

Electoral Act 2010 as amended to the 41st Respondent, the

Zamfara State Resident Electoral Commissioner. Learned

Counsel submitted that the evidence of PW1 is incredible

he was blank and said he did not know anything at lines 13

page 2142 of the records of appeal, Counsel relied on

FATUNBI & ANOR V. OLANLOYE & ORS (2004) 12

NWLR (Pt. 887) page 229 (SC), and AWURE V.

ILEDU (2008) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1098) 249, 285 Paras C-

F, in urging this Court to hold that the evidence of PW1 is

an affront to reason and intelligence and it must not be

accorded any credibility, he so urged this Court.

Learned Court for the Appellants also referred to Exhibits 1

electoral guidelines issued by the 39th Respondent, the

21

(201

9) LP

ELR-47

012(

CA)

Constitution of 39th Respondent and receipt for CTC of

document issued by INEC, to submit that the exhibits did

not help the case of the 1st to 38th Respondents, the

exhibits did not constitute from the conduct of primary

elections in Zamfara State by the 39th Respondent.

Counsel submitted that it was Lawal Liman 26th

Respondent in this Appeal and Chairman of the 39th

Respondent and a candidate at the primary elections who

submitted exhibit 6 forwarding the 37 names to the

successful candidates of 39th Respondent to the Zamfara

State Resident Electoral Commissioner the 41st

Respondent. The 1st-38th Respondents according to

learned Counsel omitted to call vital witnesses to establish

their claim that primary elections were in fact conducted,

such omission is fatal to the case of the Respondents, he

rel ied on NGORKA V. AG IMO STATE (2014)

LPELR-22532 (CA), OGUDO V. STATE (2011)

LPELR-860 (SC) at 28-29 Paras E-A, DIAMOND BANK

V. OKPALA (2016) LPELR-41573 (CA) 12-13 Para B.

Counsel submitted that failure by a party to call vital

evidence that is available is fatal and raises presumption

against the Respondents that if they are called their

evidence would be

22

(201

9) LP

ELR-47

012(

CA)

unfavorable to the case of the Respondents. Counsel said

the decision of the lower Court giving Judgment to the

Respondents is perverse and must be set aside. It was also

the contention of the Appellant that where a Judgment is

found to be perverse it must be set aside on appeal, he

referred this Court to the decisions in EBE V. EBE (2004)

3 NWLR (Pt. 860) Pg. 215, ADIMORA V. AJUFO (1988)

3 NWLR ( Pt. 80) 1 at 16, NEPA V. OSOSANYA (2004)

1 SC (Pt. 1)159 at 175, AGBOMEJI V. BAKARE (1998)

9 NWLR (Pt. 564) 1 at 8, ALADE V. SOFOLARIN &

ORS (2015) LPELR-25008, NNADOZIE & ORS V.

MBAGWU (2008) LPELR-2055 (SC), ARE V. IPAYE

(1990) 3 SC (Pt. 11) 109 and ATOLAGBE V. SHORUN

(1985) NWLR (Pt 2) 360, and urged this Court to set

aside the Judgment because it is punctuated by flagrant

and fatal errors it is therefore perverse, he therefore urged

this Court to so hold and resolve issues 3 and 4 in favour of

the Appellants against the Respondents.

Learned Counsel for the Appellants referred to the

evidence led by the defense at the Court below, Counsel

drew particular attention to the evidence of DW1 witness

for the 41st Respondent, Salman Uwaisu, the sworn

23

(201

9) LP

ELR-47

012(

CA)

deposition of DW1 made on the 13th day of November

2018, found at pages 531-535 of the records of appeal.

Counsel said the evidence of DW1 is to the effect that, the

39th Respondent’s electoral Committees of the National

Working Committee made two unsuccessful attempts to

conduct primaries on the 3rd and 7th days of October 2018

for the candidates in Zamfara State, but under cross

examination by the Counsel for the Defendants now said

the Committees conducted primary elections and returned

list of successful candidates to the 39th Respondent.

Learned Counsel for the Appellants said with the consent of

the parties, the 41st Respondent, Independent National

Electoral Commission tendered exhibits 7, 7A, and 7B

(certified true copies of Report of All Progressives Congress

(APC) Primaries held on the 3rd and 7th days of October

2018, the exhibits corroborated exhibit 4, that the 39th

Respondent did not conduct primary elections or present

candidates for the 2019 general elections.

Learned Counsel referred to exhibit 4 at page 2337, titled

“Failure to conduct Primaries in Zamfara State within the

stipulated time frame”.

24

(201

9) LP

ELR-47

012(

CA)

Learned Counsel said exhibit 4 is a letter from the 41st

Respondent dated 9th October 2018 that the 39th

Respondent failed to conduct primary elections to

determine its candidates for the 2019 general elections.

Learned Counsel reproduced and relied on paragraphs 2

and 3 of the of the said exhibit 4.

Counsel for the Appellants also referred to exhibit 7A and

7B, that in an effort to react to the said exhibit 4, the 39th

Respondent said it conducted primaries by consensus, and

promised to submit list on 18th October 2018, there was no

such list according to Counsel, this Counsel said confirms

the contents of exhibits 4, 7A and 7B.

Learned Counsel for the Appellants said from the contents

of exhibits 4, 7, 7A and 7B, it was clear that the 39th

Respondent did not conduct primaries, he therefore urged

this Court to so hold.

Learned Counsel also made submissions on the evidence of

DW2, Senator Kabiru Garba Marafa, sworn statement of

17th December 2018 at page 1306-1317 and oral evidence

page 2116 lines 1-16 of the records of appeal. Counsel said

the entire evidence of DW1 is material because it is devoid

of contradictions and goes to show that the Committee

25

(201

9) LP

ELR-47

012(

CA)

set up to conduct primaries failed to do so after two

unsuccessful attempts. The evidence clearly showed the

39th Respondent failed to conduct primary elections in

Zamfara State, therefore establishing the claim of the

Appellants that no primary elections were conducted. The

evidence of DW2 also supports exhibits 4, 7,7A and 7B, that

the 1-38th Respondents went out of their way and

purported to conduct primary elections. Counsel said the

1st to 38th Respondents conducted their own local version

of primary election. Learned Counsel submitted that

exhibits 4, 7, 7A and 7B have established Appellants claim

that there were no primary elections in Zamfara State,

Counsel relied on KIMDEY & ORS V. MIL GOV OF

GONGOLA STATE & ORS (1988) 2 NWLR (Pt. 77) 445,

and VINCENT U. EGHAREVBA V. DR. OROBOR

OSAGIE (2009) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1173) 299 SC, to submit

that documentary evidence is the best evidence, and it is

preferred to oral evidence, that documents do not lie and

must be preferred against the oral evidence of DW1 who

sought to alter the contents of his testimony under cross-

examination.

Learned Counsel therefore urged this Court to resolve

issues

26

(201

9) LP

ELR-47

012(

CA)

3 and 4 in favour of the Appellants and allow the appeal.

SUBMISSIONS OF COUNSEL FOR THE 1ST TO 38TH

RESPONDENTS.

ISSUE ONE

Learned Counsel for the 1st -38th while submitting on issue

number said the Appellants contended that the lower Court

had no jurisdiction to hear and determine the Respondents

suit, that jurisdiction to hear and determine the suit is

vested in the Federal High, learned Counsel further

submitted that the legion of authorities cited by the

Appellant are distinguishable, he submitted that the

Appellants argument is misleading and does not represent

the extant position of the law. Counsel relied on the

decision in MADUKOLU V. NKEMDILIM (1962) 1 ALL

NLR 581, to submit that the claim of the 1st -38th

Respondents were rightly initiated before the Zamfara

State High Court, and that the Court is vested with

jurisdiction to hear and determine the claim, he referred to

the claims of the 1st -38th Respondents at page 294-301 of

the records of appeal. Learned Counsel further submitted

that the power conferred on the Federal High Court to

exercise jurisdiction is a general power, while jurisdiction

to hear and determine pre-election disputes is a

27

(201

9) LP

ELR-47

012(

CA)

special provision, and that notwithstanding the involvement

of Federal Government or its agency, the State High Court

has concurrent jurisdiction with the Federal High Court,

learned Counsel said this is the interpretation given to the

provisions of Section 87(9) of the Electoral Act 2010 (as

amended). Counsel referred to the Supreme Court

decisions in OLUGBEMI V. LAWRENCE & ORS (2017)

LPELR 42361 (SC), JEV V. IYORTYOM (2014) ALL

FWLR (Pt. 747) 749, and LAU V. PDP (2018) NWLR

(Pt. 1608) 60. Learned Counsel said Section 87(9) of the

Electoral Act 2010 (as amended) gives the aspirant

opportunity to make choice with respect to Court when he

would lodge his grievance in pre-election matters ranging

from the Federal High Court, Federal Capital Territory

High Court and the State High Court. Counsel is of the

view that choice of Court of trial is no longer a subject of

jurisprudential controversy, he also said of all the legion of

authorities cited by learned Court, the only authorities

having to do with pre-election matter is the decision in

GBILEVE & ANOR V. ADDINGI & ANOR (2014) 16

NWLR (Pt. 1433) 394. Counsel said the decision in

28

(201

9) LP

ELR-47

012(

CA)

LAU V. PDP (supra) has provided final answer to the

issue, he therefore urged this Court to resolve this issue in

favour of the Respondents, against the Appellants.

ISSUE TWO.

Submitting on issue number two, learned Counsel said the

lower Court did not place reliance on the Counter affidavit

and further affidavit and exhibits of the 1st to 38th

Respondents in order to arrive at a decision that the

Respondents had locus standi to bring the suit, Counsel

said from the depositions in paragraphs 1, 5 to 15, of the

1st to 38th Respondents amended statement of claim.

Counsel said the reply to statement of defense filed by the

plaintiffs was considered by the lower Court, and that reply

to statement of defense forms part of the pleadings of a

Plaintiff, Counsel relied on Order 17 Rule 1 of the High

Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2014 of Zamfara State, and

the dec is ion in KALU V. AGU & ORS (2014)

LPELR-22849 (CA) in support of this submission. Counsel

again said both the amended statement of claim and the

reply of the 1st to 38th Respondents must be read together

in order to understand the case of the Respondents, he

referred this Court to the

29

(201

9) LP

ELR-47

012(

CA)

decision of this Court in PEACOCKS EDUCATIONAL

CONSULTANTS & ORS V . ETONYEAKU &

ANOR. (2018) LPELR-46113 (CA) 20-22. And AGI V.

PDP & ORS (2016) LPELR-42578 (SC) 8.

Learned Counsel therefore submitted that a community

reading of the amended statement of claim and the reply

will show that the 1st to 38th Respondents are aspirants at

the APC primary elections and therefore have locus standi

to bring the action. In support of this contention Counsel

relied on Section 87(9) of the Electoral Act 2010 (as

amended), UKACHUKWU V. PDP (2014) 17 NWLR (Pt.

1435) 134 at 201-202, PDP V. SYLVA (2012) NWLR

(Pt. 1316) 125, ALHAJI WUSHISHI V, ENGR

MOHAMMED IMAM (2017) JSCNLR VOL 5 Page 25.

Learned Counsel for the 1st to 38th Respondents urged this

Court to resolve this issue in favour of the Respondents

against the Appellants and hold that the lower Court acted

within its jurisdiction to hear and determine the

Respondents suits, he so urged the Court.

ISSUES THREE AND FOUR.

Submitting on these two issues learned Counsel for the 1st

to 38th Respondents said the grievance of the Appellants

that the lower Court failed to evaluate the evidence led at

the

30

(201

9) LP

ELR-47

012(

CA)

trial was not correct. Counsel said the lower Court properly

reviewed, evaluated and appraised the evidence led by the

parties.

Learned Counsel said a trial Court is not allowed to go on a

wild goose chase, it must limit itself to the pleadings of the

parties, that neither the Court nor the parties can go

outside their pleadings or take benefit of argument that

does not flow from the evidence led or from the judgment

of the Court. In support of this submission Counsel relied

on the decision in OGIDA V. OLIHA (1986) 1 NWLR (Pt.

19 786 and UKPO V. NGAJI (2010) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1174)

202. With regards to the submissions of the Appellants that

the evidence of the parties was not put on an imaginary

scale, learned Counsel for the 1st to 38th Respondents

submitted that a trial Court or Tribunal needs not state

expressly that it is putting the case of the parties on an

imaginary scale of justice, that it is a matter of style of

writing, he relied on OKOYE V. OKONKWO (2009) 6

NWLR (Pt. 1136) 130 at 143-144. Counsel further

submitted that all the Court is required to do is to clearly

state the case of the parties, then evaluate the evidence

taking into account the pleadings

31

(201

9) LP

ELR-47

012(

CA)

of the parties and the process of arriving at a decision.

Once this is done it is taken that the learned trial Judge has

placed the evidence on an imaginary scale, he said the

Court is at liberty to adopt any style as long as the duty to

evaluate the evidence of the parties is discharged, he cited

OTUKPO V. JOHN (2012) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1299) 357 at

378.

Counsel referred to exhibit 7A of 19th October 2018

addressed to the Chairman of INEC and said the party

agreed on its candidates by consensus, that there was

consensus arrangement that produced its candidates for

the elections, Counsel said the 39th to 40th Respondents

did not frontload or tender any results, they only rested

their case on the case of the 1st to 38th Respondents.

With regards to the evidence at the trial, Counsel said the

lower Court properly reached a decision based on the

evidence of the parties before the Court. Counsel relied on

Section 134 of the Evidence Act 2011 and the decision in

EYA & ORS V. OLOPADE & ANOR (2011) LPELR-1184

(SC) 34-35. He also submitted that while it is the duty of

the Respondents to prove the facts pleaded, and must rely

on their case and not the weakness of

32

(201

9) LP

ELR-47

012(

CA)

the case of the defendants, it is also the law that the

burden of proof is not static, it shifts from one party to the

other. He referred to Section 133 (1) and (2) of the

Evidence Act and the case of HARUNA V. MODIBBO

(2004) 16 NWLR (Pt. 900) 487 at 556.

In discharging the burden of proof learned Counsel for the

1st to 38th Respondents said they relied on the oral

evidence of PW1, DW1, DW2 and documentary exhibits

tendered by the parties. Counsel said PW1 gave evidence

and adopted his witness statement at page 2-7 of the

records of appeal vol 1, he was cross examined as found at

pages 2131-2143 of the records, learned Counsel said the

Respondents tendered exhibit 3A. Counsel said the list of

successful candidates at the primaries is found at pages

2326-2328 vol. 5. Counsel said the document was never

discredited at the trial, that DW1, the witness called by the

Appellants acknowledged the document as their own, that

the evidence of DW1 is at page 2147-2156 of the records of

appeal.

Counsel submitted that the 39th Respondent conducted

direct primaries on the 3rd and 7th days of October 2018,

he relied on paragraphs 5,6,7,8,9,10,11, 12 and 13 of the

33

(201

9) LP

ELR-47

012(

CA)

amended statement of claim of the 1st to 38th

Respondents, at pages 296-302 of the records of appeal,

that in paragraph 12 of the amended statement of claim, it

was clearly stated that the 39th Respondent conducted

primaries and Candidates for the 2019 general elections

emerged, that the general elections were supervised by the

3rd Defendant and results were produced. Counsel relied

on paragraph 13 of the amended statement of claim.

Learned Counsel also referred to other exhibits tendered,

exhibits 1, 2, 3, and 3A evidencing guidelines for the

elections, showing that the 1st Defendant under the

supervision of the 3rd Defendant conducted primary

elections. Learned Counsel said PW1 under cross

examination admitted that the 39th Respondent conducted

primary elections, he referred to page 2134 vol. 5 where

this piece of evidence can be found. He also submitted that

PW1 said the National Working Committee is responsible

for conducting primary elections, he referred this Court to

page 2132-2133 of the records of appeal.

Learned Counsel said throughout the trial neither the

Appellants nor any other party challenged the evidence of

34

(201

9) LP

ELR-47

012(

CA)

PW1 that the candidates emerged winners from the

primary elections conducted on the 3rd and 7th days of

October 2018. He submitted that the evidence of DW1 and

2 supported the testimony of PW1. That since the

defendants failed to call evidence in rebuttal of the

evidence of PW1, they are deemed to have abandoned their

defense, he rel ied on CBN V. OKOJIE (2015)

LPELR-24740 (SC) 34, that since the 40th to 42nd rested

their case on the case of the 1st to 38th Respondents and

failed to call evidence they are deemed to have abandoned

their defense, he further rel ied on the case of

NEWSBREED ORGANISATION LTD V. ERHOMOSELE

(2006)5 NWLR (Pt. 974) 499 at 545.

Learned Counsel also submitted that the allegation of

violence during the conduct of primaries mentioned by

DW1 was not established, he submitted that violence is a

criminal offence that must be proved beyond reasonable

doubt. He relied on Section 135(1) of the Evidence Act,

DANTIYE V. KANYA (2009) NWLR (Pt. 1130) 13 at 32,

and YUSUF V. OBASANJO (2005) 18 NWLR (Pt. 956)

96 at 188, he also submitted even if violence occurred in 6

out of 147 wards, that would not be enough to invalidate

the primary elections.

35

(201

9) LP

ELR-47

012(

CA)

Commenting on exhibit 7 and 7A, learned Counsel for the

1st to 38th Respondents said the credibility of the exhibits

had been demolished by DW1 under cross examination, the

purported suspension of primary election was therefore of

no moment. Counsel said by the provisions for Section

87(4) (b)(ii) and (c) (ii) of the Electoral Act 2010, (as

amended) there is no provision for a political party or

election management body to suspend primary elections,

that the evidence of DW1, supports the case of the 1st to

38th Respondents.

Learned Counsel said primary elections were conducted by

direct method not consensus from the evidence of DW1.

Learned Counsel said DW1 clearly stated that primary

elections were conducted by Engr. Abubakar Fari, and

Major Abubakar Sani Gana, this evidence, counsel said is in

support of the case of the 1st to 38th Respondents.

Commenting on Exhibit 4, Counsel said is documentary

hearsay, that DW2 neither made the document nor was he

the recipient of the same the Court cannot therefore attach

any probative value to the document irrespective of the fact

that the document is certified. Counsel relied on

OKEREKE V. UMAHI (2016) LPELR- 40035 (SC).

Learned Counsel also said similar fate befalls exhibit 6.

36

(201

9) LP

ELR-47

012(

CA)

Learned Counsel relied on the testimony of DW1 to content

that INEC Zamfara State monitored and received results of

the primary elections conducted in Zamfara State during

the APC primary elections.

Finally, on this issue learned Counsel said from the

contents of exhibit 3A, and the evidence of DW1, it is clear

that there was primary elections in Zamfara State which

produced the 1st to 38th Respondents, he urged this Court

to so hold, and resolve issue number three in favour of the

1st to 38th Respondents. Submitting on issue number Four,

learned Counsel said the Appellants did not specifically

allege denial of fair hearing in their brief, they are

therefore deemed to have abandoned the argument.

Counsel however cited legion of authorities to contend that

Appellants right to fair hearing was not denied, he cited

NEWSWATCH COMMUNICATIONS LTD V. ALH ALIYU

IBRAHIM ATTAH (2006) ALL FWLR 581, and

ORUGBO V. UNA (2002) 16 NWLR (Pt 792) 175 at

211-212.

He finally urged that this issue be resolved in favour of the

1st to 38th Respondents against the Appellants, and that

the appeal be dismissed.

37

(201

9) LP

ELR-47

012(

CA)

SUBMISSIONS OF COUNSEL FOR THE 39TH TO

40TH RESPONDENTS.

ISSUE ONE.

Learned Counsel for the 39th to 40th Respondents adopted

word for word the submissions of learned Counsel for the

1st to 38th Respondent, without any slightest modification.

I do not think it is proper to repeat the submissions, since

the argument of the 1st to 38th Respondents was

reproduced word for word on this issue, I also adopt the

submissions of learned Counsel for the 1st to 38th

Respondents as the argument of learned Counsel for the

39th to 40th Respondents on this issue.

Learned Court for the 39th to 40th Respondents also urged

that this issue be resolve in favour of the Respondents.

ISSUE TWO.

Learned Counsel for the 39th to 40th Respondents adopted

word for word the submissions of learned Counsel for the

1st to 38th Respondent, without any slightest modification.

I do not think it is proper to repeat the submissions, since

the argument of the 1st to 38th Respondents was

reproduced word for word on this issue, I also adopt the

submissions of learned Counsel for the 1st to 38th

Respondents as the argument of learned Counsel for the

39th to 40th Respondents on this issue.

38

(201

9) LP

ELR-47

012(

CA)

Learned Court for the 39th to 40th Respondents also urged

that this issue be resolved in favour of the Respondents

against the Appellants.

ISSUES THREE AND FOUR

Learned Counsel for the 39th to 40th Respondents adopted

word for word the submissions of learned Counsel for the

1st to 38th Respondent, without any slightest modification.

I do not think it is proper to repeat the submissions, since

the argument of the 1st to 38th Respondents was

reproduced word for word on this issue, I also adopt the

submissions of learned Counsel for the 1st to 38th

Respondents as the argument of learned Counsel for the

39th to 40th Respondents on this issue. The only noticeable

difference is that what the 1- 38th Respondents addressed

issue number 4, learned Counsel for the 39th to 40th

Respondents decided to flow with the pattern of argument

adopted by the Appellants other than this slight

inconsequential difference, learned Counsel merely copied

and pasted the intellectual property rights of learned

Counsel for the 1st to 38th Respondents.

Learned Court for the 39th to 40th Respondents also urged

that issues three and four be resolved in favour of the

39

(201

9) LP

ELR-47

012(

CA)

Respondents against the Appellants, he also urged that the

appeal be dismissed.

SUBMISSIONS OF COUNSEL FOR THE 41ST

RESPONDENT.

The 41st Respondent in this appeal did not file any brief of

argument.

SUBMISSIONS OF COUNSEL FOR THE 42ND

RESPONDENT

Learned Counsel for the 42nd Respondent crafted one issue

on jurisdiction and urged that the appeal be allowed on the

ground that the lower Court had no jurisdiction. The

argument canvassed by learned Counsel for the 42nd

Respondent is similar to the argument of the Appellants

contesting the jurisdiction of the lower Court, he urged that

the appeal be allowed and the Judgment of the lower Court

be set aside. I must mention that learned Counsel identified

the role of a Respondent in appeal and stated that in the

face of obvious lack of jurisdiction in the lower Court to

hear and determine the matter, the 42nd Respondent needs

to ask specifically that the decision of the lower Court be

set aside, he so urged this Court.

APPELLANT’S REPLY.

In the reply brief of the Appellant, learned Counsel

embarked of a repeat of his submissions on jurisdiction and

sought to

(201

9) LP

ELR-47

012(

CA)

40

(201

9) LP

ELR-47

012(

CA)

draw distinction between the instant case and the legion of

authorities cited and to contend that the lower Court had

no jurisdiction.

On evaluation of evidence, learned Counsel for the

Appellants referred to the submissions of Counsel for the

1st to 38th Respondent’s submission that the failure to call

evidence and rest the Appellants case on that of the

Respondents amounted to abandoning the i r

defense. Counsel said, where a defendant rests his case on

that of the Plaintiff, such a stance is a legal strategy and

not a mistake, he relied on OKPOKO COMMUNITY

BANK V. IGWE (2013) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1376) 167 at

188.

With regards to allegations of violence, learned Counsel for

the Appellants said their contention was that primary

elections did not hold, the defense would not therefore be

required to prove violence beyond reasonable doubt,

learned Counsel said the contention of learned Counsel for

the Respondents is misconceived. He urged this Court to

allow the appeal.

Having taken the submissions of Counsel in this appeal, I

must make it very clear that from the submissions of

Counsel for the Appellants and the Respondents, the issues

41

(201

9) LP

ELR-47

012(

CA)

nominated by the Appellants for discourse in this appeal

will effectively and effectually resolve the issues in

controversy between the contending parties, I therefore

adopt the Appellants issues for determination as the issues

to resolve in the determination of this appeal. I will now

proceed to resolve the issues.

RESOLUTION OF ISSUES

ISSUES ONE & TWO.

The law has remained very well settled beyond per

adventure, by a long and unbroken chain of judicial

authorities of the Supreme Court and this Court to the

unarguable conclusion that jurisdiction is the vires, the

power, that a Court of law has and possesses which enables

it to take cognizance of, hear and adjudicate on any matter

placed before it for its determination. That is, jurisdiction is

the authority that a Court of law has in order to decide any

matter that is laid before it in a formal way for its decision

on such matters.

Therefore, where any Court lacks the jurisdiction to try any

matter filed before it, but goes ahead to determine it, such

a decision amounts to nothing as it will be declared a

nullity by an appellate/higher Court, hence it will be

tantamount to an exercise in futility.

42

(201

9) LP

ELR-47

012(

CA)

To underscore the criticality and quintessence of

jurisdiction to adjudication, the Supreme Court in a

plethora of decided authorities, one of which is Hon.

Ehioze Egharevba v. Hon. Crosby Osadulor Eribo &

Ors (2010) 9 NWLR (pt.1199) 411; (2010) LPELR

-9716 (SC); (2010) 3 SCNJ (pt.ii) 441 @ 453-452,

reiterated the law succinctly, per Adekeye, JSC., that:

"Jurisdiction is a term of comprehensive import

embracing every kind of judicial action. It is the

power of a Court to decide a matter in controversy

and presupposes the existence of a duly constituted

Court, with control over the subject matter and the

parties. Jurisdiction also defines the power of the

Court to inquire into facts, apply the law, make

decisions and declare judgment. Jurisdiction is

equally to Court, what a door is to a house. That is

why the question of a Court's jurisdiction is called a

threshold issue, because it is at the threshold of the

temple of justice. Jurisdiction is a radical and

fundamental question of competence, for if the Court

has no jurisdiction to hear the case, the proceedings

are and remains a nullity however well-conducted and

brilliantly decided they

43

(201

9) LP

ELR-47

012(

CA)

might have been. A defect in competence is not

intrinsic but rather extrinsic to adjudication. Oloba v.

Akereja (1988) 3 NWLR (pt. 89) pg.508; Oloriode v.

Oyebi (1984) 1 SCNLR pg.390; Ezomo v. Oyakhire

(1985) 1 NWLR (pt.2) pg. 105; Petrojessica

Enterprises Ltd v. Leventis Technical Co Ltd (1992) 2

SCNLR pg.341; Barclays Bank v. Central Bank of

Nigeria (1976) 6 SC pg.175; African Newspapers of

Nigeria v. Federal Republic of Nigeria (1985) 2 NWLR

pt.6 pg.137; Adeleke v. OSHA (2006) 16 NWLR

pt.1006 pg.608; Attorney General Anambra State v. A-

G Federation (1993) 6 NWLR pt. 302 pg.692; Saleh v.

Monguno (2003)1 NWLR pt. 801 pg. 221. The issue of

jurisdiction being fundamental can be raised and

challenged at any stage of the proceedings in the

lower Court, in the Court of Appeal or even for the

first time in the Supreme Court. The issue of

jurisdiction being so pivotal can be raised suo motu

by the Court so long as the parties are accorded the

opportunity to react to the issue."

The eminent and revered jurist Mohammed Bello, C.J.N. of

blessed memory, in the judicial words on marble on

44

(201

9) LP

ELR-47

012(

CA)

jurisdiction, in Chief Utuedo Utih & 6 Ors v. Jacob U.

Onoyivwe & 5 Ors(1991) 1 SCNJ 25 @ 49, had stated

eloquently and allegorically that:

"Jurisdiction is the blood that gives life to the survival

of an action in a Court of law and without jurisdiction,

the action will be like an animal that has been

drained of its blood. It will cease to have life and any

attempt to resuscitate it without infusing blood into

it, would be an abortive exercise."

The reason for the above stated allegoric analogy is not far

fetched. And it is because the life of the flesh is in the

blood. In other words, jurisdiction is the life in the action,

placed before the Court of law for adjudication, such that

the absence of it, renders the action lifeless. In the locus

classicus - Madukolu & Ors v. Nkemdilim (1962) All

NLR 581; (1962) 2 SCNLR 341 @ 587-588, the Federal

Supreme Court, had held on jurisdiction and competence of

a Court, thus:

"Put briefly, a Court is competent when -

a. It is properly constituted as regards members and

qualification of the members of the bench, and no

member is disqualified for one reason or another; and

b. The subject matter of the case is within its

jurisdiction, and there is no feature in the case which

45

(201

9) LP

ELR-47

012(

CA)

prevents the Court from exercising its jurisdiction;

and

c. The case comes before the Court initiated by due

process of law, and upon fulfillment of any condition

precedent to the exercise of jurisdiction."

The three conditions stated above must co-exist in respect

of any action filed in a Court of law, before the Court can

be invested or clothed with proper competence and the

requisite jurisdiction, to entertain and adjudicate on it. The

Military Administrator, Benue State & 20 Ors v.

Captain Clement Abayol (Rtd) (2001) FWLR (pt.35)

604; (2001) 5 NWLR (pt.705) 19; Ishola v. Ajiboye

(1994) 19 LRCN 35; (1994) 6 NWLR (pt.352) 506;

Matari v. Dan Galadima(1993) 3 NWLR (pt.281) 266;

Attorney General, Anambra State v. Attorney General,

Federation (1993) 6 NWLR (pt.302) 692; Odofin v.

Agu (1992) 3 NWLR (pt.229) 350.

Furthermore, the law has been well settled to the effect

that in order for the Court to determine whether or not it

possesses the required competence to determine the cause

of action placed before it, the processes that were filed in

order to activate its jurisdiction, which it needs to examine,

are the writ of summons and the statement

46

(201

9) LP

ELR-47

012(

CA)

of claim only. And where the action was begun by

originating summons, then it is the reliefs sought therein as

well as the depositions contained in the affidavit in support

of the originating summons, that would be examined in

order to discern if the Court has the jurisdiction to

entertain and determine the action. These are the only

processes from which the facts giving rise to the cause of

action can be gleaned for the Court to inquire into and

determine whether it has the jurisdiction to determine the

plaintiff's action. This is because, it is the plaintiff who

invokes the constitutional right for a determination of his

right and accordingly the activation of the judicial powers

vested in the Courts by the Constitution of the Federal

Republic of Nigeria, 1999 as amended. That is, it is the

plaintiff's demand and not the defendant's answer to that

demand that is a relevant issue for consideration at that

stage. Therefore, ordinarily, it is the claim of the plaintiff

only and not the defence, which the Court looks at to

determine its jurisdiction. Adeyemi & Ors v. Opeyori

(1976) LPELR - 171 (SC) @ 21-22; Attorney General,

Oyo State v. Nigeria Labour

47

(201

9) LP

ELR-47

012(

CA)

Congress (2003) 8 NWLR (pt.821) 1; Akande & 2 Ors

v. Busari Alagbe & Anor. (2001) FWLR (pt.38) 1352;

Attorney General Federation v. Guardian Newspaper

Ltd & 5 Ors (1999) 9 NWLR (pt.618) 187; Messers N.

V. Scheep & Anor v. The MV 'S Araz & Anor (2000) 15

NWLR (pt.691) 622; (2000) FWLR (pt.34) 556;

National Electric Power Authority v. Atukpor (2001)

FWLR (pt.20) 626; General Sani Abacha & 3 Ors v.

Chief Gani Fawehinmi (2000) 6 NWLR (pt.660) 228;

(2000) FWLR (pt.4) 557; Okulate & 4 Ors v. Awosanya

& 2 Ors (2000) 2 NWLR (pt.646) 530; Senator Yakubu

Lado & Ors v. Congress for Progressive Change & Ors

(2011) LPELR- 8254 (SC) @ 35; Inakoju v. Adeleke &

Ors (2007) 4 NWLR (pt.1025) 1; Jev v. Iyortyom

(2014) 14 NWLR (pt.1428) 575.

Locus standi connotes the legal capacity which a person

has to enable him file an action in a Court of law. There is a

symbiotic relationship between jurisdiction and locus

standi. Hence in the determination of whether or not a

person has the legal capacity to file an action in a Court of

law, the plaintiff's statement of claim is the only process

that will be considered by the Court.

48

(201

9) LP

ELR-47

012(

CA)

That is, it is from the averments in the statement of claim

only which the Court carefully scrutinizes in order to

decipher whether or not it discloses the plaintiff's interest

and how that interest arises in the subject matter of the

action filed by him. Thomas v. Olufosoye (1986) 1

NWLR (pt.18) 669; Adesokan & Ors v. Prince

Adegorolu & Ors (1997) LPELR -151 (SC); Abisi & Ors

v. Ekwealor & Anor (1993) LPELR -44 (SC); Owodunni

v. Registered Trustees of Celestial Church of Christ

(2000)10 NWLR (pt.675)315; (2000) 6 S.C. (Pt.II) 60.

In the instant matter, the appellants who were defendants

at the Court below, had filed a notice of preliminary

objection to the effect that the 1st - 38th respondents who

were the plaintiffs thereof, had no locus standi for

instituting their action against the former. The appellants

filed an affidavit in support of their notice of preliminary

objection. In their response to it, the 1st- 38th respondents,

filed a counter affidavit and a further affidavit against the

appellants' notice of preliminary objection aforesaid. The

learned trial judge, in determining the said preliminary

objection, instead of

49

(201

9) LP

ELR-47

012(

CA)

perusing only the 1st-38th respondents' amended

statement of claim to ascertain the latter's capacity, locus

standi, in his judgment at pages 2221-2223 of vol.5 of the

record of appeal, also placed reliance on paragraph 4(e) of

the counter affidavit and paragraphs 4 and 5 of the further

counter affidavit along with exhibits MAM1- MAM34

attached to the 1st -38th respondents' aforesaid further

affidavit against the preliminary objection. He then came to

the conclusion that the 1st -38th respondents had the

requisite legal capacity to have filed their action with

respect to the conduct of the primary elections for

aspirants for the Zamfara State Gubernatorial, National

and State House of Assembly, for members of the 39th

respondent, who was the 1st defendant at the Court below.

I have no difficulty in agreeing with the contention of the

appellants' learned senior counsel to the effect that the

learned trial judge was in error for placing reliance on the

counter affidavit and the further affidavit along with

exhibits MAM1-MAM34 to the aforesaid affidavits at the

instance of the 1st - 38th respondents in order to determine

whether or

50

(201

9) LP

ELR-47

012(

CA)

not the latter have locus standi to have filed their action at

the Court below. It is clear to me, that on the decided

authorities earlier referred to in this judgment, the only

processes that the learned trial judge ought to have

perused in order to determine that the 1st-38th

respondents had locus standi, were the amended statement

of claim read along with their Reply to the 4th-144th

defendants'/ appellants' statement of defense. However,

that faux pas by the learned trial judge notwithstanding, he

also referred to and placed reliance on "the reliefs claimed

in the amended statement of claim", and deduced that the

1st-38th respondents had locus standi to file their action

before him. I have myself perused paragraphs

1,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15 and 16 of the amended

statement of claim read together with paragraphs

3,4,5,6,7,8 and 9 of the plaintiffs'/1st-38th respondents'

reply to the 4th -144th defendants'/appellants' statement of

defense. From the averments contained in the

aforementioned paragraphs of the amended statement of

claim and their reply to the appellants' statement of

defense, it is evident that the 1st -38th respondents, being

card carrying members of the 39th

51

(201

9) LP

ELR-47

012(

CA)

respondent, participated as aspirants in the primary

election, allegedly conducted by the 39th respondent on

3rd and 7th October, 2018, to pick its candidates for the

Zamfara State Gubernatorial, National and State House of

Assembly, to contest in the February and March, 2019

General Elections. Their grouse was that having

participated in the primary elections, the 39th respondent

had the plan to reverse the results from the aforesaid

primary elections and short change them, hence they had

to approach the Court below, in order to protect their

rights and interests. I am quite satisfied that the 1st-38th

respondents, by virtue of Section 156 of the Electoral Act,

2010, (as amended) by Electoral (Amendment) Act No.2

2011, which defines the word: ”aspirant“ as "a person who

aspires or seeks or strives to contest an election to a

political office"; are aspirants who participated in the

aforesaid primary election, allegedly conducted by the 39th

respondent on 3rd and 7th October, 2018 and ipso facto,

they each had locus standi when they filed their claim at

t h e C o u r t b e l o w . I s a h S h u a i b u L a u v .

Peoples Democratic Party & Ors (2017) LPELR-42800

52

(201

9) LP

ELR-47

012(

CA)

(SC) @ pp. 24-26; Ardo v. Nyako (2014) 10 NWLR

(pt.1416) 591.

I now turn my attention to the appellants' contention, to the

effect that by virtue of Section 251(1) (r) of the 1999

Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, as

amended, the Court below had no jurisdiction to have

entertained and determined the 1st-38th respondents'

action. In order to appreciate the import and dynamics of

this issue, the provisions of Section 251(1) (r) of the 1999

Constitution and Section 87(9) of the Electoral Act, 2010,

as amended, are each reproduced as follows, respectively:

"251(1) - Notwithstanding anything to the contrary

contained in this Constitution and in addition to such

other jurisdiction as may be conferred upon it by an

Act of the National Assembly, the Federal High Court

shall have and exercise exclusive jurisdiction to the

exclusion of any other Court in civil causes and

matters-

(r) any action or proceeding for a declaration or

injunction affecting the validity of any executive or

administrative action or decision by the Federal

Government or any of its agencies;

Section 87(9) of the Electoral Act ,2010 as amended, says:

53

(201

9) LP

ELR-47

012(

CA)

"87 (9) Notwithstanding the provisions of the Act or

rules of a political party, an aspirant who complains

that any of the provisions of this Act and the

guidelines of a political party has not been complied

within the selection or nomination of a candidate of a

political party for election, may apply to the Federal

High Court or the High of a State, or of the Federal

Capital Territory, for redress."

Indisputably, the law is no longer recondite, but very well

settled to the effect that it is only members of a political

party who had desired to contest elections into political

offices at the National, State and Local Government levels

in Nigeria and who consequently participated in the party

primaries conducted by their particular political party, but

have some grouse against the conduct and/or outcome of

primary elections, that can institute an action in Court and

ventilate their grievances by virtue of Section 87(9) of the

Electoral Act, 2010 as amended. The decided authorities of

the Supreme Court and this Court on this settled principle

of the law, are a basketful. So, just a few of them will

suffice: People's Democratic Party & Anor. v. Timipre

Sylva

54

(201

9) LP

ELR-47

012(

CA)

(2012) 13 NWLR (pt.1316) 85; (2012) All FWLR

(pt.637) 606; (2012) LPELR- 7814 (SC); Senator

Dahiru Gassol v. Alhaji Abubakar Tutare (2013) 14

NWLR (pt.1374) 221;(2013) LPELR-20232 (SC);

Terver Kakih v. People's Democratic Party & Ors

(2014) LPELR -23277 (SC) @ 69-70; Heineken

Lokpobiri v. Ogola & Ors (2016) 13 NWLR (pt.1499)

328 @ 389; Shinkafi & Anor v. Yari & Ors (2016) 7

NWLR (1511) 340 @ 370; Olugbemi v. Lawrence

(2017) LPELR - 42361 (SC); Lau v. People's

Democratic Party, supra. The vexed question of whether

or not it is the Federal High Court which has the exclusive

jurisdiction to hear and determine any suit bordering on

grievances complained of by aspirants who participated in

political party primaries was succinctly resolved by the

apex Court, in its aforementioned decisions, to the

conclusive effect that both the Federal High Court, State

High Court and the High Court of the Federal Capital

Territory, have concurrent jurisdiction to hear and

determine complaints by aspirants who had participated in

political parties' primary elections by virtue of Section

251(1) (r) of the 1999 Constitution, as amended and

Section 87(9)

55

(201

9) LP

ELR-47

012(

CA)

of the Electoral Act,2010, as amended. Instructively, in the

most recent decision of the apex Court, that is, Lau v. PDP

& Ors, (supra), on a similar matter that was filed, heard

and determined at the High Court of the Federal Capital

Territory, Abuja, with respect to a complaint that arose

from the conduct of the People's Democratic Party primary

election for the selection of its candidate, to contest in a

legislative office general election; it was reiterated

emphatically to the effect that the Federal High Court, the

State High Court and the High Court of the Federal Capital

Territory, possess concurrent jurisdiction to hear and

determine such matters. At pages 43-46 of the report,

Augie, JSC., succinctly stated that:

“The Current position of the law is that in exercising

jurisdiction under Section 87(9) of the Electoral Act,

the Federal High Court and the High Court of a State

or FCT have concurrent jurisdiction to hear and

determine disputes arising from conduct of a party’s

primaries - see Salim v. CPC (Supra), wherein Peter-

Odili, JSC, stated as follows “This Court would take

the stand it took in Ucha v. ONWE (2011) 1 SCNJ 232

56

(201

9) LP

ELR-47

012(

CA)

because of the brand new provision of Section 87(9)

of the Electoral Act. It is therefore, to be said in view

of this novel provision that the previous all-embracing

interpretation of Section 251 of the 1999 Constitution

is given once the Federal Government or its Agencies

are involved would have to be given a broad view in

the co-existing situation of the provisions of Section

87(9) of the Electoral Act and the sui generis nature

of the subject matter, the Court of Appeal was in

error in holding that the Federal High Court had the

exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate on this pre-

election dispute to the exclusion of the State High

Court. This is because the jurisdiction is exercisable

by either the Federal High Court or State High Court

or High Court of the FCT. And Lokpobiri v. Ogola

(Supra). Wherein Muhammad, JSC said- Section 251

of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) creates

jurisdiction and make same exclusively exercisable by

the Federal High Court only in respect of the subject

matters the paragraphs under the section cover.

Election and election related matters, be it stressed,

have not been provided for by any of the paragraphs

under Section

57

(201

9) LP

ELR-47

012(

CA)

251 of the 1999 Constitution, the contrary

submissions of Counsel in this regard are certainly

misinformed and their reliance on our decision in

PDP V. Sylva (Supra) and Kakih v. PDP (supra) are

without basis.

Obviously the law is not static, particularly in election

matters, and what the law makers have done with the

enactment of Section 87(9) of the Electoral Act, is to

make more Courts available to aspirants, who

complain that provisions of the Electoral Act and

Guidelines of a political party, has not been complied

with in nominating candidates.

To insist on the narrow and limited jurisdiction

exclusive to the Federal High Court under Section

251 (1) (q) (r) and (s) of the 1999 Constitution when

it comes to election related matters, is to close the

doors that was opened to such dissatisfied aspirants

to seek redress in the other High Courts other than

Federal High Court. This I will not do; and this issue

is resolved in favour of the Appellant…”

My Lords, drawing inspiration, which we are bound to,

from the decisions of the Supreme Court, referred to above

and since it is glaring and clear as crystal, that relief 16 (e)

- (j)

58

(201

9) LP

ELR-47

012(

CA)

as endorsed in the amended statement of claim, at the

Court below, was targeted at the 3rd Defendant- the

Independent National Electoral Commission (the 41st

respondent herein), I have no doubt in my mind that the

Federal High Court does not possess an exclusive

jurisdiction in this matter. I am of the considered and firm

opinion that the Federal High Court, the State High Court,

as in the instant case, and the High Court of the Federal

Capital Territory, have concurrent jurisdiction to entertain

and determine disputes which arise from the conduct of

political parties' primary elections for candidates who seek

and desire to contest elections into Executive and

Legislative Offices. Therefore, I am in agreement with the

submissions by the learned Senior Counsel for the 1st -

38th and 39th - 40th respondents, respectively, to the

effect that the learned trial judge was on firma terra, in his

conclusion that he possessed the jurisdiction to entertain

and determine the 1st-38th respondents' action. And having

earlier in this judgment, held that the 1st -38th respondents

had the locus standi to file their action at the Court below;

Issues 1 and 2 are hereby resolved against the appellants.

59

(201

9) LP

ELR-47

012(

CA)

ISSUES THREE AND FOUR.

Issues three and four in this appeal are, Whether the

lower Court properly evaluated the evidence of all the

parties before arriving at the conclusion that the 1st

-38th Respondents proved their case to be entitled to

the reliefs they sought- (Distilled from ground No. 2).,

and Whether the Appellants right to fair hearing

guaranteed by Section 36(1) of the 1999 Constitution

of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended), was

breached by the Court below- (distilled from ground

No. 1).

Appellant’s major grievance is that the lower Court failed to

properly evaluate the evidence generated at the trial, that

the lower Court did not support its conclusion with cogent

reasons, that the lower Court was casual and did not

attempt to advance good reasons based on the evidence

before it, before coming to the conclusion that the 1st to

38th Respondents established their claim, that the evidence

led by the parties at the trial featured prominently in the

proceedings, the arguments canvassed by the respective

Counsel for the parties, the issues sought to be determined

to reach a fair and just conclusion on the claim

60

(201

9) LP

ELR-47

012(

CA)

before the Court. Counsel for the Appellants said the Court

had the advantage of going through the materials before it

in order to arrive at a fair and just conclusion, rather than

focus on the materials and analyze them properly, the

lower Court just casually concluded that the plaintiffs

proved their case against the defendants without providing

basis for this decision.

On the part of the 1st to 40th Respondents, their argument

is that the lower Court properly and rightly evaluated the

evidence before it before coming to a conclusion that the

plaintiffs claim had merit. Again Counsel said the lower

Court properly reviewed, evaluated and appraised the

evidence led by the parties before coming to the conclusion

that the case of the Plaintiffs had merit and deserved to be

allowed.

Learned Counsel for the Appellants also referred to the

evidence of PW1, who testified for the 1st to 38th

Respondents to the effect that primary elections were

conducted by the 39th Respondent and produced

successful candidates for the election, that the primary

elections were supervised by the 3rd Defendant/41st

Respondent in this appeal. Learned Counsel insisted that

the

61

(201

9) LP

ELR-47

012(

CA)

purported primary elections were not made in compliance

with the provisions of Section 31(1) 87 (1) of the Electoral

Act 2010 (as amended).

The Respondents contended that there were primary

elections supervised by the 3rd Defendant. Insisting that

from the evidence of PW1, the Primary elections were

supervised by the Committee appointed by the National

Working Committee of the 39th Respondent.

Parties also addressed on exhibit 3 list of candidates and

exhibit 6 list of candidates and the provisions of the APC

constitution. Appellants relied on exhibit 4 document from

the 41st Respondent titled “Failure to conduct party

primaries in Zamfara State within the stipulated time

frame”, Appellants also relied on exhibits 7, 7A and 7B to

contend that party primaries were not conducted. The

Respondents on their part contented that the evidence of

DW1 punctured the said exhibits 4, 7, 7A and 7B.

Just to set the road map, the points to address in resolving

this issue relate to allegations of failure to properly

evaluate the evidence by the lower Court, whether primary

elections to select candidates for the 2019 elections in

Zamfara State

62

(201

9) LP

ELR-47

012(

CA)

actually took place, looking at the provisions of the law, the

evidence of PW1, DW1 and DW2, and the exhibits that

constitute an integral part of the controversy, exhibits 4, 7,

7A and 7B. The Appellants made allegations of denial of fair

hearing in passing, it appears issue of fair hearing is either

abandoned, or is collapsed and subsumed into the issue

central to the determination of this appeal, the Appellants

did not make any specific submissions on it as rightly

submitted by the learned Counsel for the 1st to 38th

Respondents.

Let me state that allegation of failure to evaluate evidence

by the lower Court in the instant appeal is in my view a

final point which I will come to deal with at the end of

resolving this issue. I will deal with the aspects relating to

the evidence before the Court before making a decision on

whether or not there was failure on the part of the lower

Court to properly evaluate the evidence before it. There is

nothing wrong in setting the stage by stating the settled

position of the law on evaluation of evidence, let me refer

to the decision of the Supreme Court of Nigeria in UMAR

V. BAYERO UNIVERSITY KANO (1988) 7 SC (Pt. II)

63

(201

9) LP

ELR-47

012(

CA)

1, where my law lord BELGORE JSC (Later CJN) said as

follows:

“It is the primary duty of the trial Court to evaluate

evidence before it and make definite findings on such

evidence. It has every advantage of doing this. The

witnesses are before it and it is well placed to judge

the demeanor of each witness. For examination-in-

chief, cross examination and re-examination, the trial

Court has an advantage over all appellate Courts of

deciding who to believe or disbelieve. The record of

proceeding, however detailed or comprehensive is not

cinematograph or even live voice accompanying

pictures but mere attempt to record what was said or

demonstrated and not the demonstration of the

evidence itself. It is for this reason that unless it is

expedient in exceptional circumstances, the appellate

Court should not disturb the findings of fact of trial

Court. You can believe that person you can see and

hear; similarly, the person you disbelieve. A Court of

Appeal merely sees the records and not the person

whose voice and demonstration are written down. The

exceptional circumstances could be incompetent

evidence, evidence legally inadmissible like hear-say

64

(201

9) LP

ELR-47

012(

CA)

and some secondary evidence. For trials are only

trials in law if based on lawful evidence; a judgment

based on inadmissible evidence is no judgment and

will be declared null and void”.

I also refer to the decision of this Court in AKINTOLA V.

ADEGBITE (2007) ALL FWLR (Pt. 372) 1891 at 1898,

delivered by my law Lord Augie JCA (as he then was) (Now

JSC) on what constitutes proper evaluation of evidence, my

Lord said as follows:

“Evaluation of evidence entails the assessment of

evidence so as to give value or quality to it; it involves

a reasoned belief of the evidence of one of the

contending parties and disbelief of the other or a

reasoned preference of one version to the other.

There must be on record how the Court arrived at its

conclusion of preferring one piece of evidence to the

other. In the instant case, the lower Court clearly

enumerated its reasons for preferring the evidence of

the respondent. See Oyekola v. Ajibade (2004) 17

NWLR (Pt. 902) 356; Idakwo v. Nigerian Army (2004)

2 NWLR (Pt. 857) 249; F.B.N. Plc v. Oniyangi (2000) 6

NWLR (Pt. 661) 497, Fasanya v. Adekoya (2000)15

NWLR (Pt. 689) 22, (2001) FWLR (Pt. 34) 516;

65

(201

9) LP

ELR-47

012(

CA)

Merchantile Bank of Nig. Plc. v. Nwobodo (2000) 3

NWLR (Pt. 648) 297".

The next point is the allegation by the Appellant that

primary elections did not hold in Zamfara State, the

Respondents said primary elections took place. Let me

examine the evidence of PW1, Alhaji Ibrahim Birnin Magaji

who was called to give evidence for the Plaintiffs at the

Court below now 1st to 38th Respondents in this appeal, in

his statement on oath at pages 30 to 36 of the additional

records of appeal particularly paragraphs 11 and 12

deposed as follows:

“11. That the 1st Defendant in an attempt to conduct

to a hitch free primary election constituted a 7-man

committee to supervise the conduct the primary

election in Zamfara State.

12. That the Plaintiffs aver that the Zamfara State

Governorship, National Assembly and State

Legislative Houses Primary Elections were duly

conducted and supervised by the 3rd Defendant on

the 3rd and 7th October, 2018.”

PW1 gave evidence and under cross examination by

Counsel for the 4th to 144th Defendants at the Court

below, specifically at page 2135 Vol 5 of the records of

appeal he said as follows:

66

(201

9) LP

ELR-47

012(

CA)

“…The members of the National Working Committee

sent to conduct election. 2 committees were sent to

conduct primary elections in Zamfara State. The 1st

Committee is 7, I only know the Chairman Engr.

Abubakar Fari. The 2nd Committee was headed by

Major General Mustapha Gana retired and it consists

7 members. I don’t know the names of the other

members. By the time table the primary is supposed

to be conducted in Zamfara State on 7/10/2018. The

two Committees were to conduct Gubernatorial,

Senate, House of Reps and House of Assembly

primaries. To the best of my knowledge the

Committees conducted the primaries. I don’t know

how many times primaries are to be conducted in

Zamfara State. I don’t know why two Committees

conducted primaries in Zamfara State. The 1st

Committee conducted its primaries in 3/10/18. The

2nd Committee Conducted its primaries in 7/10/2018

in Zamfara State, for the same purpose. I don’t know

whether the 1st and 2nd Committees issued a report.

The INEC officials were in attendance at both

primaries. I don’t know who represented INEC. I don’t

have the gift of seeing things that are not common

67

(201

9) LP

ELR-47

012(

CA)

to normal human beings. I agreed that if INEC

officials were there they will observe the proceedings

and issue a report. I am a faithful person. I have

resigned my position as Commissioner for

information on 12/8/2018. I served as Commissioner

for information between 2011 and 2018. The

deposition in paragraph 13 of my statement on oath is

correct I never saw the CTC of the report from the 3rd

defendant. I didn’t tell the Court lies it is in the

exhibit 3.

Exhibit 3 is a list and not a report. Exhibit 3 is my

report. I know Lawal M. Liman. He is the Zamfara

State Chairman of APC. He is not a member of the

National Working Committee. He is also not a

member of any of the 2 Committees appointed by

NWC to conduct primaries in Zamfara State. Lawal M

Liman is also not the Chairman or secretary of APC. I

am not aware that he is to serve as returning officer,

in exhibit 6 the person submitting the report is Lawal

M. Liman. He signed exhibit 6, Exhibit 6 contains my

name...”

What can be deduced from the evidence is that, the State

Executive of the party under the leadership of Lawal Liman

conducted primary elections and sent exhibit 6, list of

68

(201

9) LP

ELR-47

012(

CA)

candidates to the Zamfara State Resident Electoral

Commissioner. It is important to examine exhibit 6, it is

found at page 2344 Vol 5 of the records of appeal the letter

dated 7th October 2018 reads as follows:

“The Resident Electoral Commissioner,

Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC)

Gusau, Zamfara State.

SUBMISSION OF SUCCESSFUL CANDIDATES

Following the conduct of direct primary elections of

Governorship, Senate, House of Representatives and

State Assembly in Zamfara Sate, I am pleased to

forward herewith the list of successful candidates for

various positions as follows:

i. 1 Governorship Candidate

ii. 3 Senate

iii. 7 House of Representatives

iv. 24 State House of Assembly Members

2. The direct primary elections were officially

monitored and observed by the Independent National

Electoral Commission (INEC) and Security Agencies.

The list of the candidates is attached.

3. Submitted for your necessary action please.

Hon. Lawal, M. Liman

State Chairman APC”

It is beyond any doubt that the State Chairman of APC

Lawal M. Liman conducted the primary elections and

69

(201

9) LP

ELR-47

012(

CA)

submitted list of successful candidates to the Resident

Electoral Commissioner, it is necessary for me to mention

that the State Chairman who conducted the primary

elections is the State Chairman of the party and a

successful candidate for the 2019 general elections, he is

also Respondent number 26 in this appeal before us.

The All Progressives Congress, guidelines for the

nomination of candidates for the 2019 general elections -

Direct primaries. Paragraph 14 of the guidelines provides

as follows:

“14 ELECTORAL PROCESS

a. There shall be a 7-member Election Committee for

each state, who must be persons of proven integrity.

b. The members of the Committee are to be recruited

from outside the State of their assignment,

comprising of a chairman, secretary and 5 other

members.

c. The Committee shall be responsible for the overall

conduct of the exercise in the State.

d. The Committee shall supervise the local

Government and ward Election Committees.

e. The Committee shall collate results from all the

Local Governments.

f. The final result of the elections shall be collated on

the state Declaration of Election Results Form.

70

(201

9) LP

ELR-47

012(

CA)

Paragraph 14 clearly provides that members shall be

recruited from outside the State of their assignment. Again

paragraph 20 (b) (c) and (d) of the same guidelines

provides as follows:

B. There shall be a 7-member Governorship Election

Committee in each State of the Federation who must

be persons of proven integrity. They will be recruited

from outside the State of their assignment

comprising of a Chairman, Secretary and 5 other

Members. They shall be responsible for the overall

conduct of the exercise in the State.

C. There shall be a 7- member legislative Election

Committee (State House of Assembly, House of

Representatives and Senate) of each State of the

Federation and FCT. They will be recruited from

outside of their State for their assignment, and shall

comprise of a Chairman, Secretary and 5 other

Members. They shall be responsible for the overall

conduct of the exercise in the State and FCT.

D. The membership of the various Electoral

Committees shall be as constituted by the National

Working Committee (acting on behalf of NEC).

Duties of the Committee shall include

71

(201

9) LP

ELR-47

012(

CA)

• Verification. Accreditation of delegates

• Organizing and conducting Elections and all duties

related thereto. The Electoral Committee shall serve

as Electoral Officers/Returning Officers from each

election. They shall supervise the conduct of party’s

primaries in the State, compile results and submit

same to the National Secretariat. They shall have

powers to announce the outcome of all elections

conducted.

The Electoral Committee shall appoint Returning

officers from amongst themselves and shall have the

power to appoint a Returning officer to supervise

areas where they cannot cover, and such Returning

Officer shall not be from that Constituency/

Senatorial Zone/ State.

From the provisions of paragraphs 14 and 20 of the

guidelines, there is very clear emphasis on the person to be

recruited for the purpose of conducting primary elections,

both paragraphs placed emphasis on recruiting persons

from outside the area where elections are to be conducted,

the power to appoint the 7 man Committee is vested in the

National Working Committee. PW1 stated in his evidence

that Lawal M. Liman is the Chairman of the party in

Zamfara

72

(201

9) LP

ELR-47

012(

CA)

State, he is not a member of the National Working

Committee, he was not appointed by the National Working

Committee to conduct primaries, in the face of all these

hard facts, he crafted exhibit 6 signed and sent list of

allegedly successful candidates to the Resident Electoral

Commissioner Zamfara State, forwarding list of successful

candidates, and the list included his name as a successful

candidate, he is also one of the Respondents in this appeal.

I must say it loud and clear, that Lawal M. Liman the

Chairman APC Zamfara State had no slightest power to

conduct primaries and forward list of successful candidates

to INEC. He acted illegally against his party’s Constitution

and guidelines with respect to conduct of primaries. He had

no authority or slightest business conducting primary

elections and forwarding list of allegedly successful

candidates including his name to INEC. His action is

incongruous, patently bizarre and detrimental to healthy

competition in politics. It is also strange that PW1 insisted

that Primary elections were conducted, his stance was

either founded on ignorance or a calculated design to stick

to falsehood and hoodwink the lower Court. I must also

add,

73

(201

9) LP

ELR-47

012(

CA)

that PW1 is not a reliable witness because he has a mission

and a purpose to serve. He is a candidate and a product of

the purported party primaries; hence he has a stake in the

purported primary election, which he tried to defend by all

means, all be it very unfairly.

Section 31 (1) of the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended)

provides that:

Every political party shall not later than 60 days

before the date appointed for a general election

under the provisions of this Act, submit to the

Commission in the prescribed forms the list of the

candidates the party proposes to sponsor at the

elections.

The above provision of the law, takes me to Section 87 (1)

of the same Electoral Act the section also dealing with

primary elections provides as follows:

87(1). A political party seeking to nominate

candidates for elections under this Act shall hold

primaries for aspirants to all elective positions.

Having found that the 39th Respondent failed to conduct

primary elections in line with the provisions of the law,

particularly Sections 31 and 87 of the Electoral Act 2010

(as amended), the 41st Respondent in this appeal, the

74

(201

9) LP

ELR-47

012(

CA)

Independent National Electoral Commission on the 9th day

of October 2018 wrote a letter titled “Failure to Conduct

Party primaries in Zamfara State within the Stipulated

time”, exhibit 4. I consider it necessary to reproduce the

letter in this judgment, it reads as follows:

“The Chairman

All Progressives Congress (APC)

Plot 40 Blantyre Street

Wuse 2

Abuja.

FAILURE TO CONDUCT PARTY PRIMARIES IN

ZAMFARA STATE WITHIN THE STIPULATED

TIMEFRAME.

Please refer to the Time Table and schedule of

Activities for the 2019 General Elections released by

the Commission on 9th January 2018. You would note

from the Timetable that the conduct of party

Primaries is scheduled to take place between 18th

August and 7th October 2018.

2 . K indly a lso re fer to the las t schedule

communicated by your party to the Commission on

the dates of party primaries nationwide, including

Z a m f a r a v i d e y o u r l e t t e r R e f :

APC/NHDQ/INEC/19/18/51 dated 3rd October 2018.

However, report received from our office in Zamfara

State shows that no primaries were conducted by your

party in the State notwithstanding that our officials

were fully mobilized and deployed.

(201

9) LP

ELR-47

012(

CA)

75

(201

9) LP

ELR-47

012(

CA)

3. Consequently based on the provisions of Section 87

and 31 of the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended), the

Commission does not expect that your party will

submit names of any candidates from Zamfara State.

For clarity, our position therefore is that the All

Progressives Congress (APC) will not be fielding

candidates for the Governorship, National Assembly

and State Assembly elections in Zamfara State for the

2019 General Elections.

4. Please accept the assurances of the Commissions

highest regards.

Okechukwu Ndeche

Ag. Secretary to the Commission.”

From the contents of exhibit 4, it is clear that the

Independent National Electoral Commission took a decision

that the 39th Respondent in this appeal had no candidates

for the 2019 general Elections. This letter apparently

prompted reactions and seemingly steered the hornet’s

nest, the letter from INEC opened flood-gate of reactions.

Exhibits 7 and 7A.

Exhibit 7 is a letter addressed to the Chairman INEC titled

“Report on the All Progressives Congress Primaries” dated

9th October 2018 signed by Dr. Asma’u Sani Maikudi

Resident Electoral Commissioner Zamfara State. The letter

76

(201

9) LP

ELR-47

012(

CA)

conveyed report and part of the report reads as follows:

“…On 3rd October 2018, the 1st Committee headed by

Engr. Abubakar Fari attempted to conduct the

Election which was agreed by the aspirants.

The shortage of election materials especially ballot

papers which were grossly inadequate led to the

change of the mode of election to option A4, which

was also agreed upon by the aspirants.

At that stage, the Commission’s staff were directed to

monitor the primaries at various wards of the local

Governments in the State. The process continued

successfully in some areas but later halted and

suspended by the Committee due to escalation of

violence and protests in some LGAs such as Anka,

B/Magaji, Gusau, K/Namoda, Bungudu etc.

The second Committee headed by Major General

Abubakar Mustapha Gana (Rtd) was sent by their

National Headquarters to replace the previous

Committee to conduct the primaries.

The second Committee Could not hold primaries as a

result of the following reasons:

VOTERS REGISTER

STAFFING

SCREENING

The process could not hold due to the tension, and

the

77

(201

9) LP

ELR-47

012(

CA)

time frame could not allow the election to hold. In

effect the Committee suspended the election.

On the other hand, considering the deadline for the

primaries as issued by INEC, the State Government

directed the State Party Executives to conduct the

primaries at all levels before 12.00 midnight of 7th

October 2018.

The list of those elected were later submitted to

INEC.

INSTANCES OF VIOLENCE

1. In Gusau LGA at Kanwuri (Madawaki RA) on 3rd

October 2018, members of Nigeria Civil Defense Corp

shot a young man whose group came armed with

offensive weapons attacking people.

2. At Birnin Ruwa Primary (Mayana RA) of Gusau LGA

the members of CTU (Police team) shot another

person to death.

3. A policeman was stabbed to death at Kongo Area of

Tudun Wada RA in Gusau LGA on 6/10/18.

4. In Bungudu LGA violence erupted in front of the

police station, the DPO called for backup re-

enforcement from Gusau Headquarters (CTU) in the

process two lives were lost.

5. At Nasarawa Godel West RA, in B/Magaji LGA one

person lost his life as a result of violence.

6. In B/Magaji LGA three (3) children were suffocated

to death as a result of overcrowding...”

(201

9) LP

ELR-47

012(

CA)

78

(201

9) LP

ELR-47

012(

CA)

From exhibit 7 too, it is very clear to me that primary

elections were not conducted by the 39th Respondent in

this appeal. The said exhibit also disclosed that the State

Government appointed a Committee to conduct primaries,

this is clearly wrong, improper and outside the powers of

the State.

Exhibit 7A is A letter from Comrade Adams Aliyu Oshiomole

National Chairman of the 39th Respondent to the Chairman

INEC, expressing shock that the party was not allowed to

submit its list of candidates, that in the spirit of due

compliance, the party would present its list of candidates

before the 18th of October 2018, no such list was sent. I am

in agreement with the submissions of learned Counsel for

the Appellants that exhibit 7A letter form the Chairman of

APC, 39th Respondent to INEC 41st Respondent

constitutes an admission that primary elections were not

conducted by the 39th Respondent. The law is well settled

that where there are admissions against interest such

admissions will be admissible against a person, such

evidence shall be viewed in relation to the entire evidence

before the Court, see: KAMALU & ORS V. DANIEL

N W A K U D U U K A U M U N N A & O R S ( 1 9 9 7 )

LPELR-1657 (SC).

79

(201

9) LP

ELR-47

012(

CA)

DW1 Salman Uwaisu testified that the 39th Respondent

made two unsuccessful attempts to conduct primaries even

though under cross examination he said the Committees

conducted primaries. It needs to be stated that oral

evidence cannot vary or contradict the contents of a

document. Documentary evidence being permanent in form

is more reliable than oral evidence and is used as a hanger

to test the credibility of oral evidence. In the instant appeal,

there are several documents admitted as exhibits 4, 6, 7,

7A and 7B for the lower Court to rely on in order to

determine whether the 39th Respondent actually

conducted primary elections or not.

It is apparent from the decision of the lower Court, that

attention was not accorded to the materials before it, the

lower Court failed to properly evaluate the evidence and

come to a conclusion, this is certainly a case of the lower

Court shutting its eyes to the obvious, and remained

persistently on the path of error thereby giving a decision

that is perverse, a decision that is different from what is

reasonable or required, a decision that is against the

weight of evidence. The law is settled that where the

80

(201

9) LP

ELR-47

012(

CA)

trial Court fails to properly evaluate the evidence placed

before it, the Appellate Court is in as good position as the

trial Court to re-evaluate the evidence placed before it, to

ensure that justice is done to the parties, this is in accord

with the provisions of Section 15 of the Court of Appeal Act

2004. Having painstakingly perused the evidence before

trial Court, I agree with the learned Counsel for the

Appellants that the lower Court failed to properly evaluate

the evidence before it. In ATOLAGBE V. SHORUN SC.

14/1984 on the meaning of what constitutes a perverse

decision, OPUTA (JSC) (of blessed memory) said as

follows:“Perverse simply means persistent error,

different from what is reasonable or required, against

the weight of evidence. A decision may be perverse

where the trial Judge took into account matters not to

be taken into account or where the judge shuts his

eyes to the obvious.”

The Provisions of Sections 31(1) and 87(1) of the Electoral

Act, 2010 (as amended), and The All Progressives

Congress, guidelines for the nomination of candidates for

the 2019 general elections - Direct primaries, prescribe

the

81

(201

9) LP

ELR-47

012(

CA)

mode of producing candidates for the 2019 elections, the

procedure must be followed, whenever there is a specific

provision regulating the procedure for doing a particular

act, that procedure must be followed, it is also trite that

when a statute dictates a certain mode of doing something,

then that method and no other must be employed in the

performance of the Act, see: BERNARD AMASIKE

V. REGISTRAR GENERAL, CORPORATE AFFAIRS

COMMISSION (2010) LPELR-456 (SC).

I am convinced that the lower Court failed in its duty to

properly evaluate the evidence placed before it by the

Appellants in this appeal, let me refer the decision in

OVUNWO & Ors V. WOKO & Ors (2011) LPELR-2841

(SC), where my Lord CHUKWUMA ENEH JSC (of blessed

memory) said: ”I must however , respectfully observe at

this stage vis a vis the lower Court's manner of

couching its judgment in this appeal that every Judge

reserves the right as to his own style of writing

judgments whether sitting at the trial or appellate

level of the Courts. All the same, what must be

recognized as settled law is the duty to pronounce

judgment on all issues placed before the judge for

resolution. Without

82

(201

9) LP

ELR-47

012(

CA)

over simplifying this duty every judgment has to state

the facts of the case, state the points at issue

requiring the Court to pronounce upon them, then

the Courts decision with the reasons for same”.

Having said this much, I am of the view that Appellants

issues three and four must be and are hereby resolved in

favour of the Appellants against the Respondents.

Let me end with these words of admonition proffered by his

Lordship AUGIE JSC in LAU V. PDP (Supra) at pages

66-67 thereof, thus

“This is a hard and very bitter lesson for political

parties to learn, they may have chosen candidates or

eminent personalities they want to present as

candidates to INEC, but they have to play by the rules,

the chosen candidates must comply with the

requirements of the law; they must abide by the

provisions of the Electoral Act, which creates a level

playing field for all aspirants, who seek to contest

elections. So, the political parties and their

candidates must obey the Rules”.

I think with that, I am done. I only need to add that those

who have ears to hear should hear and do what the Courts

have been saying.

83

(201

9) LP

ELR-47

012(

CA)

Having resolved issues three and four in favour of the

Appellants it follows that Appellants appeal has merit and

therefore deserves to be and is hereby allowed by me. In

consequence of allowing this appeal, the Judgment of the

lower Court delivered on the 25th day of January 2019 by

SHINKAFI, J., in suit No. ZMS/GS/52/2018 is hereby set

aside.

Parties in this appeal shall bear their respective costs.

TIJJANI ABUBAKAR, J.C.A.: This is another instance of

brazen impunity and flagrant disregard to the provisions of

the Electoral Act and Political party guidelines in the

selection of candidates for the 2019 general Elections. It is

no longer possible for politicians to throw caution to the

wind in the selection process of candidates and get away

with it, right from the decision of the Supreme Court of

Nigeria in LAU V. PEOPLES DEMOCRATIC PARTY

(PDP) (2017) LPELR-42800 (SC), the Supreme Court of

Nigeria sent out signal to politicians that developing and

improving internal democracy in managing domestic affairs

of political parties lies at their door step, if it is not done

right, the law has given room for judicial intervention. The

judgment

84

(201

9) LP

ELR-47

012(

CA)

just rendered in this appeal is one of such instances.

My Lord KEKERE-EKUN JSC, in his elaborate contribution

to the decision in LAU V. PDP (Supra), said as follows:

“I do not have much to add save to observe that once

again we are faced with a situation where a political

party in selecting its candidates for an election has

completely thrown caution to the wind and acted in

flagrant disregard of the provisions of the Electoral

Act and its own guidelines.

There is a settled line of authorities to the effect that

domestic or internal affairs of a political party are not

justiciable, that the Courts will not dabble into

membership of a party or who it chooses to sponsor

for an election. See. Onuoha vs Sylva (2012) 13 NWLR

(pt. 1316) 85; APGA Vs Anyanwu (2014) 1-2 SC (pt.

1); Emenike vs PDP (2011) LPELR-19752 CA).

However, in making its choice, a political party must

act within the law and must comply with its own

constitution and guidelines. Prior to 2006, political

parties acted with impunity in the selection,

sponsorship and substitution of candidates for

election. The absolute powers of parties in this

respect were curtailed to an extent

85

(201

9) LP

ELR-47

012(

CA)

by the introduction of Sections 32 and 34 (now

Section 33 of the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended)

made specific provisions for the manner and time

within which the substitution of a candidate could be

made while Section 32(4) (now Section 35(4) of the

Act, permitted the particulars submitted to INEC by a

candidate to be challenged in Court. A further

amendment of the Electoral Act in 2010 vide Section

87(9) thereof provided that an aspirant who is

dissatisfied with the conduct of his party primary

election or who alleges non-compliance with the

Electoral Act or the party’s constitution and/or

guidelines in the selection or nomination of a

candidate of a political party for election may seek

redress at the Federal High Court, or the High Court

of a State or Federal Capital Territory. The reason is

not far-fetched. While the actual choice of a

candidate is within the domestic affairs of the party,

which is not justiciable, the party must adhere strictly

to the provisions of the Electoral Act and its own

Constitution and guidelines in carrying out the

exercise. Section 87(9) empowers the Court to

intervene where a party

86

(201

9) LP

ELR-47

012(

CA)

(as in this case) has acted arbitrarily and with

impunity. See; Emenike v. PDP (2012) 12 NWLR (pt.

1315) 556 @ 603, E-G; Uzodinma v. Izunaso (2011) 18

NWLR (Pt. 1279) 689 @ 717-719 G-B”.

Whenever a procedure for doing a particular process is set

down by law, that and no other procedure must be

followed.

I read exhibit 4 letter from INEC, the 41st Respondent in

this appeal, wherein the Commission sounded tough and

business like, when it said its doors were shut against the

39th Respondent, from presenting candidates for the 2019

Elections in Zamfara State. At the Court below, INEC

featured prominently, the Commission appeared proactive

and energetic at the trial. When the matter eventually came

before us on appeal, the Commission failed to appear in

Court, and failed to file any process, it is their right to do so

as Respondents but, I am compelled to express shock at the

sudden change, the Commission fizzled out and retired into

inexplicable silence and helplessness as if it was struck by

visitation of God to steer clear of the scene, is it for fear of

being accused of partisanship? Whatever is thier reason for

so doing they have not helped the system, they must do

87

(201

9) LP

ELR-47

012(

CA)

better. The Independent National Electoral Commission has

responsibility to enforce discipline and inject sanity, the

Political parties must be taught the benefits of voluntary

compliance, exhibit 4 was a good starting point. INEC has a

duty to discharge its obligations under the law without let

or hindrance, its attempted boldness in Zamfara State must

continue, the political parties need such positive even

though attempted step taken by INEC. It must continue.

My learned brother, Tom Shaibu Yakubu JCA granted me a

preview of the lucid judgment just rendered in this appeal,

he fully covered the field, and left no space for further

comments, I endorse the entire reasoning and conclusion

and adopt the judgment as my own, I also abide by all

consequential orders including the order on costs.

JAMILU YAMMAMA TUKUR, J.C.A.: My learned brother

Tom Shaibu Yakubu JCA afforded me the opportunity of

reading before today the lead judgment just delivered and I

agree with the reasoning and conclusion therein that the

appeal is meritorious and should be allowed.

By way of emphasis, I wish to comment briefly on the

Appellants issue three.

88

(201

9) LP

ELR-47

012(

CA)

Issue three is stated to be derived from ground two of the

Notice of appeal and it reads "Whether the Court below did

discharge the duty incumbent upon it to evaluate or

properly evaluate and ascribed weight to the evidence led

by the parties before it before coming to the conclusion

that the 1st-38th Respondent’s claim was proved and

granting the reliefs sought by them." Based on the facts

pleaded by the parties and the evidence led by the parties

in proof of same the learned trial judge in his judgment at

pages 2253-2254 of the record found and concluded thus;

“Now on the strength of the evidence adduced by the

plaintiff the evidence elicited from both DWS 1 and 2

during cross examination as well as the documentary

evidence tendered and admitted in evidence I am

satisfied that the plaintiffs have proved their case

against the defendants. Consequently, therefore the

issue for determination formulated is hereby

answered in the affirmative and all the reliefs claimed

by the plaintiffs are hereby granted.”

Now the case of the Appellants is that the lower Court

failed to evaluate the evidence before it before arriving at

its

89

(201

9) LP

ELR-47

012(

CA)

conclusion. I have gone through the entire judgment of the

lower Court more particularly from pages 2234-2253 of the

printed record and what I find therein are the summary of

the evidence led by all the parties the arguments of

counsels and the issue distilled for determination by the

lower Court. As far back as 1978 the Supreme Court in the

case of Odofin & Ors v Mogaji & Ors (1978) NSCC 275

at 277 stated the procedure to be followed in the

evaluation of evidence in the following terms;

“In other words, the totality of the evidence should be

considered in order to determine which has weight

and which has no weight at all. Therefore in deciding

whether a certain set of facts was given in evidence by

one party in a civil case before a Court in which both

parties appear is preferable to another set of facts

given in evidence by the other party, the trial judge,

after summary of all the facts, must put the two sets

of facts on an imaginary scale, weigh one against the

other then decide upon the preponderance of credible

evidence which weighs more, accept it in preference

to the other, and then apply the appropriate law to

it.”

90

(201

9) LP

ELR-47

012(

CA)

See UKAEGBU & ORS V NWOLOLO (2009) LPELR

3337 (SC) ; EYIBOH V ABIA & ORS (2012)

LPELR-20607 (SC); STALLION SEA FOODS LTD

WARRINGTON V NOGUMWEGIE (2013) LPELR-20313

(CA); ANOSIKE VS DINYO (2016) LPELR-41397 (CA)

The law is settled that in civil matters such as in the instant

case the Court decides the case on the balance of

probability or preponderance of evidence and this the

Court does by putting the admissible evidence adduced by

the parties on the imaginary scale weigh them and decides

which is heavier not by the number of witnesses called or

documentary evidence placed but by the quality or

probative value of the evidence be it oral or documentary.

In determining which is heavier, the judge will necessarily

have regard to the following;- (a) Whether the evidence is

admissible;(b) Whether it is relevant;(c) Whether it is

credible;(d) Whether it is conclusive and (e) Whether it is

more probable than that given by the other party. Finally,

after invoking the law that is applicable to the case the trial

judge will then arrive at his final conclusion based on the

evidence which he accepted. Evaluation of evidence is

91

(201

9) LP

ELR-47

012(

CA)

therefore the assessment of all the facts presented by the

parties and the ascription of probative value to them. That

duty remains foisted on the trial judge. See Baba v

Nigerian Civil Aviation & Anor (1991) LPELR-692

( S C ) ; E Z E M B A V I B E N E M E & A N O R

(2004)LPELR-1205 (SC).

In my view the evaluation procedure adopted by the trial

Court was not in consonance with the above principles on

evaluation of evidence. There is nothing in the judgment to

show any attempt on the part of the lower Court to put the

evidence adduced by the parties on the imaginary scale,

scrutinize same to know which has probative value over the

other before arriving at its conclusion granting all the

reliefs of the plaintiffs.

For this and the more robust reasoning in the lead

judgment, I too allow the appeal. I abide by the

consequential orders contained in the lead judgment.

92

(201

9) LP

ELR-47

012(

CA)

Appearances:

Chief Mike Ozekhome, SAN with him,ChiefFerdmanda Orbih, SAN ,J. C. Shaka, Esq.,NuhuMuhammed, Esq.,M. Salahuddeen, Esq.,AmirSaned, Esq. and Safiah Suleiman, Esq ForAppellant(s)

Mahmud A. Magaji, SAN with him,Chris KelechiUdeoyibo, Esq., Ifeoma Johnson, Esq., IssaAbubakar, Esq., Junaidu Abubakar, Esq., IbrahimAli, Esq., Surajo Garba, Esq.,Sani Tahir, Esq. andJamilu Shafa, Esq.-for 1st to 38th Respondents

Abdullahi Aliyu, SAN with jim,Affis Matanmi,Esq., H. O. Umar, Esq., and Sandra Ozoemena,Esq.-for 39th to 40th Respondents.

Chief J. E. Ochidi, Esq. with him,A. A. Jibrin, Esq.and Umar Dahiru, Esq. - for 42nd RespondentsFor Respondent(s)

(201

9) LP

ELR-47

012(

CA)