IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA   HOLDEN AT ABUJA ON FRIDAY 21ST DAY OF JUNE,2024 BEFORE THEIR LORDSHIPS JOHN INYANG OKORO.   T ADAMU JAURO.     EMMANUEL AKOMAYE AGIM.        MOORE ASEIMO ABRAHAM ADUMEIN.      HABEEB ADEWALE OLUMUYIWA ABIRU.           JUSTICE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA JUSTICE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA JUSTICE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA JUSTICE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA JUSTICE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA SUNTRUST BANK NIGERIA LIMITED.                       AND Eaton Acquisition Limited ( sued for itself and on behalf of promoters of Our Bank Limited ( in formation)   CENTRAL BANK of NIGERIA. APPELLANT       RESPONDENT   SC/CV/999/2022 JUDGEMENT DELIVERED BY ADAMU JAURO , JSC I was availed a draft copy of the lead judgment delivered by my learned brother, Moore Aseimo Abraham Adumein, JSC. Having carefully reviewed the record of appeal and the ruling of the Court below, I cannot help but be in total agreement with the thorough reasoning and inevitable conclusion reached by my Lord, to the effect that the appeal has merit. I therefore join my learned brother in allowing same. Consequently, the ruling of the lower Court dismissing the Appellant’s motion filed on 12th March, 2021 is hereby set aside. In its stead, an order striking out the said motion is entered. Appeal allowed. ADAMU JAURO JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT APPEARANCES: ABAYOMI ADENIRAN,ESQ FOR THE APPELLANT EBUN-OLU ADEGBORUWA, SAN; with him, O. ADESIOYE, ESQ, FOR THE 1ST RESPONDENT. MRS O.A AKANBI, ESQ, FOR THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA   HOLDEN AT ABUJA ON FRIDAY 21ST DAY OF JUNE,2024 BEFORE THEIR LORDSHIPS JOHN INYANG OKORO.   T ADAMU JAURO.     EMMANUEL AKOMAYE AGIM.        MOORE ASEIMO ABRAHAM ADUMEIN.      HABEEB ADEWALE OLUMUYIWA ABIRU.           JUSTICE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA JUSTICE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA JUSTICE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA JUSTICE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA JUSTICE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA SUNTRUST BANK NIGERIA LIMITED.                       AND Eaton Acquisition Limited ( sued for itself and on behalf of promoters of Our Bank Limited ( in formation)   CENTRAL BANK of NIGERIA. APPELLANT       RESPONDENT SC/CV/999/2022 JUDGEMENT DELIVERED BY EMMANUEL AKOMAYE AGIM, JSC        I had a preview of the judgement delivered by my learned brother, Moore Aseimo Abraham Adumein, JSC and I completely agree with reasoning, conclusions and decisions therein. EMMANUEL AKOMAYE AGIM JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT APPEARANCES: Abayomi Adeniran,Esq for the Appellant Ebun-Olu Adegboruwa, SAN with O.C.O. Aduroja, SAN with Mrs. O.A. Akanbi, Esq for the 2nd

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA   HOLDEN AT ABUJA ON FRIDAY 21ST DAY OF JUNE,2024 BEFORE THEIR LORDSHIPS JOHN INYANG OKORO.   T ADAMU JAURO.     EMMANUEL AKOMAYE AGIM.        MOORE ASEIMO ABRAHAM ADUMEIN.      HABEEB ADEWALE OLUMUYIWA ABIRU.           JUSTICE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA JUSTICE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA JUSTICE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA JUSTICE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA JUSTICE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA SUNTRUST BANK NIGERIA LIMITED.                       AND Eaton Acquisition Limited ( sued for itself and on behalf of promoters of Our Bank Limited ( in formation)   CENTRAL BANK of NIGERIA. APPELLANT       RESPONDENT SC/CV/999/2022 JUDGEMENT  DELIVERED BY  Habeeb Adewale Olumuyiwa, JSC I have had the privilege of reading before now the lead judgment delivered by my learned brother, Moore Aseimo Abraham Adumein, JSC. His Lordship has considered and resolved the issues in contention in the appeal. I agree with the reasoning and I abide the conclusion reached. The action leading up to this appeal was commenced by the first Respondent against the second Respondent in the Federal High Court as Suit No: FHC/L/CS/115/2021. The Appellant was not a party to the action. The Federal High Court entered judgment in the action on the 17th of February 2021 in favor of the first Respondent. Sequel to the entry of judgment, the Appellant as Interested Party/Applicant, filed an application on the 12th of March 2021 before the Court of Appeal, Lagos Division, praying for an order of the Honourable Court granting it leave to appeal as an Interested Party against the said judgment of the Federal High Court. The first Respondent opposed the application and caused a counter-affidavit to be filed thereto on the 10th of November 2021. The second Respondent also opposed the application, and it caused a counter-affidavit to be filed thereunto on the 10th of February 2022.  Thereafter, the Appellant apparently realized that the three-months period it could appeal against the said judgment of Federal High Court as of right if granted the leave to appeal as an interested party by the lower Court expired on the 17th of May 2021, and that he needed to seek for and obtain the trinity prayers, that is, extension of time to seek leave to appeal, leave to appeal and extension of time to appeal, in order to be able to successfully appeal against the judgment. Acting upon this realization, the Appellant filed another motion on notice on the 23rd of March 2022 incorporating the prayers for leave to appeal as an interested party and the trinity prayers to appeal against the judgment of the Federal High Court. The Appellant on the same 22nd of March, 2022 also filed a notice of withdrawal of the earlier motion of 12th March 2021, with the intention of replacing the motion with the new motion filed.  When the applications came up before the lower Court on the 24th of March 2022, Counsel to the Respondents apparently contested the order to be made by the lower court on the Appellant’s notice of withdrawal of its earlier motion, and consequence on which the lower Court ordered the parties to file written addresses of arguments thereon. The parties complied with the order for written addresses, and they relied upon and adopted their respective addresses before the lower Court. The lower court delivered a ruling on the 2nd of August 2022, wherein it acknowledged the inalienable right of the appellant to withdraw its earlier motion, but it proceeded to equate the motion with an appeal, and it considered the notice to withdraw the motion under the provisions of Order 11 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2021 and found that since the Respondents had filed counter-affidavits to the motion, issues had been joined thereon, and that the proper order to make was one of dismissal. The lower Court proceeded therefrom to dismiss the motion of the Appellant filed on the 12th March 2021, and it thereby effectively foreclosed the consideration of the new motion filed by the Appellant. This appeal is  against the order of dismissal of the motion.  Now, what is evident from the above narration is that the basis for the withdrawal of the motion of 12th of March 2021 by the Appellant was that post 17th of May 2021, the lower Court ceased to have the power and jurisdiction to grant it leave to appeal as of right as an interested party against the judgment of the Federal High Court delivered on 17th February 2021, as the statutory three-months period for it to so appeal as of right had elapsed. The lower Court could only grant it the trinity prayers to so appeal after that date, and that as such, the application had become incompetent, and the Appellant sought to replace it with a competent application. The law as established by a long line of case law authorities by this Court is that the proper order to make where a motion on an action is incompetent and/or not properly constituted is striking out and not dismissal – see for example the cases of Abiegbe vs Ugbodume (1973) 1 SC 103, Oloriode vs Oyebi (1984) SCNR, 390, Adesokan vs Adetunji (1994) 6 SCNJ 123, Gombe vs P.W. Nig. (1995) 6 NWLR (pt.402) 402, Kogi State vs Yakubu (2001) 5 NSCQR 598 at 607, Obi vs INEC (2007) 7 SC, 268, Optimum Construction & Property Development Ltd vs Ake Shareholdings  Limited (2021) LPELR 56229(SC), Union Bank of Nigeria Plc vs Petrol Union Oil & Gas Limited (2021) LPELR 56671 (SC), Olayemi vs Federal Housing Authority (2022) LPELR 557579 (SC), Ashaka vs Nwachukwu (2024) LPELR 61796 (SC). It is not appropriate to dismiss such a motion or appeal, as a dismissal suggests that the motion or the appeal was determined on merits or finally.  The lower Court ran foul of this established position of the law when it dismissed the 12th of March 2021 motion of the Appellant instead of striking it out. It is for this reason and the fuller exposition

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA   HOLDEN AT ABUJA ON FRIDAY 21ST DAY OF JUNE,2024 BEFORE THEIR LORDSHIPS UWANI MUSA ABBA AJI.     HELEN MORONKEJI OGUNWUMIJU. CHIDIEBERE NWAOMA UWA.           STEPHEN JONAH ADAH.       ABUBAKAR SADIQ UMAR.                  JUSTICE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA JUSTICE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA JUSTICE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA JUSTICE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA JUSTICE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA OBA J.O AINA CHIEF MICHAEL AWOYEMI ( The Edemorun of Erinmope-Ekiti).              AND CHIEF ISRAEL ADEBAYO DADA MOBAL LOCAL GOVERNMENT APPELLANT       RESPONDENT SC.971/2017 JUDGEMENT  DELIVERED BY UWANI MUSA ABBA AJI, JSC My learned brother, Abubakar Sadiq Umar, JSC, availed me with the lead judgment for my comments before it was delivered. His sound reasoning and conclusion that the appeal is unmeritorious is concurred.   The second Appellant and first Respondent are both claiming the position of the fourth in rank to the first Appellant among chiefs in Erinmope-Ekiti. The dispute that led to this suit between the second Appellant and first Respondent arose over the sharing of traditional meat and other items meant for the High Chiefs in Erinmope-Ekiti. The second Appellant got up from his seat, seized the portion of meat shared to the first Respondent. This act was resisted by the first Respondent, being an usurpation of his position, which resistance resulted in the manhandling and tearing of the first Respondent’s title clothes by the second Appellant. The dispute that arose could not be resolved, consequently the first Respondent instituted this action at the trial court, where he sought a declaratory relief to the effect that he is the fourth in rank to the first Appellant, while the second Appellant is the fifth in rank to the first Appellant in the hierarchy of chiefs in Erinmope-Ekiti. He also sought for an order of perpetual injunction to restrain the Appellants from doing any act that would suggest the second Appellant is senior to him. Two witnesses testified for the Appellants whilst two witnesses also testified for the Respondents, and several documentary exhibits were tendered. At the end of the trial, the learned trial judge found that the claimant/ first Respondent proved his claims through credible evidence and granted the reliefs sought. On appeal to the lower court by the second Appellant. It was dismissed, hence this appeal.     The issue of seniority between the 2nd Appellant and 1st Respondent has been settled in favour of the 1st Respondent by credible evidence, which my learned brother in the lead judgment affirmed. Hence, the right to enjoy the 4th position inures in favor of the 1st Respondent, and he remains the senior of the 2nd Appellant in the hierarchy of High Chiefs in Erinmope-Ekiti. Similarly, the concurrence of the findings and decisions of the lower courts reinforce the seniority of the 1st Respondent over the 2nd Appellant. Therefore, the appeal is without merit. UWANI MUSA ABBA AJI JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT APPEARANCES: K.B.A BADMUS,ESQ., FOR THE APPELLANTS. ROTIMI BUNMI ADABEMBE,ESQ, FOR THE RESPONDENTS.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA   HOLDEN AT ABUJA ON FRIDAY 21ST DAY OF JUNE,2024 BEFORE THEIR LORDSHIPS UWANI MUSA ABBA AJI.     HELEN MORONKEJI OGUNWUMIJU. CHIDIEBERE NWAOMA UWA.           STEPHEN JONAH ADAH.       ABUBAKAR SADIQ UMAR.                  JUSTICE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA JUSTICE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA JUSTICE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA JUSTICE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA JUSTICE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA OBA J.O AINA CHIEF MICHAEL AWOYEMI ( The Edemorun of Erinmope-Ekiti).              AND CHIEF ISRAEL ADEBAYO DADA MOBAL LOCAL GOVERNMENT APPELLANT       RESPONDENT SC.971/2017 JUDGEMENT DELIVERED BY CHIDIEBERE NWAOMA UWA, JSC I have read in draft the judgment of my learned brother, Hon. Justice Abubakar Sadiq Umar, JSC, just delivered. I agree with his reasoning and conclusion that this appeal lacks merit and should be dismissed. I shall add a few remarks on the issue of whether or not the court can accept the oral evidence of DW1 and DW2, which indicates the Edomorun title is similar to Obajemu, over Exhibits P9 and P10 both of which place the first Respondent’s title of Obajemu above the second Appellant’s title of Edomorun.    The law is right that where there is oral as well as documentary evidence, the latter should be used as a basis from which to assess the oral evidence. The law is trite that where there is oral as well as documentary evidence, the latter should be used as a basis from which to assess the oral evidence. This is because documentary evidence is said to be more reliable than oral evidence and is used to test the credibility of oral evidence. Oral evidence cannot be used to contradict documentary evidence, which is always to be preferred over oral evidence. In Amobi v. Ogidi union (Nig) & ORS (2021) LPELR – 57337(SC) (PP 59-59 Paras A-E) his lordship Abdu Aboki, JSC, while determining whether documentary evidence is more reliable than oral evidence, held as follows: “This court has variously upheld the credibility of documentary evidence over oral evidence, which would require that the witness is put through oath and examinations for the Court to deduce the truth in his testimony. Contents of a document, on the other hand, speaks for itself. In A-G., Rivers State v. A-G Bayelsa State (2012) LPELR – 9336 (SC), this Court, stated as follows:  ‘It is legally recognized by the Courts that documentary evidence, particularly archival materials, confer credibility to historical facts. Documentary evidence is the best form of evidence in proof of a case.’ See also: Bakari v. Ogundipe (2020) LPELR – 49571; Arije & ORS (2018) LPELR – 44193 (SC).” Similarly, in Ibrahim vs Abdallah & ORS (2019) LPELR 48984 (SC) (PP 24-25 Paras B-A) his lordship John Inyang Okoro, JSC also held thus: “It is instructive to note that this case was commenced at the trial Court by way of originating summons, wherein parties rely more on documentary evidence to prove their case rather than oral evidence. Indeed, this Court has variously upheld the credibility of documentary evidence over oral evidence, which would require that the witness is put through oath and examinations for the Court to deduce the truth in his testimonies. Contents of a document, on the other hand, speaks for itself. See Attorney General of Rivers State v Attorney General Bayelsa State (2013) 3 NWLR (PT 1340) p. 123 at 163; Ogologo v. Uche (1998) 4 NWLR (PT.572) 34 at 46.” See also ARIJE V. ARIJE & ORD (2018) LPELR – 44193(SC), ELIAS V. FRN & ANOR (2016) LPELR – 40797, ODE V. AKAA (2017) LPELR – 46290 and BABADIDI V. LIDANI & ORS (2023) LPELR – 59777.    In the instant case, the Respondents tendered Exhibits P9 ( Chiefs Law, Cap 19 of Western Region Legal Notice 22, 1959, Otun District Council Chieftancy Declaration) and Exhibit P10 ( Government White Paper on Morgan Chieftancy Review Commission 1981) both of which placed the first Respondent’s title of Obajemu above the second Appellant’s title of Edomorun. The Appellants, on their part, called DW1 and DW2 who gave oral evidence to indicate that the Edomorun title is senior to  Obajemu title in history, custom, and tradition.   It is my opinion that the oral evidence of DW1 and DW2 cannot be used to contradict Exhibits 9 and 10, both being documentary evidence. Documentary evidence speaks for itself. Oral evidence cannot be used to vary documentary evidence, except where the latter is inadmissible. Hence, Exhibits P9 and P10 being admissible documents, will take precedence over the oral testimonies of DW1 and DW2.    For the above reasons and others stated in the leading judgment, I also hold that this appeal lacks merit, and it is hereby dismissed. I also affirm the judgment of the lower Court. Chidiebere Nwaoma Uwa JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT COUNSEL: K.B.A BADIMUS for the Appellants. ROTIMI BUNMI ADABEMBE for the Respondent.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA   HOLDEN AT ABUJA ON FRIDAY 21ST DAY OF JUNE,2024 BEFORE THEIR LORDSHIPS UWANI MUSA ABBA AJI.     HELEN MORONKEJI OGUNWUMIJU. CHIDIEBERE NWAOMA UWA.           STEPHEN JONAH ADAH.       ABUBAKAR SADIQ UMAR.                  JUSTICE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA JUSTICE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA JUSTICE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA JUSTICE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA JUSTICE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA OBA J.O AINA CHIEF MICHAEL AWOYEMI ( The Edemorun of Erinmope-Ekiti).              AND CHIEF ISRAEL ADEBAYO DADA MOBAL LOCAL GOVERNMENT APPELLANT       RESPONDENT SC.971/2017 JUDGMENTDELIVERED BY STEPHEN JONAH ADAH, JSC I have had the privilege of reading in draft, the judgement just delivered by my learned brother, Abubakar Sadiq Umar, JSC. I am in agreement with the reasoning and conclusion which I hereby adopt as mine. I too, find this appeal as lacking in merit. I dismiss this appeal and I affirm the judgement of the lower Court. STEPHEN JONAH ADAH JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT APPEARANCES: K.B.A BADMUS, for the Appellants. ROTIMI BUNMI ADABEMBE, for the Respondent.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA   HOLDEN AT ABUJA ON FRIDAY THE 12 DAY OF JANUARY 2024   BEFORE THEIR LORDSHIPS JOHN INYANG OKORO    UWANI MUSA ABBA AJI.      HELEN MORONKEJI OGUNWUMIJU.          EMMANUEL AKOMAYE AGIM.        ADAMU JAURO.         JUSTICE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA JUSTICE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA JUSTICE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA JUSTICE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA JUSTICE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA CHIEF OKECHUKWU AMBROSE AHIWE. PEOPLES DEMOCRATIC PARTY (PDP).        AND INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION. RESPONDENT DR. ALEX CHIOMA OTTI. LABOUR PARTY. APPELLANT RESPONDENT SC/CV/1250 / 2023 JUDGMENTDELIVERED BY HELEN MORONKEJI OGUNWUMIJU, JSC I have read in draft the judgment just delivered by my learned brother Uwani Musa Abba Aji, JSC. I agree with the view that this appeal lacks merit and should be dismissed. I will add a few words. This is an appeal by the Appellants against the concurrent findings of facts and law against the decision of the Court of Appeal Coram: *Hon. Justice Habeeb Adewale Olumuyiwa Abiru, JCA ( as he then was), Hon. Justice Abubakar Mahmud Talba, JCA and Hon. Justice Hannatu Azumi Laja-Balogun, JCA ( the court below) delivered on the 2nd December,2023 in Appeal No: CA/OW/EP/GOV/AB/31/2023 between CHIEF Okechukwu Ambrose Ahiwe & Anor v. Independent National Electoral Commission & Ors. The Appellants had, by their said Appeal, appealed against the judgement of the ruling and decision of the Abia State Governorship Tribunal Holden at Umuahia Coram: Hon. Justice H.T.D Gwadah (Chairman), Hon. Justice Omolara Adeyemi ( Member 1) and Hon. Justice Boniface .S. Ngyou ( Member 2) in Petition No: EPT/AB/GOV/01/2023 ( Between: Chief Okechukwu Ambrose Ahiwe & Anor v. Independent National Electoral Commission & Ors ) delivered on the 6th day of October,2023. By the said judgment of the Court below, the said Appeal filed against the judgment of the Honourable Tribunal was dismissed, and the judgment of the Election Petition Tribunal for Abia State sitting in Umuahia, Abia State and delivered on the 6th of October, 2023, was affirmed. The facts leading to this appeal are that on the 18th day of March 2023, the Independent National Electoral Commission ( INEC), the 1st Respondent herein, conducted an election for the Governorship seat of Abia State. On the 22nd day of March, 2023, INEC declared the 2nd Respondent who was sponsored by the 3rd Respondent as the winner of the election. The 1st Appellant who was sponsored by the 2nd Appellant came second. In the Appellants’ Petition at the Tribunal, they raised three grounds for its presentation. The grounds are set down in paragraph 24 thereof as follows:   “24. The Petitioners state that the Grounds upon which this Petition is based are as follows: a) The 2nd Respondent was at the time of the election not qualified to contest the election. b) The 2nd Respondent was not duly elected by majority of lawful votes cast at the election. c) The election of the 2nd Respondent was invalid by reason of corrupt practices or non-compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act,2022.” In paragraph 162 of the Petition, the Appellants stated the reliefs they sought from the Tribunal. In order to avoid prolixity, reliefs “a” to “c” which are indeed the principal reliefs are reproduced here under, viz: “Wherefore the Petitioners pray jointly and severally against the Respondents as follows: a) That it may be determined that at the time of the Abia State Governorship Election of 18th March, 2023, the 2nd Respondent was not qualified to contest the said election. b) That it may be determined that all the votes recorded for the 2nd Respondent in the said election are wasted votes as a result of the non-qualification of the 2nd Respondent. c) That it determined that on the basis of the remaining votes after discounting the votes recorded for the 2nd Respondent, in the said election, the 1st Petitioner has a majority of lawful votes and has satisfied the constitutional requirement by obtaining the required spread, that is 25% of votes in each of at least two thirds (2/3) of all the Local Government Area of Abia State.” The Appellants identified four (4) issues for determination in the brief settled by George Eche Ikemu, Esq., and they are set out below as follows: Whether the lower Court was right when it affirmed the Honourable Tribunal’s decision that the Appellants failed to prove that the 2nd Respondent was not qualified to contest the Elections? (Distilled from grounds 1,2,3,5,7,10 & 21 of the Notice of Appeal). Whether the lower Court was right when it affirmed the striking out by the Honourable Tribunal of paragraphs 30-44 of the Petition on the ground that they are pre-election complaints? ( Distilled from grounds 2,4,8,18 & 19 of the Notice of Appeal). Whether the decision of the lower Court on the Matters of Pleadings, Evidence and Formulation of Issues for determination in an Appeal are correct in Law and not perverse? (Distilled from grounds 9,11,12,13 & 14 of the Notice of Appeal). Whether in the particular circumstances of this case, the Appellants can be rightly said to have had a fair hearing and or a fair trial at the Honourable Tribunal? (Distilled from grounds 15, 16, 17 & 20 of the Notice of Appeal). Similar issues were identified in the 1st Respondent’s brief settled by E.A John-Nwosu, Esq., in the 2nd Respondent’s brief settled by Omosanya Popoola, Esq., and in the 3rd brief settled by Dr. Onyechi Ikpeazu, OON, SAN. There’s no doubt that issues 1 & 2 which are related and when combined together suffice to determine this appeal. What the Appellants asked the Tribunal & Lower Court to do was to hold that the 2nd Respondent was not a member of the 3rd Respondent when he ran for the office of Governor of Abia State and that being an uncontroverted fact, he could not have been sponsored by the 3rd Respondent. In other words, the Appellants’ contention is that there was a breach of Section 177 (c) of the 1999

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA   HOLDEN AT ABUJA ON FRIDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JANUARY,2024         BEFORE THEIR LORDSHIPS BEFORE THEIR LORDSHIPS JOHN INYANG OKORO    UWANI MUSA ABBA AJI.      HELEN MORONKEJI OGUNWUMIJU. EMMANUEL AKOMAYE AGIM.    ADAMU JAURO.        JUSTICE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA JUSTICE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA JUSTICE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA JUSTICE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA JUSTICE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA HIGH CHIEF IKECHI EMENIKE  ALL PROGRESSIVE CONGRESS (APC).   AND ALL PROGRESSIVE CONGRESS (APC) APPELLANT   RESPONDENT SC/CV/1252/2023 JUDGMENT(Delivered by HELEN MORONKEJI OGUNWUMIJU, JSC) I have read in the draft the judgment just delivered by my learned brother, Uwani Musa Abba Aji, JSC.It is a sister appeal to Appeal No: SC/CV/1250/2023.  This appeal is against the judgment of the Court of Appeal sitting in Lagos delivered on 2nd December, 2023 in Appeal No: CA/OW/EP/GOV/AB/35/2023 between CHIEF IKECHI EMENIKE & ANOR v. INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION & 6 OTHERS which dismissed the Appeal of the Appellants. The Appellants before this court were Petitioners in Petition No: EPT/AB/GOV/02/2023: High Chief Ikechi Emenike & Anor v. Independent National Electoral Commission & 6 Others constituted by Coram: H.T.D Gwadah, Omotara Adeyemi and Boniface S. Ngyou, J J, who dismissed the Petition of the Petitioners, now Appellants, challenging the declaration and return of the 3rd Respondent ( Dr. Alex Otti) as elected Governor of Abia State. The facts leading to this appeal are that the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) (sued herein as the 1st Respondent), conducted an election for the office of Governor of the Abia State on the 18th day of March 2023. The 1st Appellant contested the election as the candidate of the 2nd Appellant, while the 3rd Respondent contested the election as the candidate of the 2nd Respondent. The 5th Respondent was the candidate of the 4th Respondent, while the 7th Respondent was the candidate of the 6th Respondent. There were 15 other contestants at the election, at the end of which the 1st Respondent declared the 3rd Respondent the duly elected candidate, having scored 175,467 and attained the majority of lawful votes cast at the election, as well as not less than one quarter (1/4) of the votes cast in each of at least two-third (2/3) of the Local Government Areas of Abia State. Dissatisfied with the declaration of return made by the 1st Respondent, the 1st Appellant who came 4th at the election with 24,091 votes, initiated this Petition against the 3rd Respondent, the 5th Respondent who came 2nd with 88,529 votes, and the 7th Respondent who came 3rd with 28,972 votes on the following grounds: “(I) The 3rd, 5th, and 7th Respondents at the time of the election were not qualified to contest the election.” “(Ii) The 3rd Respondent was not duly elected by the majority of the lawful votes cast at the election.” At the hearing of the appeal, the Appellants’ Counsel Abubakar Malami, insisted that the issues in this appeal are unique, that the appeal is worthy of the consideration of the courts. My Lords, in the Appellants’ brief settled by the aforesaid counsel four (4) issues were distilled for determination as follows: Was the lower court’s treatment of Appellants’ appeal on the threshold issue of competence that is, Locus Standi correct? ( Grounds 1 and 2 of the Notice of Appeal) Did the Court of Appeal rightly endorse the trial tribunals finding that the first, sixth, and seventh Respondents did not abandon their pleadings by not calling evidence?( Ground 6 of the Notice of Appeal) Did the Court court of Appeal rightly endorse the tribunal’s rejection of Exhibits P14 and P14A on the grounds that these Exhibits had been “dumped” on the trial tribunal? ( Ground 7 of the Notice of Appeal) Was the Court of Appeal right to conclude that the Petitioners did not establish that the third, fifth, and seventh Respondents were not qualified to contest for the election of 18/3/2023 under the reference in this case? ( Grounds 3 to 5 and 8 to 17 of the Notice of Appeal) The 1st Respondent’s Counsel in the brief settled by Dr. Nasiru Tijani, Esq., the 2nd Respondent’s brief settled by Dr. Onyechi Ikpeazu OON, SAN, the 3rd Respondent’s brief settled by Omosanya Popoola, Esq., the 4th & 5th Respondents’ joint brief settled by Udochi Iheanacho, Esq., the 6th Respondent’s brief settled by Chukwuemeka N. Nwigwe, Esq., more or less and in similar terms couched issues in tandem with the Appellants’ issues. I will give an opinion on the issues which determine this appeal. Succinctly put, the complaint of the Appellants are that their Petition in their words were “disemboweled by the trial Tribunal” and this was allowed by the court below. The 3rd, 4th, and 5th Respondents had challenged the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to hear Ground 1 of the Petition concerning the qualification of the 3rd, 5th, and 7th Respondents to contest the election. Senior Counsel complained that the Court of Appeal had erroneously held that the appeal against the striking out of the paragraphs had no utilitarian value. Mr Malami, SAN argued that the three rulings from the trial Court were certainly never cosmetic and anything said to the contrary was perverse because the rulings not only decided the petition was incompetent by reason of want of locus, certain fundamental paragraphs of the originating petition and the Petitioner’s reply to the various differences were also struck out. The subsequent consideration of the case on the merits did not and could never as a matter of law, erase the earlier adverse findings that the Petition was incompetent by way of lack of locus Standi, in the three rulings on this threshold issue of jurisdiction. The Appellants’ argued that the order of the court below striking out the Appellant’s appeals against the ruling of the trial Tribunal was perverse as the court below was bound by the law to determine the appeals. Counsel cited OSUJI v. ETEOCHA (2007) LPELR-2816 (SC) on perversity of a judgement. All learned counsel for

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA   HOLDEN AT ABUJA 19TH DAY OF JULY,2024       BEFORE THEIR LORDSHIPS     BEFORE THEIR LORDSHIPS ADAMU JAURO. CHIDIEBERE NWAOMA UWA. OBANDE FESTUS OGBUINYA. HABEEB ADEWALE O. ABIRU.    ABUBAKAR SADIQ UMAR.          JUSTICE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA JUSTICE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA JUSTICE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA JUSTICE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA JUSTICE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA SCC NIGERIA LIMITED.   ABEL OLOKOR.       AND DAVID GEORGE. THE NIGERIAN POLICE APPELLANT RESPONDENT SC/827/2019 JUDGMENT(DELIVERED BY  ABUBAKAR SADIQ UMAR,  JSC) This is an appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal, Abuja Judicial Division wherein the Court dismissed the appellant’s appeal against the judgment of the High Court of the FCT which found in favor of the 1st Respondent’s application for enforcement of his fundamental rights against the appellant and the 2nd Respondent. BRIEF STATEMENT OF FACTS    The 1st Respondent, as the Applicant commenced the suit that gave rise to this appeal at the High Court of the FCT against the Appellants and the 2nd Respondent, as 1st-3rd Respondents under the Fundamental Right Enforcement Procedure Rules. He prayed for the following releifs: A DECLARATION that the allegation of theft, arrest, and handling over of the Applicant to the 3rd Respondents by the 1st and 2nd Respondent s and without evidence whatsoever, was capricious, unwarranted, wrongful, and unconstitutional, and a breach of Applicant’s right to personal liberty. A DECLARATION that the harassment, intimidation, humiliation, and arrest of the Applicant by the 1st and 2nd Respondents on trump up allegation of theft without proof was plotted and executed by the 1st and 2nd Respondent to blackmail the Applicant in order to justify the Applicant’s subsequent sack from the 1st Respondent’s employment and is therefore unjustifiable, wicked, and malicious. C. A DECLARATION that the detention of the applicant by the 3rd Respondent for four days (30th November to 3rd December 2014) at the Bwari Police Station without investigation or prosecution is unlawful, unconstitutional, illegal, unwarranted, and a violation of the Applicant’s right to personal liberty. A DECLARATION that the act of the Respondents in arresting and detaining the Applicant for four days on the allegation of theft without charging the Applicant to court amounts to false imprisonment and thus a violation of the Applicant’s right to personal liberty. An ORDER of this honourable court awarding the sum of N1,000,000 (one million Naira) only in favour of the applicant against the Respondents jointly and severally for false imprisonment arising from the humiliation, embarrassment, intimidation, unsubstantiated allegation of theft, unlawful arrest, and detention of the Applicant from the 30th November to the 3rd December 2014 without trial. An ORDER restraining the 3rd Respondent, its officers, servants, agents, or however named from further violating the Applicant’s right to personal liberty secured and guaranteed under Section 35(i) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria as amended and under the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights.  In response, the Appellants filed as a preliminary objection premised on Sections 254C(i)(d), and 251 (i) (p)(q)(r) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 as amended; that it is either the National Industrial Court or the Federal High Court and not the High Court of FCT that has jurisdiction to hear the 1st Respondent’s claim. The Appellants also filed a counter-affidavit in opposition to the suit. The 1st Respondent filed a Reply Address to the Appellant’s Preliminary Objection and a Reply on point of law to the Appellant’s counter-affidavit in opposition to the suit. The case of the 1st Respondent is that he was employed by the 1st Appellant as labourer in 2003 and he was later promoted to the position of a generator attendant. He worked meritoriously for the 1st Appellant to the extent of being rewarded in the year 2013 with colour TV and awarded certificate of long service having worked for 10 years. On Sunday, November 30th 2014, while he was on night duty at the 1st Appellant’s Generator House around 11pm, the 2nd Appellant, who is the 1st Appellant’s Chief Security Officer, and one Mr. Nwachukwu another 1st Appellant’s Chief Security Officer, in charge of Kubwa site came into his room. The 2nd Appellant claimed that two trucks entered the premises of the 1st Appellant. He told the 2nd Appellant that he did not see any trucks enter the premises, but the 2nd Appellant insisted that he must produce the trucks. He was later arrested together with one Mr. Kabiru Ibrahim, after which the 2nd Appellant took the two of them to Bwari Divisional Police Station. The I.P.O, one Mr. Okpanachi, wrote his statement for him and tried to force him to own up, but he refused. He maintained his position that he did not see any truck enter the 1st Appellant’s premises. He was detained for alleged theft from the 30th November 2014 to the 3rd December 2014, when he was taken to court in company of others. He and other persons were not eventually arraigned and were returned to police station. He was granted bail and his appointment was terminated. The 1st Respondent thereafter filed the suit that led to this appeal alleging the Appellants infringed on his right by arresting him and taking him to police before lodging any complaint, and that the 2nd Respondent (the police) just detained him without doing any investigation about the allegation levelled against him, thereby infringing on his fundamental right to personal liberty.  The Appellant’s case before the trial court as borne out of their counter-affidavit is that the 2nd Appellant, as the Chief Security Officer in charge of the 1st Appellant’s site, got a tip-off that there was a plan by some of the 1st Appellant’s staff to steal finished pipe and raw materials at the 1st Appellant’s factory in Bwari, Abuja, between the midnight of 30th November 2014 and 1st December 2014. The 2nd Appellant and one Mr Nwachukwu laid ambush at the entrance of the 1st Appellant’s premises. A few minutes