2019) Lpelr-47012(Ca

MARAFA & ORS v. DAN ALHAJI & ORS

CITATION: (2019) LPELR-47012(CA)

In the Court of Appeal In the Sokoto Judicial Division Holden at Sokoto

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

Before Their Lordships:

TOM SHAIBU YAKUBU Justice, Court of Appeal TIJJANI ABUBAKAR Justice, Court of Appeal JAMILU YAMMAMA TUKUR Justice, Court of Appeal

Between

(2019) LPELR-47012(CA) 1. SENATOR KABIRU GARBA MARAFA 2. ALH SIRAJO GARBA 3. ALH MUHAMMAD JIMA 4. YAKUBU MUKHTAR 5. BELLO ABUABAKAR 6. ZUBAIRU MUSA B. 7. ALH HAMZA TUKUR 8. AUWALU ALHAZAI 9. NASIRU MOHAMMED FARU 10. HON ALH SALISU AMINU 11. SA'IDU BARE BARI 12. UMAR HASHIMU 13. ALH SANI GOBIRAWA 14. ALH SANI GYARE KADAURI 15. ALH MUSA SAMARU 16. ALH ABDULLAHI NAHUCE 17. BASHAR ABDULLAHI 18. ADAMU RABIU TSIKAU 19. SHAFI'I MUSA 20. ABUBAKAR UMAR 21. MOHAMMED SANI 22. BUHARI ABDULLAHI 23. JUNAIDU MOHAMMED 24. AMINU ABUBAKAR WUYA 25. AHMAD S/ASKI 26. YUSUF BABAN RAGO 27. SARKI NA YALWA 28. ZAYYANU DAHIRU 29. LAWAL DAN MALIKI 30. BELLO SHEHU 31. DAN MALIKI 32. UMMARU BUZU 33. AISHA BALA 34. UMAR SHUAIBU 35. DAN JA'O RINI 36. LAWALI MOHAMMAD YARGEDA 37. SHUGABA DA AIKI 38. ALH HAMISU MAI AIKI 39. MURTAL A. MANDE 40. MAMUDA SADA 41. ALH HASSAN ABDULLAHI 42. ALH BELLO MAI YARMAKA 43. ABUABAKAR KOKARI 44. ALH BELLO D/UMMA 45. ALH IBRAHIM IMAM 46. ALH IBRAHIM 47. SHEHU UMAR 48. MUSA DOGO 49. SANI BATURE 50. HASSAN GARBA ZUBU 51. JABIR UMAR 52. SHAHU TAJA 53. MALAMI SULAIMAN 54. ABUBAKAR BAWA 55. SANI BATURE 56. ABUBAKAR MUH'D 57. ALH SANAMILA M GIDA 58. SANI A DAHIRU 59. SANI BALA SANKALAWA 60. ALH AMINU KURAR MOTA 61. ALH DANYABO WAZOJI 62. UMARU ABDULLAHI 63. ALH ISAH MAIDAJI 64. ABUBAKAR AHMAD JAURI 65. GARBA SARKIN RUWA 66. MUSA LABBO GAMO 67. AUWALI ALIYU 68. BELLO IBRAHIM 69. SAYYADI ABUBAKAR 70. BELLO USMAN 71. YUNUSA USMAN 72. BELLO S/YAMMA - Appellant(s) 73. DAHIRU ABDULLAHI 74. RABIU HAMZA 75. SHEHU HALIDU 76. MUSA LUMU GYALANGE 77. ALH ISAH DAN LARABAWA 78. ALH LAWALI JIKA 79. ABDUL'AZIZ BARAU MALAM ZA 80. USMAN MUHAMMAD ALTINE 81. SURAJO MUHAMMAD 82. KHALID BUHARI 83. ANAS ABUBAKAR 84. RABI'I SHUGABA 85. JAMILU MUHAMMAD 86. BALA SABO 87. YUSUF ADAMU 88. MALLAM FALALU MATOYA 89. ALIYU MUH'D S/GARI 90. SULAIMAN BALA 91. BELLO BARAU 92. SANI DAN ABU 93. ALIYU S/FAWA 94. DAHIRU HALILU 95. ATTO USUMAN (2019) LPELR-47012(CA) 96. SALISU SAMAILA 97. UMARU MALLAN MAGAMI 98. DAHIRU ZAKARI 99. BASHAR MOHAMMED 100. SALE MOH'D DANBA'U 101. LAWALI DAN MAIGORO 102. MAL. IDRIS MUSA 103. ABUBAKAR 'YARRUWA 104. TUKUR LUNGUFARU 105. ALIYU MAI MAI 106. HASSAN AHMAD 107. YUNUSA ABDULLAHI 108. ALH IBRAHIM NA KATSALLE 109. ATTAHIRU RABIU 110. SAHABI DANDA 111. ABDULLAHI USMAN 112. SAMAILA SANI BINGI 113. ALH DANJUMMA MAFI 114. ALH SADO GARBA 115. LAWALI BALA 116. ALH SHEHU ABI 117. MANU NA TA'ALA 118. GADO MAI MODI 119. ABDURRAHMAN SHINGE 120. WAKKALA KARINGUGA 121. ANARUWANATA KWAIRE 122. SURAJO AHMAD 123. YA'U NAMA 124. ALH SADIKU KATURU 125. AKILU SULAIMAN 126. ALH ISAH BAKAWI 127. ALH GARBA DAN ILA 128. RABIU IBRAHIM 129. SANI MUSA 130. ALH GARBA WANKE 131. SARKIN PAWA DAN ABU 132. ALH MAMMAN NA'ISA 133. ALH SAHABI KILLUTU 134. BARA'U ALIYU 135. MAL DAYYABU ALARAMA 136. ALH ABDULKADIR LIMAN 137. ALH ABDULSALAM ABUBAKAR 138. ALIYU SAYYADI 139. SULE MUHAMMAD 140. AMADU SARKIN (For themselves and all other aspirants/candidates who paid prescribed fees for procurement of Nomination forms for purpose of contesting the 1st Defendant's 147 Nos. Ward Executive Committee, 14 Nos. Local Government Executive Committees and State Executive Committee Election held on 5th, 12th and 19th June 2018 in Zamfara State, but were wrongly excluded or prevented from participating by voting or being voted for). And 1. SANUSI LIMAN DAN ALHAJI 2. ALHAJI BABANGIDA ABDULLAHI 3. KABIRU MANDE CHAFE, CHAIRMAN APC TSAFE L. G (Suing for themselves and on behalf of all State APC Members) 4. MUKHTAR SHEHU IDRISS 5. HON. IKIRA ALIYU BILBIS 6. HON. TIJJANI YAHAYA KAURA 7. HON. ABDUL-AZIZ YARI ABUBAKAR 8. HON. SANUSI GARBA RIKIJI 9. HON. ABDULMALIK ZUBAIRU 10. HON. HUSSAINI ABUBAKAR MORIKI 11. HON. IBRAHIM MUH'D B/MAGAJI 12. HON. MUTTAKA MUH'D RINI 13. HON. AHMAD SHARU ANKA 14. HON. UMARU JIBO BUKKUYUM 15. HON. MUSTAPHA GADO ANKA 16. HON. MUH'D SANI AHMAD SANI 17. HON. KABIRU MOYI B/MAGAJI 18. HON. YAHAYA JIBRIL BUKKUYUM 19. HON. TUKUR MUH'D DANTASAWA 20. HON. IBRAHIM MUH'D K/KOSHI 21. HON. YAKUBU IBRAHIM NABATURE 22. HON. ALIYU MUH'D GAYERI - Respondent(s) 23. HON. ALIYU MUH'D FALALE 24. HON. SANUSI MUH'D LIMAN 25. HON. DALHATU MAHMED MAGAMI 26. HON. LAWAL M. LIMAN 27. HON. ABUBAKAR IDRIS KURYA 28. HON. YAHAYA SHAHU MARADUN 29. HON. YAHAYA ABDULLAHI GORA 30. HON. HARUNA ABDULLAHI D/SADAU 31. HON. IBRAHIM ABU MARU 32. HON. SHEHU BELLO MAI WURNO 33. HON. ALYU ANGO KAGARA 34. HON.(2019) ISAH ABDULMUMINU LPELR-47012(CA) 35. HON. ALIYU ABUBAKAR MC 36. HON. ALIYU ABUBAKAR DANJIBGA 37. HON. MANIR ALIYU G/JAJA 38. HON. YUSUF AHMAD MORIKI 39. ALL PROGRESSIVES CONGRESS (APC) 40. INUWA ABDULKADIR, 1ST NATIONAL VICE CHAIRMAN NORTH WEST ZONE OF APC 41. INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION (INEC) 42. HON. SANI AJI

RATIO DECIDENDI 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 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. 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."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 with evaluation 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 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 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."Per YAKUBU, 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 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. 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 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 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(2019) has been drained of its blood. LPELR-47012(CA) 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 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."Per YAKUBU, J.C.A. (Pp. 42-46, Paras. C-E) - read in context 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 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 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 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."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 a political party primaries "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 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 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

(2019) LPELR-47012(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 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: "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 (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) 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 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 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 (2019)the narrow and limited jurisdiction LPELR-47012(CA) 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) 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."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 candidates for 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 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."Per YAKUBU, J.C.A. (P. 74, Paras. B-E) - read in context 8. ELECTORAL MATTERS -SELECTION/NOMINATION OF CANDIDATE:Whether the procedural guidelines for the nomination/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 guidelines for the nomination of candidates for the 2019 general elections - Direct primaries, prescribe the 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)."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 the nomination/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 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."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 the nomination/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 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 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-1975 2 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 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 (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."Per ABUBAKAR, 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 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(2019) this appeal that every Judge reservesLPELR-47012(CA) 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 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."Per YAKUBU, J.C.A. (Pp. 82-83, Paras. C-A) - read in context 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 the decision of the Supreme Court of Nigeria in UMAR V. BAYERO UNIVERSITY KANO (1988) 7 SC (Pt. II) 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 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;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, such evidence shall be viewed in relation to the entire evidence before the Court, see: KAMALU & ORS V. DANIEL NWAKUDU UKA UMUNNA & 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. 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." 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 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(2019) evaluation procedure adopted LPELR-47012(CA) 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."Per TUKUR, J.C.A. (Pp. 89-92, Paras. F-D) - read in context 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(2019) elections LPELR-47012(CA) 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 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 (2019)Legislative LPELR-47012(CA) 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 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(2019) Houses LPELR-47012(CA) 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 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(2019) to the LPELR-47012(CA) Independent National Electoral Commission. The 1st to 38th Respondents sensing that their list of successful candidates might be rejected by the Independent

4 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(2019) 251(1) (r) LPELR-47012(CA) 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 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 standing 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(2019) by the Court LPELR-47012(CA) 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 6

(2019) LPELR-47012(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 filed by the 1st -38th Respondents in opposition to the preliminary objections to hold that the 1st - 38th Respondents are aspirants and have legal standing to 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(2019) that theLPELR-47012(CA) 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 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:

8 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(2019) the trial LPELR-47012(CA) 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 9

(2019) LPELR-47012(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(2019) Act 2010 LPELR-47012(CA) (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 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 inOLADIPO 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(2019) the Federal LPELR-47012(CA) 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 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,(2019) power LPELR-47012(CA)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 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 onGBILEVE 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(2019) filed LPELR-47012(CA)by the 1st to 38th Respondents in opposition to the preliminary objection. Learned Counsel referred this Court to PEOPLES VOICE

COMMUNICATION LTD V. LAWAL & ANOR. (2004) LPELR-6036 (CA) at 22-23, Paras B-F OLADEHIN V.

13 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(2019) paragraphs LPELR-47012(CA) 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 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 toGARBA

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,(2019) the RespondentsLPELR-47012(CA) therefore lack the legal standing to institute the action. He urged that the suit be struck out.

15 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(2019) by the respective LPELR-47012(CA) 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 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(2019) of evaluation LPELR-47012(CA) 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 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. (2019) LPELR-47012(CA)

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 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 inOBUOBIPI 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(2019) Federal LPELR-47012(CA) 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 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(2019) the cross-examination LPELR-47012(CA) 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 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(2019) any credibility, LPELR-47012(CA) he so urged this Court.

Learned Court for the Appellants also referred to Exhibits 1 electoral guidelines issued by the 39th Respondent, the

21 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 relied 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(2019) submitted LPELR-47012(CA)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 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(2019) Counsel LPELR-47012(CA)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 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. (2019) LPELR-47012(CA)

Learned Counsel referred to exhibit 4 at page 2337, titled “Failure to conduct Primaries in Zamfara State within the stipulated time frame”.

24 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 (2019)Counsel also LPELR-47012(CA) 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 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(2019) alter the contentsLPELR-47012(CA) of his testimony under cross- examination.

Learned Counsel therefore urged this Court to resolve issues

26 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(2019) of the 1st LPELR-47012(CA)-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 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(2019) & ANOR LPELR-47012(CA) V. ADDINGI & ANOR (2014) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1433) 394. Counsel said the decision in

28 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 decision in KALU V. AGU & ORS (2014)

LPELR-22849 (CA) in support of this submission. Counsel again said(2019) both the LPELR-47012(CA)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 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 (2019)its jurisdiction LPELR-47012(CA) 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 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 (2019)(Pt. 1136) LPELR-47012(CA) 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 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(2019) of the EvidenceLPELR-47012(CA) 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 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 ofHARUNA 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. (2019) LPELR-47012(CA)

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 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. (2019) LPELR-47012(CA)

Learned Counsel said throughout the trial neither the Appellants nor any other party challenged the evidence of

34 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 relied onCBN 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 relied 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(2019) V. KANYA LPELR-47012(CA) (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 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(2019) of the sameLPELR-47012(CA) 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 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.(2019) LPELR-47012(CA)

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 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 (2019)think it is proper LPELR-47012(CA) 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 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(2019) the intellectual LPELR-47012(CA) 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 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(2019) lack LPELR-47012(CA) 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 40

(2019) LPELR-47012(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 their 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 onOKPOKO 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(2019) said LPELR-47012(CA) 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 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,(2019) where any LPELR-47012(CA) 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 To underscore the criticality and quintessence of jurisdiction to adjudication, the Supreme Court in a plethora of decided authorities, one of which isHon.

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(2019) question LPELR-47012(CA) 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 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(2019) to react LPELR-47012(CA) to the issue." The eminent and revered jurist Mohammed Bello, C.J.N. of blessed memory, in the judicial words on marble on

44 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(2019) constituted LPELR-47012(CA) 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 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(2019) for the LPELR-47012(CA) 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 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(2019) - 171 LPELR-47012(CA) (SC) @ 21-22; Attorney General, Oyo State v. Nigeria Labour

47 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(2019) in the LPELR-47012(CA) 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 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'(2019) notice of LPELR-47012(CA) preliminary objection aforesaid. The learned trial judge, in determining the said preliminary objection, instead of

49 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 (2019)MAM1-MAM34 LPELR-47012(CA) to the aforesaid affidavits at the instance of the 1st - 38th respondents in order to determine whether or

50 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(2019) their reply LPELR-47012(CA) to the appellants' statement of defense, it is evident that the 1st -38th respondents, being card carrying members of the 39th

51 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 the Court(2019) below. LPELR-47012(CA) Isah Shuaibu Lau v.

Peoples Democratic Party & Ors (2017) LPELR-42800

52 (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 ofSection 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(2019) action or LPELR-47012(CA) 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 "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,(2019) are a basketful. LPELR-47012(CA) So, just a few of them will suffice: People's Democratic Party & Anor. v. Timipre

Sylva

54 (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(2019) complaints LPELR-47012(CA) by aspirants who had participated in political parties' primary elections by virtue ofSection 251(1) (r) of the 1999 Constitution, as amended and Section 87(9)

55 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,(2019) stated LPELR-47012(CA)as follows “This Court would take the stand it took in Ucha v. ONWE (2011) 1 SCNJ 232

56 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. AndLokpobiri 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(2019) the paragraphs LPELR-47012(CA) under the section cover. Election and election related matters, be it stressed, have not been provided for by any of the paragraphs under Section

57 251 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 underSection 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(2019) in favour LPELR-47012(CA) 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 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(2019) standi LPELR-47012(CA)to file their action at the Court below; Issues 1 and 2 are hereby resolved against the appellants.

59 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(2019) parties at LPELR-47012(CA) 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 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(2019) to the LPELR-47012(CA) 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 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. (2019) LPELR-47012(CA)

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 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 (2019)of the law onLPELR-47012(CA) 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 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 (2019)merely sees LPELR-47012(CA) 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 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.(2019) 902) 356; LPELR-47012(CA) 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 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(2019) and supervised LPELR-47012(CA) 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 “…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(2019) the 1st and LPELR-47012(CA) 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 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.(2019) He signed LPELR-47012(CA) 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 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(2019) Commission LPELR-47012(CA) (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 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(2019) of the exercise LPELR-47012(CA) 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 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(2019) membership LPELR-47012(CA) 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 • 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(2019) placed LPELR-47012(CA) 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 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(2019) elections LPELR-47012(CA) 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 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(2019) for aspirants LPELR-47012(CA) 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 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. Kindly(2019) also LPELR-47012(CA) refer to the last schedule communicated by your party to the Commission on the dates of party primaries nationwide, including Zamfara vide your letter Ref: 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. 75

(2019) LPELR-47012(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(2019) letter from LPELR-47012(CA) 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 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(2019) Committee LPELR-47012(CA) 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 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(2019) RA in LPELR-47012(CA)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...” 78

(2019) LPELR-47012(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(2019) will be LPELR-47012(CA) admissible against a person, such evidence shall be viewed in relation to the entire evidence before the Court, see: KAMALU & ORS V. DANIEL

NWAKUDU UKA UMUNNA & ORS (1997) LPELR-1657 (SC).

79 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,(2019) a decisionLPELR-47012(CA) 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 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(2019) (as amended) LPELR-47012(CA), and The All Progressives Congress, guidelines for the nomination of candidates for the 2019 general elections - Direct primaries, prescribe the

81 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(2019) whether LPELR-47012(CA) 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 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(2019) field for allLPELR-47012(CA) 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 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(2019) internal democracy LPELR-47012(CA) 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 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(2019) acted with LPELR-47012(CA) 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 by the introduction ofSections 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(2019) LPELR-47012(CA)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 (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(2019) silence andLPELR-47012(CA) 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 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(2019) the reasoning LPELR-47012(CA) 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 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.” (2019) LPELR-47012(CA)

Now the case of the Appellants is that the lower Court failed to evaluate the evidence before it before arriving at its

89 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(2019) which weighs LPELR-47012(CA) more, accept it in preference to the other, and then apply the appropriate law to it.”

90 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(2019) then arrive LPELR-47012(CA) at his final conclusion based on the evidence which he accepted. Evaluation of evidence is

91 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 (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 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.

(2019) LPELR-47012(CA)

92 Appearances:

Chief Mike Ozekhome, SAN with him,Chief Ferdmanda Orbih, SAN ,J. C. Shaka, Esq.,Nuhu Muhammed, Esq.,M. Salahuddeen, Esq.,Amir Saned, Esq. and Safiah Suleiman, Esq For Appellant(s)

Mahmud A. Magaji, SAN with him,Chris Kelechi Udeoyibo, Esq., Ifeoma Johnson, Esq., Issa Abubakar, Esq., Junaidu Abubakar, Esq., Ibrahim Ali, Esq., Surajo Garba, Esq.,Sani Tahir, Esq. and Jamilu 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 Respondents For Respondent(s)

(2019) LPELR-47012(CA)