Disable Preloader

CaseLaw

Ladoja V.Ajimobi (2016) CLR 2(p) (SC)

Judgement delivered on February 15th 2016

Brief

  • Over Voting – Proof of
  • Non Compliance with Electoral Act
  • Documentary evidence – Duty on party submitting to lay proper foundation for its relevance
  • Interested party - Admissibility of statements made during pendency of proceedings
  • Expert Evidence – Conditions precedent to allowing such evidence
  • Parties to an Appeal
  • Appeal – Parties must maintain same case on appeal
  • Power of Court to dismiss appeal in limine – Nature of
  • Unappealed finding – Nature of
  • Right of Appeal – Limitations to
  • Right of Appeal – Nature of
  • Right of Appeal in light of multiplicity of actions – Nature of
  • Grounds of Appeal – Couching of
  • Grounds of Appeal – How competence of is determined
  • Abuse of Court Process
  • Originating Process

Facts

This Court heard the appeals and cross appeals in the substantive appeals above listed on 2nd of February 2016. Judgment therein were delivered whereby the cross appeals in SC.12/2016 were allowed following which the rulings of the Lower Court dismissing the objection of the cross appellants therein were set aside.

Consequently, appeal No.CA/IB/EPT/GOV/31/2015 filed by Senator R. A. Ladoja in the Lower Court was dismissed for being in abuse of process.

In the same judgment, the Court also dismissed the surviving appeal No. SC/12A/2016 for lack of any merit and the reason for the judgment was adjourned to the 15th February 2016; the reasons are set out hereunder.

Governorship election was held in Oyo State of Nigeria on 11th April 2015. In the said election, the 4th Respondent, Senator Rashidi Adewolu Ladoja was the candidate of the Appellant, Accord. Whilst the 1st Respondent, Senator Abiola Adeyemi Ajimobi was the candidate of the 2nd Respondent, All Progressives Congress (APC). There were other candidates for the election.

At the conclusion of the election, the 3rd Respondent declared the 1st Respondent as the winner of the election crediting him with 327,310 votes against the 4th Respondent who was credited with 254,520 votes.

Dissatisfied with the outcome of the election, the appellant and the 4th respondent on 2nd May 2015 presented their petition No. EPT/18/GOV/22/2015 in the trial Tribunal on the following two grounds:

Issues

  • Whether the Court of Appeal was not in error by dismissing appellant's...
Read More