The Court of Appeal sitting in Abuja has upheld the candidacy of Dr. Asue Ighodalo as the duly nominated and authentic candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party for the September 21 governorship election in Edo State.
In the ruling on Monday, Justice, A. M Lamido-led three-man panel dismissed the case brought before it by the reinstated Edo Deputy Governor, Philip Shaibu, upholding the ruling of the trial court which affirmed Ighodalo as the valid candidate.
The Federal High Court had ruled that the appellant did not satisfy the condition precedent (internal dispute resolution mechanism) before instituting the action and therefore declared that the suit was premature.
Upholding the judgement of the trial court, the panel held that the suit was premature, noting that the position of the lower court was unassailable.
The court, therefore, awarded a cost of 1,000,000 against Shaibu and in favor of Ighodalo, the Independent National Electoral Commission, and two others.
According to the ruling, the appellant failed to comply with provisions of Article 9 (g) (h) (i). NYAME V. INEC that condition precedent must be complied with before filing an action.
The court noted that failure to comply with the provision of Article 9 (g), (h), and (i) is not one that can just be glossed over as it goes to the issue of jurisdiction.
Resolving against the appellant and in favour of the respondents, the court held that “the suit is premature” and “the position of the lower court is unassailable.”
The Appeal Court also stated that where the authenticity of a document relied on is challenged, oral evidence ought to be called to resolve the issue, adding that the conduct of an election as well as results are presumed regular until the contrary is proved.
“No evidence from the affidavit of the appellant to show votes were allocated to the 4th respondent. The appellant failed to prove his case as held by the trial court. The issue is resolved against the appellant and in favour of the respondents.
“Judgment of trial court is hereby affirmed. A cost of 1,000,000 is awarded against the appellant and in favour of the respective respondents,” the court ruled.
In this article
