site logo
Skip to case content
Case Digest

AKIN SEGUN BABALOLA V. ADUMO RUFUS SUNDAY ET AL (2010)

Court of Appeal (Ilorin Division)

Coram
  • Helen Moronkeji Ogunwumiju JCA
  • Jumai Hannatu Sankey JCA
  • Ignatius Igwe Agube JCA (Read the Lead Judgment)
Parties

Appellants:

  • Akin Segun Babalola
  • Peoples’ Democratic Party

Respondents:

  • Adumo Rufus Sunday
  • Action Congress
  • Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC)
  • The Supervisor, Itapa/Osin Ward, Oye Constituency II
  • Electoral Officer, Oye Local Government
  • Returning Officer for State House of Assembly Election
  • Ekiti State Resident Electoral Commissioner
Suit number
CA/IL/EP/HA/14/2007
Delivered on

Background

This case arises from an electoral petition challenging the return of the 1st respondent as the duly elected representative of Oye Constituency II during a state assembly election held on April 14, 2007. The Tribunal ruled in favour of the respondents, leading to an appeal by the appellants who were dissatisfied with this judgment.

Issues

The primary legal issues pertained to the court's authority regarding:

  1. Whether the Court of Appeal had the power to grant respondents’ application for leave to adduce fresh evidence.
  2. The circumstances under which additional evidence could be admitted at this appellate stage.
  3. Whether the application for an extension of time to submit the respondents’ brief was justified.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal found that:

  1. Applications for leave to adduce new evidence must meet strict conditions, and the evidence must not be something that was in the possession of the parties during the trial.
  2. The court can refuse to hear appeals based on materials or evidence not considered by the trial court without a valid ground.

Court Findings

The court concluded:

  1. The respondents failed to show that the fresh evidence could not have been obtained with reasonable diligence before or during the trial.
  2. The imposition of fresh evidence would likely undermine the appellant’s rights and fundamentally alter the case.
  3. The application was aimed at overreaching the appeal already decided in favour of the appellants in the lower tribunal.

Conclusion

The court granted part of the respondents’ application, specifically extending the time for filing their brief, while dismissing the requests to admit new evidence as they did not meet the statutory requirements. The Court emphasized that the procedural integrity of election petitions must be maintained to avoid protracted litigation.

Significance

This ruling underscores the importance of diligence in legal proceedings, particularly in election matters where time constraints are critical. It sets a precedent regarding the limits of admitting new evidence in appellate courts and reinforces the consequences of failing to thoroughly prepare during initial trials.

Counsel:

  • Adebayo Adenipekun Esq. (with him, Oluwole Aladedoye Esq.) - for the Appellants/Respondents
  • Chief A. A. Adeniyi (with him, A. O. Ipinmoroh Esq.) - for the 1st and 2nd Respondents/Applicants