site logo

BUSARI V. ADEPOJU (2017)

case summary

Court of Appeal (Ibadan Division)

Before Their Lordships:

  • Haruna Simon Tsammani JCA (Presided and Read the Lead Judgment)
  • Obietonbara Daniel-Kalio JCA
  • Nonyerem Okoronkwos JCA

Parties:

Appellants:

  • Mr. Olumuyiwa Samond Busari
  • Mr. Sunday Adepoju

Respondents:

  • All Progressives Congress (APC)
  • Independent National Electoral Commission
Suit number: CA/I/EPT/REP/08/2015

Background

This case concerns the election petition arising from the National State House of Assembly elections held on 28 March 2015, specifically regarding the Ibarapa East/Ido Constituency. Mr. Olumuyiwa Samond Busari ('the Appellant') contested the election against Mr. Sunday Adepoju, who was subsequently declared the winner by the Independent National Electoral Commission ('the 3rd Respondent'). The Appellant, dissatisfied with the declared results (20,036 votes for Adepoju vs. 8,915 votes for Busari), alleged electoral irregularities, including corrupt practices and non-compliance with the Electoral Act.

Issues

The key issues presented for determination were:

  1. Did the tribunal err in dismissing the Appellant's claim that the results were not collated at the designated center?
  2. Did the tribunal fail to resolve issues 2 and 3 as required?

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal, led by Justice Tsammani, affirmed the tribunal's findings stating that the burden of proof lies with the party asserting a fact. It was concluded that the evidence produced by the Appellant was insufficient to establish that the election results were not collated properly.

Court Findings

The court highlighted several critical findings:

  • The tribunal determined that the Appellant's witnesses offered uncorroborated 'ipse dixit' assertions without substantial evidence to support claims regarding non-compliance with the Electoral Act.
  • The burden of proof lay firmly with the Appellant, whose allegations needed to be substantiated, and the Appellant failed to demonstrate the requisite evidence.'
  • Issues not derived from the grounds of the appeal had no place in the appeal process, and hence the tribunal's dismissal was in accordance with judicial principles.

Conclusion

The Court upheld the tribunal's dismissal of the petition primarily based on the Appellant's failure to prove his allegations of electoral irregularities. Additionally, the finding that the evidence presented was not sufficient to establish a prima facie case solidified the tribunal's decision.

Significance

This case serves as a significant precedent in the domain of election law as it reaffirms the principles regarding the burden of proof in election petitions. It underscores the necessity for petitioners to provide credible evidence supporting their claims, and the law's demand that a party must not only assert but substantiate an allegation with relevant evidence to succeed in election litigation.