MR. IRE MATTHEW OWURU & ANOR V. HON. AGI MICHAEL ADIGWU & ANOR (2017)

Background

This appeal concerned the outcome of the People’s Democratic Party primary election conducted on 29 November 2014 for the Oju II State Constituency seat in the Benue State House of Assembly. Mr. Ire Matthew Owuru and Hon. Agi Michael Adigwu were among the aspirants. The central factual dispute was whether Owuru or Adigwu obtained the highest number of votes at the primary.

Adigwu commenced proceedings at the Federal High Court by originating summons. He asserted that he scored 11 votes, while Owuru scored 10 votes, and that he was declared the winner. He complained that, notwithstanding the result, the political party forwarded Owuru’s name to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) as its candidate. Among other reliefs, he sought declarations concerning his victory and an order directing INEC to issue him a certificate of return if the general election was held before the determination of the suit and he won the constituency election.

Owuru and the party opposed the claim by counter-affidavits. Their evidence stated that Owuru scored 11 votes, Adigwu scored 10 votes and another aspirant scored 6 votes. The appellants also relied on the affidavit of Samuel Edo Adanu, an electoral officer involved in the conduct of the primary, the affidavits of delegates and an agent, as well as documentary evidence. Exhibits 6 and 6A, being reports attributed to INEC and the Police, supported the appellants’ account. Exhibit 9 was the result sheet on which the scores were recorded. The appellants alleged that Barry Ogbaka, the returning officer, refused to sign the result sheet and thereby attempted to frustrate Owuru’s victory.

The trial court granted some of Adigwu’s reliefs. The Court of Appeal, by a majority decision, dismissed the appellants’ appeal and affirmed the trial court. Although the Court of Appeal identified ten issues submitted by the appellants, it considered only two, holding that the remaining issues were unnecessary and largely academic. The appellants appealed to the Supreme Court. Adigwu filed a cross-appeal.

Issues

1. Whether the Court of Appeal denied the appellants fair hearing by considering only two of ten proposed issues.
2. Whether the Court of Appeal could rely on the disputed result sheet, Exhibit E, after finding that material affidavit evidence supporting Owuru’s victory was unchallenged.
3. Whether Exhibits 6, 6A and 9 established that Owuru won the primary and that the forwarding of his name to INEC was valid.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that an intermediate appellate court ordinarily ought to consider all material issues placed before it, so that the apex court may benefit from its views. However, failure to consider every formulated issue does not automatically amount to a denial of fair hearing or miscarriage of justice. Where the issues actually determined resolve the real controversy and the omitted issues are immaterial or merely repetitive, the omission is not fatal.

The Court emphasised that election matters are time-sensitive and should be determined with brevity. Multiplicity of issues tends to reduce substantial points to trifles. The Court of Appeal was therefore entitled to concentrate on the real question: who won the party primary and whose name was properly to be forwarded to INEC.

The Court further held that affidavit evidence takes the place of pleadings in proceedings commenced by originating summons. A counter-affidavit serves as the opposing party’s statement of defence. Material averments in an affidavit must be specifically denied or controverted. If they are not challenged by a further affidavit, they are deemed admitted. Adigwu’s failure to respond to the allegations concerning the scores, the conduct of the returning officer and the authenticity of Exhibit E was fatal to his case.

Court Findings

The Supreme Court rejected the Court of Appeal’s conclusion that the appellants’ uncontroverted evidence was “beside the point.” It held that the court could not determine whose name should be submitted to INEC without first determining who won the primary election. The question of the proper candidate and the question of the winner were inseparable in the circumstances.

The Court found that Exhibits 6 and 6A, reports of independent observers, corroborated the appellants’ evidence that Owuru scored 11 votes against Adigwu’s 10. Exhibit 9 also recorded Owuru’s victory, notwithstanding the returning officer’s failure to sign it. The Court considered it unjust and contrary to substantial justice to allow an electoral officer’s refusal to sign a result sheet to defeat the actual outcome of the primary. Doing so could encourage returning officers to withhold their signatures as a device for imposing a different candidate.

Applying section 87(4)(c) of the Electoral Act 2010, as amended, the Court reaffirmed that, in an indirect primary for a House of Assembly seat, the aspirant with the highest number of votes is to be declared the winner and his or her name forwarded to INEC. The Court also referred to section 6 of the 1999 Constitution, observing that judicial powers must be exercised to do justice to all persons and not to permit technicalities to defeat electoral reality.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court allowed the main appeal, set aside the majority judgment of the Court of Appeal and affirmed that Ire Matthew Owuru was the rightful winner of the PDP primary election held on 29 November 2014. It held that the forwarding of Owuru’s name to INEC as the PDP candidate for the Benue State House of Assembly, Oju II Constituency, was proper and valid. Costs of N100,000 were awarded against the 1st respondent in the lower court and N500,000 against him in the Supreme Court. The cross-appeal was dismissed as lacking merit, with no order as to costs.

Significance

The decision is important for Nigerian electoral litigation because it clarifies the evidential consequences of failing to challenge affidavit depositions. It also confirms that courts must examine the entire evidential record in primary-election disputes, rather than mechanically preferring a formally signed document over consistent and corroborated evidence. The judgment balances procedural efficiency with substantial justice: appellate courts may avoid repetitive issues, but they must resolve the real dispute. It further warns political parties and electoral officials that procedural irregularities or deliberate non-signing of result sheets cannot lawfully be used to overturn the will of delegates as demonstrated by the actual votes.