Background
This case arises from the appeal of Oladele Ogunsakin, who contested for a seat in the Ekiti State House of Assembly during the election held on April 14, 2007. The 1st respondent, Rotimi Samuel Ajidara, was declared the winner.
Upon dissatisfaction with the electoral result, Ogunsakin and others filed a petition at the Ekiti State Election Tribunal, claiming that Ajidara was underaged and thus disqualified from contesting the election. The tribunal dismissed the claims and the appellants appealed to the Court of Appeal.
Issues
The appeal raised two primary issues:
- Whether the tribunal was correct in suo motu expunging the totality of evidence from PW1.
- Whether the tribunal failed to nullify Ajidara's return based on his not attaining the statutory age required for candidacy at the time of the election.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that:
- Evidence not pleaded cannot be considered by the court; therefore, the tribunal rightly disregarded unpleaded evidence.
- It was the appellants' responsibility to produce the maker of a disputed document to evaluate its authenticity. Failure to do so undermined their case.
Court Findings
1. The court found that the determination of age and eligibility rests on duly produced and admissible documents. The tribunal had dismissed the evidence of PW1 for lack of proper documented support.
2. The court concluded that there were contradictions in the various age declarations of Ajidara, but the credible evidence pointed to him being above the minimum age requirement during the election.
3. The tribunal's belief in the evidence presented by the respondents was upheld as the evidence was consistent.
Conclusion
The court dismissed the appeal, affirming Ajidara as the duly elected representative. The appellate court concluded that the evidence supporting the claim of underage candidacy had serious inconsistencies and did not meet the legal burden of proof.
Significance
This case emphasizes the importance of properly pleaded and substantiated evidence in electoral disputes. It also clarifies the responsibilities of parties to produce critical evidence and address contradictions in age claims decisively. The judgment further illustrates the adherence to procedural requirements in presenting electoral petitions, ultimately reinforcing the integrity of the electoral process in Nigeria.