site logo

TEMITAYO FAWEHINMI V. JOSEPH AKINLAJA (2011)

case summary

Court of Appeal (Benin Division)

Coram

  • Oyebisi F. Omoleye JCA
  • Ali Abubakar Babandi Gumel JCA
  • Chioma Egondu Nwosu-Iheme JCA

Parties:

Appellants:

  • Temitayo Fawehinmi
  • Peoples’ Democratic Party

Respondents:

  • Dr. Joseph Iranola Akinlaja
  • Independent National Electoral Commission
  • Returning Officer
  • Resident Electoral Commissioner
Suit number: CA/B/EPT/346/2008

Background

This case revolves around an election petition involving the appellants, who sought to introduce fresh evidence into their appeal against a decision of the lower tribunal regarding the election results for the Ondo East/Ondo West Federal Constituency. The core of the appeal pertains to the admissibility of new evidence that had not been presented during the initial trial.

Issues

The following key issues were raised in the case:

  1. Whether the appellants fulfilled the conditions required to succeed in their application to introduce fresh evidence on appeal.
  2. The implications of jurisdiction on the proceedings and how it was raised during the trial.
  3. The discretionary power of the court to grant leave for new evidence.
  4. The propriety of presenting conflicting affidavits in support of the application.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court dismissed the application to introduce fresh evidence, primarily on several grounds:

  1. Jurisdiction is a fundamental issue and may be raised at any time; however, it must be properly substantiated.
  2. Fresh evidence is admissible only under stringent conditions, including the evidence not being obtainable with reasonable diligence by the time of trial.
  3. It is improper for a party to plead facts unknown or non-existent at the time of trial.

Court Findings

The Court found that:

  1. The appellants failed to demonstrate that the evidence they sought to introduce could not have been obtained with reasonable diligence at trial.
  2. There was a significant conflict in the affidavits provided, indicating issues that required evidentiary hearings rather than being settled on appeal.
  3. Allowing the fresh evidence would fundamentally shift the nature of the case, which was improperly claimed as an apparent jurisdictional issue.

Conclusion

The application was ultimately dismissed due to its failure to comply with established legal criteria for introducing new evidence on appeal. The Court asserted the strong policy of avoiding endless litigation through the admission of fresh evidence.

Significance

This case highlights critical principles regarding the admissibility of new evidence in appellate courts, especially within the context of election petitions. It emphasizes the necessity for parties to present all relevant evidence at the trial stage and illustrates the cautious approach appellate courts take when considering matters of jurisdiction and the introduction of new evidence.