SYLVA V. I.N.E.C. (2025) 14 NWLR (PT. 2004) 63
ON WHEN APPEAL LIES AS OF RIGHT FROM DECISION OF GOVERNORSHIP ELECTION TRIBUNAL
By virtue of section 246(1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), an appeal shall lie as of right from decisions of the Governorship Election Tribunals, on any question as to whether:
(i) any person has been validly elected as a member of the National Assembly or of a House of Assembly of a State under the Constitution;
(ii) any person has been validly elected to the office of Governor or Deputy Governor; or
(iii) the term of office of any person has ceased or the seat of any such person has become vacant.
Section 246 of the Constitution simply provides for an appeal to the Court of Appeal, as of right, from decisions of the Tribunals on any question as to whether any person has been validly elected to the office of a Governor or Deputy Governor. The provisions merely create the right of an appeal against a decision or decisions or judgments by a Governorship Election Tribunal on the issue or question of validity of the election of a person to the office of a Governor or Deputy Governor of a State in an election conducted as provided for in the Constitution and the Electoral Act.
Undoubtedly, a decision as to whether any person has been validly elected to the office of a Governor or Deputy Governor of a State in Nigeria can only be arrived at after a complete and final determination of the question as to the validity of such an election by the Tribunal in line with the Constitution and Electoral Act.
In the instant case, the decision on the validity of the election to the office of a Governor or Deputy Governor of a State by the Tribunal, in the final judgment delivered on the 27th May, 2024, was one in respect of which a right of appeal to the Court of Appeal was created by and under the provisions of section 246 of the Constitution.
However, what is discernable from the provisions is that, being the grund norm and foundation of all other laws and statutes in Nigeria, they just created and provided the right of appeal, but not the person or party entitled to the right or the manner or procedure to be used in the valid exercise of the right. For this reason, the provisions could not be relied on, on their own, for the validity of the procedure employed for the exercise of the right provided for therein.
Thus, there was nothing in the provisions of the section which confers two rights of appeal against determination of validity of the election of a person to the office of a Governor or Deputy Governor since the opening words of subsection 1 only created and gives the right to appeal.
[Dingyadi v. INEC (2011) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1255) 347; Igbeke v. Okadigbo (2013) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1368) 225 referred to.] (Pp. 99, paras. F-A; 100-101, paras. E-D)
SYLVA V. I.N.E.C. (2025) 14 NWLR (PT. 2004) 63
ON HOW COURT OR TRIBUNAL MAY DISPENSE WITH ISSUE OF JURISDICTION IN ELECTION MATTER
By virtue of section 285 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), where a preliminary objection or any other interlocutory issue touching on the jurisdiction of the tribunal or court in any pre-election matter, or on the competence of the petition itself, is raised by a party, the tribunal or court shall suspend its ruling and deliver it at the stage of final judgment.
(Pp. 99-100, paras. H-A)
SYLVA V. I.N.E.C. (2025) 14 NWLR (PT. 2004) 63
ON DOCUMENTS THAT MUST ACCOMPANY ELECTION PETITION
By virtue of paragraph 12(5) of the 1st Schedule to the Electoral Act, an election petition shall be accompanied by:
- a list of witnesses that the petitioner intends to call in proof of the petition;
- written statements on oath of the witnesses; and
- copies or list of every document to be relied on at the hearing of the petition.
(P. 100, paras. B-C)
SYLVA V. I.N.E.C. (2025) 14 NWLR (PT. 2004) 63
ON WHETHER RIGHT OF APPEAL AGAINST DECISION OF ELECTION PETITION TRIBUNAL ENVISAGES MULTIPLE APPEALS
In the exercise of the right of appeal from or against the determination or final judgment of an Election Tribunal to the Court of Appeal, a person or a party is entitled to file an appeal, or a single appeal, to ventilate any dissatisfaction or grievance against any determination of any of the issues or points, interlocutory or otherwise, decided and contained in the final judgment of the Tribunal.
The provisions of section 246 of the 1999 Constitution do not provide for or envisage multiple appeals against a single final judgment of the Tribunal in the exercise of the right of appeal to the Court of Appeal as of right from the decisions of the Tribunals.
In the instant case, the admitted facts in the appeal were that it was brought or filed in the Court of Appeal against the same final judgment of the Tribunal delivered on 27th May 2024, after Appeal No. CA/AB/EP/BY/13/2024 was filed by the same appellants on the 4th June 2024 against the same final judgment of the Tribunal, thereby filing multiple appeals in the purported exercise of the right of “An Appeal” to the Court of Appeal expressly provided for in the provisions of section 246 of the Constitution.
What the appellants did by filing two separate Notices of Appeal against the single final judgment of the Tribunal was to split and fragment the sole and single right of “an appeal” into bits and pieces of the several decisions on the interlocutory issues or points raised in the various interlocutory objections or applications made by the parties in the course of the proceedings or trial of the petition and in the final judgment.
That would create, if accepted, the absurd situation of separate multiple appeals against each and all decisions by an Election Tribunal on interlocutory issues or points raised by the parties, which by the prescription in section 285(8) of the Constitution, were suspended to the stage of final judgment for decisions by the Tribunal to be delivered along with the decision on the merit of the petition.
Such an absurd and implausible situation would undoubtedly be in total disregard of the sui generis nature of election matters in which time is of the very essence; the very reason why the Constitution, for the first and only time, imposes timelines or limits for the commencement and final disposal of judicial proceedings in Nigeria.
[Kalu v. Odili (1992) 5 NWLR (Pt. 240) 130; Sanwo-Olu v. Awamardi (2020) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1736) 436; CBN v. Adedeji (2022) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1847) 361; Jegede v. INEC (2021) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1797) 409 referred to.] (Pp. 101-103, paras. H-A)
SYLVA V. I.N.E.C. (2025) 14 NWLR (PT. 2004) 63
ON EFFECT OF NON-COMPLIANCE WITH MANDATORY PROVISIONS OF STATUTES ON ELECTION MATTERS
Non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of statutes, including the Constitution, in election matters, which could otherwise be condoned or overlooked in ordinary proceedings, could and often results in fatal consequences.
[Buhari v. Obasanjo (2003) 17 NWLR (Pt. 850) 423; Magaji v. Bala (2004) 8 NWLR (Pt. 876) 449; ANPP v. R.E.C., Akwa Ibom State (2008) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1090) 453 referred to.] (P. 103, paras. D-E)
SYLVA V. I.N.E.C. (2025) 14 NWLR (PT. 2004) 63
ON WHEN COURT MAY DETERMINE PRELIMINARY OBJECTION OR ANY INTERLOCUTORY ISSUE RAISED IN ELECTION MATTER
By virtue of section 285 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), where a preliminary objection or any other interlocutory issue touching on the jurisdiction of the tribunal or court in any pre-election matter, or on the competence of the petition itself, is raised by a party, the tribunal or court shall suspend its ruling and deliver it at the stage of final judgment.
In other words, all preliminary objections or interlocutory issues raised during the hearing of a pre-election matter or an election petition shall be decided by the tribunal at the stage of final judgment in the matter along with the substantive matter.
The rationale for the provisions is to prevent situations in which a tribunal would be burdened in the course of a trial, hearing, or proceedings in a pre-election matter or an election petition, for which time has deliberately been made of very crucial essence by the Constitution itself, to rule on every and all preliminary issues, objections, or points raised and canvassed by parties at every stage they were raised as hitherto done prior to the alteration of the provisions of section 285 of the Constitution, which led to inordinate delays in the determination of the matters such that it resulted in the ridiculous and embarrassing situation of the expiration of the terms of offices in respect of which the matters were taken before they were eventually disposed of.
Section 285 is to remedy the situation and give the sui generis nature of pre-election matters and election petitions their due position in Nigerian judicial proceedings and jurisprudence. Under the provision, an Election Tribunal is commanded, by the use of the word “shall”, to suspend all rulings on all preliminary objections or interlocutory issues raised in the course of the trial or hearing in order to keep to the timelines prescribed, and deliver same at the stage of final judgment.
A tribunal is mandated to deliver a composite final judgment at the end or conclusion of the proceedings or hearing of the matter, comprising all the rulings on the preliminary or interlocutory issues or points raised by the parties as well as the merit of the substantive matter. This ensures that all issues or points or complaints, dissatisfaction or grievances, whether preliminary or interlocutory and on the merit of the substantive matter, are all fully, effectually, conclusively, and finally determined by the tribunal at the stage and in the final judgment to be delivered in the matter.
There is no and there cannot be any reasonable dispute about this position of the provision in section 285(8). Because of the acknowledged peculiar nature of the provisions in section 285 of the Constitution, their prescriptions are interpreted and applied strictly such that any non-compliance therewith, no matter how slight, might result in fatal consequences.
[Buhari v. Obasanjo (2003) 17 NWLR (Pt. 850) 423; Magaji v. Bala (2004) 8 NWLR (Pt. 876) 449; ANPP v. R.E.C., Akwa Ibom State (2008) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1090) 453; A.P.P. v. Obaseki (2022) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1846) 1 referred to.] (Pp. 103-105, paras. E-E; 125-126, paras. G-E)
SYLVA V. I.N.E.C. (2025) 14 NWLR (PT. 2004) 63
ON DUTY ON RESPONDENT WHO HAS OBJECTION TO ELECTION PETITION
By virtue of the provision of Paragraph 12 of the 1st Schedule to the Electoral Act, 2022, a respondent who has an objection to the hearing of the petition shall file his reply and state the objection in it, and the objection shall be heard along with the substantive petition.
The provisions complement and support the provisions of section 285 of the 1999 Constitution in exhorting an election tribunal to take, hear, consider, and determine a preliminary objection to the hearing of the petition by the respondent along with the substantive petition in order to avoid delays in the determination of the petition due to its sui generis nature.
[Ezenwo v. Festus (No.2) (2020) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1750) 276 referred to.] (Pp. 105-106, paras. E-A; 126, paras. A-E)
SYLVA V. I.N.E.C. (2025) 14 NWLR (PT. 2004) 63
ON NEED FOR EXPEDITIOUS DETERMINATION OF ALL ELECTION MATTERS
The communal purpose of the provisions of sections 246 and 285 of the 1999 Constitution and Paragraph 12 of the 1st Schedule to the Electoral Act, 2022, is the expeditious determination of all election matters due to their very peculiar nature of arising from elections to offices for which terms are fixed and limited by the Constitution.
Special, specific, and strict procedures are prescribed to be complied with by both the parties and the court or special tribunals established to adjudicate and determine such matters.
Importantly, the provisions of section 246 created and give the right to “an appeal” to the Court of Appeal from decisions of the Governorship Election Tribunal, which clearly shows that the single appeal is to be against decisions, both interlocutory and substantive, as may be contained in the composite final judgment delivered by the Tribunal at the end and conclusion of the trial of the petition.
The provisions in section 246 do not envisage multiple appeals from a single composite final judgment delivered by the tribunal.
(Pp. 105-106, paras. E-E)
SYLVA V. I.N.E.C. (2025) 14 NWLR (PT. 2004) 63
ON PROVISION OF COMPOSITE NOTICE OF APPEAL FOR INTERLOCUTORY AND SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES IN ELECTION PETITION
Just like the composite single and final judgment to be delivered by a Tribunal comprising all decisions on interlocutory issues, points, or objections as well as on the merit of the substantive petition, in line with the provisions of section 285(8), section 246(1) provides for an appeal, the notice of which shall also be composite against all such decisions on the interlocutory issues, points, or objections as well as the merit of the petition.
The single Notice of Appeal shall contain grounds against both interlocutory decisions and the merit of the petition contained in the composite final judgment.
(P. 106, paras. E-G)
SYLVA V. I.N.E.C. (2025) 14 NWLR (PT. 2004) 63
ON TREATMENT OF APPEAL NOT SUPPORTED BY ELECTORAL ACT OR CONSTITUTION
An appeal in an election petition not supported by provisions in sections 246 and 285 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), as well as Paragraph 12 of the 1st Schedule to the Electoral Act, 2022, or any other statutory provisions providing for the right of appeal from decisions of an election tribunal, amounts to an abuse of court process and is liable to be dismissed.
[A.G. Lagos State v. A.G. Federation (2014) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1412) 217; Ihedioha v. Nwosu (2020) 50 (Pt. 1717) 291; Ajibode v. Gbadamosi (2021) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1776) 475; A.P.P. v. Obaseki (2022) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1846) 1; Okorocha v. P.D.P. (2014) 7 (Pt. 1406) 213 referred to.] (P. 109, paras. E-H)
SYLVA V. I.N.E.C. (2025) 14 NWLR (PT. 2004) 63
ON WHETHER APPLICATION OF SUBSTANTIVE PROVISIONS AMOUNTS TO TECHNICALITY
The application of substantive provisions of the Constitution or any statute is not and does not constitute or amount to technicality in judicial proceedings generally, and in election matters specifically.
[Inakoju v. Adeleke (2007) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1025) 423; Drexel Energy & Natural Resources Ltd. v. Trans. International Bank Ltd. (2008) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1119) 388 referred to.] (P. 110, paras. A-B)
SYLVA V. I.N.E.C. (2025) 14 NWLR (PT. 2004) 63
ON COMPUTATION OF TIME IN ELECTION MATTERS
In the computation of time in an electoral action, including pre-election matters, in the light of the 4th Alteration to the 1999 Constitution and under section 4(1) of the Electoral Act, the computation includes the very date on which the results were declared.
This underscores the uniqueness and sui generis nature of electoral matters. Electoral matters, by their peculiarity, belong to an exclusive class of their own.
[Bello v. Yusuf (2019) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1695) 250; Poatson Graphics v. NDIC (2019) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1672) 447 referred to.] (P. 122, paras. C-F)
SYLVA V. I.N.E.C. (2025) 14 NWLR (PT. 2004) 63
ON RATIONALE FOR THE SUI GENERIS NATURE OF ELECTION PETITIONS
The concept of election petitions being sui generis projects the peculiarity of the petition in terms of reliefs sought, the time element, and the peculiar procedure adopted for the hearing of the petition. The sui generis status expedites the hearing and determination of election petitions, which are time-bound and expected to be conducted expeditiously.
[A.P.C. v. P.D.P. (2015) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1481) 1; Okechukwu v. Obiano (2020) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1726) 276; P.D.P. v. Ezeonwuka (2018) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1606) 187; Buhari v. INEC (2008) 19 NWLR (Pt. 1120) 246; A.N.P.P. v. I.N.E.C. (2010) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1212) 54; A.P.C. v. Marafa (2020) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1721) 383; Ladoja v. Ajimobi (2016) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1519) 87 referred to.] (P. 125, paras. D-H)
SYLVA V. I.N.E.C. (2025) 14 NWLR (PT. 2004) 63
ON NEED TO INCORPORATE COMPLAINT AGAINST INTERLOCUTORY DECISION IN GROUND OF APPEAL FROM FINAL JUDGMENT IN ELECTION PETITION
A ground of appeal from a final judgment in an election petition incorporating a complaint against an interlocutory decision given in the course of a trial is competent.
This approach saves time, as election petitions are time-sensitive. Proper procedure requires incorporating grounds of appeal against interlocutory decisions together with grounds against substantive decisions in a single Notice of Appeal, guarding against multiplicity of appeals. Section 246 of the Constitution envisages only one appeal against the “decisions” of the trial tribunal. Filing multiple appeals constitutes an abuse of court process.
[Aondoakaa v. Ajo (1999) 5 NWLR (Pt. 602) 206; Onibu v. INEC (1988) 5 NWLR (Pt. 94) 323 at 355 referred to.] (Pp. 127-128, paras. C-B).