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 DUTY ON PARTY WISHING TO EXERCISE RIGHT OF APPEAL TO ACT IN CONFORMITY WITH PRESCRIBED PROCEDURE
The right of an appeal is not a common law right but is created and donated by specific statutory provisions. A party or person wishing to exercise the right must act strictly, in conformity with the provisions and procedure prescribed. The exercise of the right of appeal donated by the Constitution can only be valid and competent if it complies with the procedure and the said provisions.
[Aroyewun v. Adebanji (1916) 11 SC (Reprint) 21; Emokpae v. Stanbic IBTC P.M. Ltd. (2021) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1776) 465; Itok v. Udoyo (2021) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1765) 49; Anyakorah v. P.D.P. (2022) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1843) 1; Oyegun v. Nzeribe (2010) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1194) 577; Oredoyin v. Arowolo (1989) 4 NWLR (Pt. 114) 17; Ngige v. Obi (2006) 14 NWLR (Pt. 999) 1 referred to.] (P. 108, paras. B-D)
C.B.N. V. OCHIFE (2025) 12 NWLR (PT. 2000) 1
ON NEED FOR PLAINTIFF TO SUCCEED ON STRENGTH OF OWN CASE AND NOT ON WEAKNESS OF THE DEFENCE
A plaintiff must succeed on the strength of his own case and not on the weakness of the defence.
That is to say, a plaintiff who seeks relief from the court bears the onus to prove that he is entitled to his claim with verifiable evidence.
In this case, the 1st respondent was not able to prove or show that the 2nd – 4th respondents maintained any account with the appellant to which any garnishee order could be attached and executed.
[Ukaegbu v. Nwololo (2009) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1127) 194; ELF Petroleum v. Umah (2018) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1628) 428 referred to.]
(P. 92, paras. G-H; 95, para. F)
C.B.N. V. OCHIFE (2025) 12 NWLR (PT. 2000) 1
ON DUTY OF RESPONDENT IN AN APPEAL
The duty of a respondent in an appeal is to defend the judgment of the lower court, and not to berate it. A respondent’s brief of argument may only support the judgment appealed against. Where a respondent abandons his legal role, as a respondent, his brief of arguments will be treated as incompetent and struck out.
In other words, the primary duty of a respondent in an appeal is to support the judgment or decision of the lower court appealed against. Where a respondent is dissatisfied with a finding by the lower court, but not the entire judgment, which he considers fundamental, the respondent can challenge same by filing a cross-appeal.
Generally, where the respondent supports the judgment, but wants it affirmed on grounds other than those relied upon by the lower court, the respondent must then file a respondent’s notice. However, in the Supreme Court, there is no window to file a respondent’s notice. Thus, in the Supreme Court, the respondent can only file a cross-appeal. In this case, contrary to the judicially acceptable role of a respondent, who has neither cross-appealed nor filed a respondent’s notice, the 2nd – 4th respondents canvassed arguments supporting those of the appellant and urged the court to allow the appeal in their joint brief of argument. So, their brief of argument in support of the appellant’s appeal was disregarded in the consideration of the appeal and struck out.
[Minister, P.M.R. v. E.L. (Nig.) Ltd. (2010) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1208) 261; Bakari v. Ogundipe (2021) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1768) 1; Obasanjo v. Wuro Bogga Nigeria Ltd. (2023) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1868) 253; Nitel Trustees Ltd v. Syndicated Investments Holding Ltd. (2023) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1876) 93; Zakirai v. Muhammad (2017) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1594) 181; Cameroon Airlines v. Otutuizu (2011) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1238) 512; Kayili v. Yilbuk (2015) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1457) 26; Ibe v. Onuorah (1999) 14 NWLR (Pt. 638) 340; New Nigeria Bank Plc v. Egun (2001) 7 NWLR (Pt. 711) 1; Bakari v. Ogundipe (2021) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1768) 1 referred to.] (Pp. 74-75, paras. G-F; 98-99, paras. E-B)
NWIZI V. OKE (2025) 12 NWLR (PT. 2000) 589
ON DUTY ON PLAINTIFF IN ACTION FOR DECLARATION OF TITLE TO PROVE HIS ROOT OF TITLE
A party who seeks a declaration of title to land must prove his root of title to the land. Where he traces his title to a particular person, he must further prove how that person got his own title or came to have the title vested in him, including where necessary, the family that originally owned the land.
[Archibong v. Edak (2006) 7 NWLR (Pt. 980) 485; Okoko v. Dakolo (2006) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1000) 401; Dike v. Okoloedo (1999) 10 NWLR (Pt. 623) 359; Otanma v. Youdubagha (2006) 2 NWLR (Pt. 969) 337; Mogaji v. Cadbury (Nig.) Ltd. (1985) 2 NWLR (Pt. 7) 393 referred to.]
(Pp. 623-624, paras. H-B)
NWIZI V. OKE (2025) 12 NWLR (PT. 2000) 589
ON DUTY ON PARTY TO EITHER ADDRESS COURT ON ISSUE FORMULATED OR INFORM THE COURT THAT THE ISSUE IS ABANDONED
Where a party resolves to structure and present before the court an issue constituting the pedestal of its argument, that party has a duty to either address the court on the issue or have the decency to inform the court that the issue is abandoned.
[Dibia v. State (2017) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1579) 196 referred to.]
(P. 616, paras. F-G)
NJOKU V. OKEKE (2024) 10 NWLR (PT. 1945) 145 SC
ON WHO QUALIFIES AS AN INTERESTED PARTY IN AN ACTION
An interested party in a matter before a court of law, is a party or person who is affected or aggrieved or likely to be aggrieved by the proceedings, orders or decision of the court in the matter. It can also refer to a person who has suffered a legal grievance, or a person against whom a decision has been pronounced which has wrongfully deprived him of something or wrongfully affected his title to something. A person aggrieved includes a person who has a genuine grievance because an order has been made which prejudicially affects his interests.