THE TRIBUNAL ON THE 17th DAY OF AUGUST, 2015 Clearly narrated by Amaraizu Ugochukwu
Petitioner represented by
Rev Augustine Ehiemere, all
other parties were absent.
Awa KALU SAN lead the
Petitioners' team while Chief Wale OLANIPEKUN SAN
appeared for the 1st
Respondent with his own
team.
Onyechi Ikpeazu SAN
and Elder Paul Ananaba SAN
lead other Lawyers for the 2nd Respondent.
Dr Levy
Uzoukwu SAN appeared for
the 3rd Respondent.
Business: Continuation of
Hearing !
Awa KALU SAN, informed the Court that they are
prepared to continue
tendering of the documents
as certified by the 3rd
Respondent.
Prof applied to tender FORM EC8A in respect of WARD 1-
Obegu Village Hall,
Ugwunagbo.
Counsel for the 1st
Respondent- Wale
OLANIPEKUN SAN raised an OBJECTION with respect to
the admissibility of the
document.
Towards the
right hand column, the date
28/04/2015 appeared therein.
Towards the left hand column, there is another
certification in which
payment was purported to
have been made.
The man
who signed on the right
hand column where no payment was endorsed is S.
Nwaigboke- Chief Legal
Officer.
The man who
purported to have signed on
the left hand side is entirely
different from the man that signed on the right column.
The Learned SAN argued
that ex facie, the document
tells lies against itself
regarding certification.
Manifest and irreconcilable conflicts abound in it.
He
referred to Sec 104(1) and (2)
of the Evidence Act. This
provision entails that when
jointly read, the person who
endorses the certification is also the one who will
ascertain and confirm
payment as demanded by
law.
It is the same public
officer that issues the
certificate of certification that equally does it.
There cannot be two
certifications on the same
document by two different
public officers and each of
these two certifications on the same day does not
qualify as certification
mandatorily demanded
under sec 104(1) &(2) of the
Evidence Act.
Each
certification voids the other. The 2nd Respondent's
Counsel adopted the
submission of the 1st
Respondent.
In furtherance,
on the issue of certification,
he observed that the stamp on both sides are completely
different. He also relied on
Sec 104 of the Evidence Act
to argue that the document
is not duly certified.
The 3rd Respondent's Counsel - Dr Levy Uzoukwu
SAN observed that his own
objection is against
tendering the
alleged document from the
Bar.
He referred the Court to the pretrial information
sheet filed on the 23/06/2015
by the 3rd Respondent
particularly to answers to
questions 11 & 12.
For answers to 11, we consented to NONE OF THE
DOCUMENTS from the
Petitiobers.
For answers to
question 12, this is
obviously, a document we
are disputing.
And we said , all the documents listed by
the Petitioners, we are
disputing.
Uzoukwu SAN referred the
Court to para 41(2) of the 1st
schedule of the Electoral Act which mandatorily provides
that documents which
parties consented to at the
pretrial by the parties shall
not be tendered from the
Bar when the party is represented by a Counsel....
And 41(2) makes admissible
only documents that parties
consented to through the
Bar.
He referred the Court to
para 4 of the pretrial report which says All CTCs duly
certified, listed, pleaded and
admissible will be tendered
across the Bar.
Petitioner's reply on Points
of Law.
He first of all started to make it clear that once
pretrial is concluded, pretrial
information sheet is
overtaken by the Report of
the Tribunal.
The report is issued on 24/07/2015, modified on
10/08/2015 and served on
parties on 11/08/2015.
It is
that document that guides
what we are doing.
Again, the certification on the right hand side is the one
required by the Evidence
Act.
The writing on the left
is not certification.
It is only
evidence of payment
payment.
There is a signature in red ink and a
date- 28/04/2015
acknowledging that
payment.
What is beneath
that signature and date is
ACA meaning Assistant Chief Accountant
( EXPENDITURE ) signing for
HOD.
He saw the words F &
A meaning Finance and
Account. When a man
marries a woman, there is nothing to nullify. We urge
your Lordships to admit the
document and overrule the
objection.
On reply on points of law,
Wale OLANIPEKUN SAN again referred the Court to
the case of Tabik
Investment Ltd Vs GTBank
( 2011 ) 17 NWLR ( 1212 ) pg
240. Interpreting sec 102 and
104 of the Evidence Act, the Supreme Court repeated it
that it is the duty of the
person tendering and the
duty of the party certifying
to comply with every
requirement of certification.
In his reply on points of law,
the 2nd Respondent Counsel-
Onyechi Ikpeazu SAN cited
the case of Agbai Vs INEC
( 2009 ) ALL FWLR ( PT 449 )
@ 594.
He submitted that certification should not be
subjected to any form of
conjecture in writing but
should speak eloquently.
The 3rd Respondent Counsel
simply referred the Court to para 41 of the Electoral Act.
The Heading in that section is
EVIDENCE AT HEARING and
not pre hearing.
Finally, sec
41(2) provides that you can
only determine that a party consented by referring to
the pretrial information
sheet.
COURT. The Court in its
ruling observed that it has
previously ordered the 3rd Respondent to comply by re
certifying the documents for
and on behalf the
Petitioners.
He therefore
overruled the objection of
the Respondents and admitted the document as
Exhibit PB01.
OBSERVATION. It is quite
unfortunate that the Court
in its ruling, did not advert
it's mind or take judicial notice of issues of law raised
by the 1st and 3rd
Respondents and neither did
he make any
pronouncement on those
fundamental issues.
On a 2nd thought, I felt the
ruling is heavily predicated
on the principle of fair
hearing because granting
that objection today would
have sent the petition to early grave.
After overruling the
objection, the Court
proceeded to admit other
renaming documents of
Ugwunagbo.
The Petitioners equally tendered documents
from Isialangwa North.
These were made easy
because the Respondents
decided not to give reasons
or state grounds for opposing the tendering of
those documents in open
Court. They all agreed to
incorporate their reasons for
objection of all the
documents tendered today during final address of all
counsel.
And this latter
decision or approach is very
dangerous.
Posted via Gmail.
Post a Comment