The court had dismissed his case against the All Progressives Congress (APC) candidate, Lucky Orimisan Aiyedatiwa, and his running mate, Olayide Owolabi Adelami.
The Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) candidate in the 2024 Ondo governorship election, Agboola Ajayi, has filed an appeal challenging the December 2 ruling of the Federal High Court in Akure.
The court had dismissed his case against the All Progressives Congress (APC) candidate, Lucky Orimisan Aiyedatiwa, and his running mate, Olayide Owolabi Adelami.
Ajayi, in his notice of appeal dated December 7, 2024, alleged that Justice T.B. Adegoke of the Federal High Court erred in dismissing his suit marked FHC/AK/CS/99/2024.
The suit had contested discrepancies in the certificates submitted by the APC’s governorship candidate, asserting they violated electoral laws.
Ajayi raised multiple grounds of appeal, including claims of unexplained discrepancies in Aiyedatiwa’s certificates submitted to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).
He argued that the trial court failed to resolve the issue of “irreconcilable differences” in the names on the certificates, which he claimed amounted to a miscarriage of justice.
Ajayi also criticised the court’s dismissal of his reliefs, insisting he had presented a compelling case that was wrongly overlooked.
The PDP candidate is urging the Court of Appeal to overturn the Federal High Court’s judgment and grant the reliefs he originally sought, which include declaring the APC candidate’s candidacy invalid due to certificate discrepancies.
An order setting aside the December 2 ruling and upholding the reliefs sought by the appellants at the trial court.
Ajayi argues that the trial court failed to adequately address these discrepancies, which he claims resulted in a miscarriage of justice.
According to Ajayi, neither Aiyedatiwa nor INEC provided sufficient explanation for the discrepancies.
However, in eighteen grounds filed, Ajayi argued that the trial court gave a very narrow interpretation and meaning to the provisions of Section 29(1)-(5) of the Electoral Act, 2022.
He contended that the court adopted an isolated and restrictive reading of Section 29(5) of the Electoral Act, 2022 without considering the broader context of the law.
Ground one: “The learned trial Judge erred in law when His Lordship failed to resolve against the 1st Respondent, the unexplained and irreconcilable differences in the names contained in the certificates attached to the Form EC9 submitted to the 4th Respondent by the 1st Respondent thereby occasioning serious miscarriage of justice against the Appellants.
Particulars of errors: “The Appellants by paragraph 20 of the Affidavit in support of the Originating Summons averred on the irreconcilable differences in the names of the 1 Respondent.
“The 1st Respondent submitted different certificates with different names that were not same.
“Throughout the dispute before the trial court, the 1st Respondent never presented a Deed Poll to explain the irreconcilable differences in the different names presented to the 4th Respondent.”
Ajayi notes that neither of the 2nd and 4th Respondents through any of the processes filed in their defence came to the aid of the 1st Respondent to explain the irreconcilable differences in the 1st Respondent’s names.
Ground two: “The learned trial Judge erred in law in failing to grant the reliefs sought by the Appellants and dismissing same having regard to the fact that the Appellants had made a compelling case in proof of their case.”
Particulars of errors: “The lower before having failed to properly evaluate the evidence presented before it which was essentially documentary, therefore the Court of Appeal is in a good a position to do so.”
It said, “That being the case, the lower court ought to have evaluated and given proper effect to the dearly admissible documentary evidence presented before it.
“The lower court was obliged to have held in the circumstances that the Appellant were entitled to their reliefs.
“The refusal to grant the reliefs in the face of credible evidence on the record occasioned a grave miscarriage of justice.”
Ground three: “The learned trial Judge erred in law in falling to use appropriately the documents exhibited in evidence as the major barometer for ascribing probative value to the affidavit evidence.”
Particulars of error: “It is the law that where there is a body of documentary evidence, it should normally be used as a barometer for gauging the truth.
“In this particular case the documents in question are statutory documents the contents of which should be highly relevant in gauging the truth or otherwise of whether the 1st and 2nd Respondents were qualified to be sponsored by the 3rd Respondent in accordance with Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended).
“The Court was called upon to examine and evaluate the documentary evidence but it failed to do so and merely relied on extraneous matters without giving appropriate consideration to whether those assertions were correct in view of the challenge by the Appellants on the issue of qualification of the 1st Respondent.”
Ground four: “The learned trial Judge erred in law in failing to consider and uphold the complaint of the Appellants that they are clothe with focus standi to sue in matter that borders on the enforcement and application of the Provisions of the Electoral Act, 2022 and Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 as amended.”
Particulars of error: “The issue of nomination and sponsorship of a candidate is both initra and inter party affairs of an interested party in an election as in the instant case.
“The trial court had a duty to consider the complaints of the Appellants and had it done so, it would have found that the 4th Respondent was in error to have published and allowed the 3rd Defendant’s Deputy Governorship candidate for the 2024 Ondo State Governorship election.
Meanwhile, Ajayi, in his reliefs sought from the Court of Appeal, requested the following: “An order allowing the appeal and setting aside the judgment of the Federal High Court sitting in Akure, Ondo State delivered on the 2nd of December, 2024 by Hon. Justice T.B. Adegoke.
“An order granting the reliefs sought by the Appellants as Plaintiffs before the trial Court.”
The post Ondo 2024: Ajayi Appeals Against Dismissal, Argues APC Candidate’s Candidacy Invalid Due To Certificate Issues appeared first on TheNigeriaLawyer.
6 min read
1,038 words
5 views