NWANKWO V. ALO

• Pages: 1-3

NWANKWO V. ALO



1

NWANKWO V. ALO

5

VINCENT AGWU NWANKWO

V

10 STEPHEN NWOGBAGO ALO

FEDERAL SUPREME COURT.

ADEMOLA,



C.J.F.

BRETT,



F.J.

15



BAIRAMIAN,



F.J.

3rd January, 1963.

APPELLANT

RESPONDENT

SUIT NO. FSC 390/1962

Election Petition - Alleging nine instances of corrupt practices in different villages

in constituency - Eight out of nine instances not proved, ninth proved.

20

Evidence - Evidence in support of allegation that of self confessed accomplice -

No corroboration - Trial Judge based finding and judgment on accomplice's

evidence - Effect - Duty of appellate court.

25

ISSUES:

1.

Whether it is proper for a trial Judge to base his judgment on the uncorroborated

evidence of an accomplice.

2.

What is the duty of an appellate court where it appears from the evidence and

facts of a case that the trial Judge did not take advantage of his opportunity of

30



seeing and hearing the witnesses.?

3.

What is the 'Standard of Proof' required in proof of an allegation of a criminal

offence, made in an Election Petition.?

FACTS:

The appellant was a candidate for election to the Eastern House of Assembly

35





in the Izi North East constituency at the general election held on the 16th Novem-

ber, 1961 and was duly elected.

The return was challenged by the respondent a rival claimant, who brought an

election petition alleging nine instances of corrupt practices in nine villages in the

constituency, eight instances alleged were not proved and the only evidence in

40





support of the ninth allegation was that of a single person who was also a self-

confessed accomplice. His evidence was not corroborated, but the trial Judge

believed his story and declared the election of the appellant invalid.

HELD:

1.

That since the only witness was a self-confessed accomplice the trial Judge

45





ought to have asked himself the question whether there was any corroboration

of his evidence, and since there was none, whether he (trial Judge) ought to

rely on his evidence alone.

2.

That the Supreme Court, though slow to differ from a trial Judge in his

assessment of the credibility of witnesses, must do so if it appears that the trial

50





Judge failed to take advantage of the opportunity of seeing and hearing the

witnesses.

3.

Bribery at an election is a criminal offence and even in an election petition it

has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt under the Evidence Act section

137.