OJIEGBE & ANOR V. UBANI & ANOR

• Pages: 153-156

NIGERIAN SUPREME COURT CASES

[19611 N.S.C.C.



153

OJIEGBE & ANOR V. UBANI & ANOR.

1.

DICKSON OJIEGBE

2.

MAXWELL ESIABA

V

1.

MARCUS W. UBANI

2.

ELECTORAL COMMISSION

FEDERAL SUPREME COURT.

ADEMOLA,



C.J.F.

TAYLOR,



F.J.

BAIRAMIAN,



F.J.

8th June, 1961.

APPELLANTS

RESPONDENTS

SUIT NO. FSC 363/1960

Constitutional Law - Nigeria (Constitution) Order in Council, 1954, Sixth Schedule

Ss.7, 11 - Fundamental Human Rights - Freedom of conscience - Freedom

front discrimination. Election Petition - Elections (House of Representatives)

Regulations, 1958. Regulation 43 - Federal Legislative Houses (Disputed Seats)

Regulation 6.

Evidence - Recall of witness after close of case.

Practice and Procedure - Costs - Reduction of award.

ISSUES:

1.

Whether Polling on a saturday amounts to class discrimination and negation of

freedom of conscience in relation to Sabbath Keepers.

2.

Whether refusal to permit a witness to be recalled amounts to refusal to admit

a document in evidence.

FACTS:

The Appellant filed an Election Petition in the High Court, arising out of an elec-

tion to the Federal House of Representatives in respect of Aba Central constituency

which held on Saturday , 12th December, 1959.

The principal objection to the election result was that in this particular consti-

tuency there are between six and seven thousand Seventh Day Adventists whose

rights, it was contended, were violated by holding the election on a Saturday; in

that they were subjected to disability or restriction by so holding the election on

that day, as it is contrary to the ethics of that religion to do anything or any man-

ner of work on a Saturday, which is their Sabbath day. Thus many of them, for

fear of being excommunicated from the Church, refrained from going to the polls.

When the polling date was fixed by the Governor-General protests were made

by this sect that it was contrary to their religious belief to exercise the right to vote

on a Saturday, and therefore the polling day should be changed to Friday, 11th

December, 1959. The request for a change of date was refused.

The evidence showed that the defeated candidate lost the election by over

twenty thousand votes.

After the case on each side had been closed, the Appellants sought to recall a

witness to put a document in evidence. The other side objected and the Trial Court

upheld the objection.