ELECTION LAW — Non-Compliance — Requirement of Proof — Petitioner Must Prove Two Burdens
Ratio Decidendi
Per Fabiyi, JSC, in CPC v. INEC & Ors (2011) NLC-123-426-2011(SC) at pp. 57—58; Paras E—A:
"This court has consistently held that for a petition to succeed on non-compliance with the provision of the Electoral Act, the petitioner must prove not only that there was non-compliance with the provisions of the Act but that the non-compliance substantially affected the result of the election. In other words, the petitioner has two burdens to prove: (1) That the non-compliance took place; and (2) That the non-compliance substantially affected the result of the election."
Explanation / Scope
This principle establishes that a petitioner has two burdens: proving non-compliance and proving it substantially affected the result. The principle applies in election petitions. It ensures that both elements are proved. The principle reflects the dual burden. It prevents invalidation without proof of effect. The court must require proof of both. The principle provides guidance on election petitions.