Description
Ignorance of law in election petitions – justice delayed – justice hurried – statutory interpretation – purposive and liberal interpretations – principle of orality – principle of documentation – Rule 21A of the National Elections (Election Petitions) (Amendment) Rules, 2002, GN No. 106 of 2012.
- The Court of Appeal accepted the defence of ignorance of law in election petition proceedings.
- Justice delayed is justice denied. Conversely, justice hurried is justice buried. These twin evils impede the smooth administration of a credible justice system and should be roundly abhorred and eliminated (pp. 1 to 2).
- Although it is a constitutional imperative to deliver timely justice, at times justice may be delayed on account of unavoidable or acceptable reasons, for instance if the judiciary is not adequately funded and/or manned (p. 3)
- In election petitions courts have to give electoral laws purposive and liberal interpretations avoiding relying on undue technicalities.
- Election petitions are neither ordinary civil suits nor criminal cases. They have their own peculiarities which necessitate modifications of certain rules of civil proceedings.
- Provisions of Rule 21 of the National Elections (Election Petitions) Rules, 2010 still apply even after introduction of Rule 21A. Witnesses from both sides will still be summoned where a party cannot get his or her witnesses without the aid of the court. Witnesses will still be sworn/affirmed before testifying. This is notwithstanding whether they are giving oral evidence under the CPC (under principle of orality) or under the provisions of Rule 21A (under the principle of documentation) (p. 34).
- Rule 21A is subject to Rule 21 of National Elections (Election Petitions) Rules, 2010. The rule 21 is not vague.
- Ignorance of law is no defence (p. 35).
- Ignorance of law in civil cases (pp. 36 – 38).
- In civil litigations, and particularly election disputes litigations, the maxim (ignorance of law is no defence) should be applied sparingly and with great circumspection, in order to avoid imposing leaders on the people who are not the direct result of the peoples will. The maxim must be applied in each case depending on its attendant peculiar circumstances (p. 39).
- In election petition proceedings the applicants failed to comply with procedural requirements introduced by new amendments (GN. 106) and their defence was lack of awareness of the amendments (ignorance of law) – the defence was accepted on grounds that GN 106 (the amendments) lacked the requisite promulgation and/or publicity to give it the teeth to bind its violators. The applicants were prevented by good cause from complying the amendments (pp. 41 to 43).
- Where a rigid application of the rules will result in a manifest failure of justice technicalities should be disregarded in order to resolve the case (p. 45).
- Rule 21A introduced by the National Elections (Election Petitions) (Amendment) Rules, 2002, GN No. 106 of 2012 did not shut out completely oral evidence. So when oral evidence is taken either through ignorance of the law or mistake of the law the evidence would be taken to have been validly taken (p. 46). Failure to comply with that Rule was not fatal in this matter (p. 48).
- The aims of the court should always be to render substantial justice as procedure has always been a hand-maid of justice (p. 46).
- Mistake of the law – a person who acts under a mistake of the law is aware of existence of the law but misunderstands the law (p. 46).
