"Also submission of counsel can neither take the place of pleadings nor evidence, this is trite." Per OGUNBIYI, J.S.C. (P. 41, Para. E)  JOE ODEY AGI, SAN v. PEOPLES DEMOCRATIC PARTY & ORS(2016) LPELR-42578(SC)

"Also submission of counsel can neither take the place of pleadings nor evidence, this is trite." Per OGUNBIYI, J.S.C. (P. 41, Para. E)  JOE ODEY AGI, SAN v. PEOPLES DEMOCRATIC PARTY & ORS(2016) LPELR-42578(SC)

"The 2nd leg of appellant's claim, the issue of presentation of false declaration of age by the 3rd respondent, does make the commission of crime an issue. The two Courts below are indeed right in their findings that the allegation made by the appellant of 3rd respondent's presentation of false and inconsistent declaration of age is rooted in the offences of forgery and perjury which by Section 135(1) of the Evidence Act 2011 CAP. E 14 Laws of the Federation must be proved beyond reasonable doubt." Per MUHAMMAD, J.S.C. (P. 115, Paras. B-D)  JOE ODEY AGI, SAN v. PEOPLES DEMOCRATIC PARTY & ORS(2016) LPELR-42578(SC)

"It is trite that a counsel while functioning as such has the implied authority to make any admission of facts thereby dispensing with proof of the particular facts and the admission may be binding if not retracted by the client before judgment." Per MUHAMMAD, J.S.C. (P. 99, Paras. A-C)  JOE ODEY AGI, SAN v. PEOPLES DEMOCRATIC PARTY & ORS(2016) LPELR-42578(SC)

"The law is well settled that where allegation of crime is directly in issue in any civil or criminal proceedings, it must be proved beyond reasonable doubt and the onus of proof is on the person who asserts. See Section 135(1) and (2) of the Evidence Act. See also Omoboriowo v. Ajasin (1984) 1 SC NJ 108; Bayo v. Njidda (2004) 8 NWLR (Pt. 876) 544 and Arebi v. Gbabiyo (2008) 2 LR ECN 467 at 489." Per OGUNBIYI, J.S.C. (P. 83, Paras. A-C)  JOE ODEY AGI, SAN v. PEOPLES DEMOCRATIC PARTY & ORS(2016) LPELR-42578(SC)

"It is also trite and firmly established principle of law that he who asserts must bear the burden of proof.

"The thrust of the 1st leg of appellant's claim made out, is rooted in the effect of 3rd respondent's non payment of his membership dues to the 1st respondent and his right to contest an election on the party's platform. By 3rd respondent's non-payment of his dues, he ceases to be a member of the party and as such disentitled to participate in 1st respondent's primary election. If he purports to participate, the 1st respondent by its Constitution and Electoral would be bereft of the power to present 3rd respondent's name to the 2nd respondent as a candidate in any election.

"As rightly envisaged by the senior counsel Chief Olanipekun, SAN, by the very enactment of Paragraph 48(f) of the Guidelines under reference, same is deemed to come later and after Article 14(b) and 15(2) of the party guidelines.

"I have restated earlier in this judgment also that the nature of the allegation lodged against the 3rd respondent by the appellant is firmly rooted in criminality and which must be proved beyond reasonable doubt as rightly held by the lower Court. See Section 135(1) of the Evidence Act; See also the cases of Boyo v. Ngidda (2004) 8 NWLR (Pt. 876) 544; Yakubu V. Jauroyel (2014) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1418) 205; Yusuf v. Obasanjo (2003) 16 NWLR (Pt. 847) 554.

"On the allegation that the 3rd respondent presented false age declarations to the 1st respondent where he variously claimed that he was born on 2/3/1968, 2/3/1969 and that his Biodata's date of birth in the University is 2/3/1966.