It is now a settled law that a judgement of a court must demonstrate in full a dispassionate consideration of all issues properly raised and heard and must reflect on the result of such exercise. In other words, it must show a clear resolution of all issues that arise for decision in a case and end up with an ultimate verdict which flows logically from facts as pleaded.

Failure on the part of a plaintiff to prove his case does not automatically mean that judgement must be given in favour of the defendant. Where the defendant is also unable to prove his defence on the preponderance of evidence, his case will also be thrown out. That is the basis of the principle of law that a plaintiff and defendant cannot rely on the weakness of the case of parties.

It is also an elementary law that the court need to consider the totality of evidence before the court in arriving at its judgement.

A court can grant a relief which is not sought for but flow from the facts and the cause of action.

It is, of course, trite law that a court cannot award more than it claimed. It is equally misconceived that an order cannot be made because it was not sought. An order not sought can be granted in as much as it flowed from the evidence and more so if the justice of the case demands.

I am therefore unable to see the basis of the argument that the court granted a relief not sought. Have we seen the defence of David Lyon? There is no doubt both of them wanted to be declared as the winner. And from the evidence, if it is found that there was no proper primaries conducted to declare any of the parties winner, the judge can decline to grant any of their reliefs and make an order nullifying the primary.

See F.A.T.B v. Ezegbu(1993) 6 N.W.L.R(Pt 297). Also instructive is the case of Frederick Obayagbona & Anor (1972) 5 S.C 247 at 254. See also Apostolic Church v. Olowoleni( a supreme court case).