Chief Olusegun Obasanjo & Ors. V. Alhaji Mohammed Dikko Yusuf & Anor (2004)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

KUTIGI, J.S.C.

This is yet another interlocutory appeal against the decision

of the Presidential Election Petition Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the tribunal) delivered on 17th July, 2003 refusing to strike out the petition and or its various paragraphs as demanded by the motions, applications and or notices of preliminary objection filed by some of the respondents in the petition.

I shall therefore, in this judgment be brief and straight to the points necessary for the disposal of the relevant issues in the appeal without attempting to prejudge any point or issue yet to be tried or decided by the tribunal (see for example Egbe v. Enogun (1972) 1 All NLR (Pt. 1) 95; Sylvanus Mortune v. Alhaji Muh. Gambo (1979) 3 – 4 SC 54.

The tribunal decided to hear all the motions, applications and objections together. And in a reserved and well considered ruling the tribunal in the lead ruling of Mahmud Mohammed, JCA (which was concurred by all the other 4 Justices) concluded as follows:

“In the result, the application filed by the 1st respondent on 12/6/2003 raising objection to the petition as contained in paragraphs 1 and 2 of his reply also filed on 12/6/2003, except for the striking out of paragraphs 13 and 17 of the petition has failed and the same is hereby dismissed with no order on costs.

Similarly, the application of the 2nd respondent filed on 13/6/2003 raising objection to the petition except for striking out paragraphs 13 and 17 of the petition has also failed and the same is dismissed with no order on costs.

Finally, the preliminary objection by the 40th to 55th respondents seeking for the striking out of the petition or dismissing it, has also failed except for the striking out of paragraphs 13 and 17 of the petition. Consequently, the preliminary objection is also hereby dismissed with no order on costs.”

It is abundantly clear from the above that each of the applications or objections succeeded in part and failed in part. Paragraphs 13 and 17 of the petition were struck-out while all the other prayers or reliefs including that of dismissal and or striking out. the petition were dismissed.

Aggrieved by the ruling of the tribunal, both the 1st and 2nd respondents have appealed separately to this court. The 1st and 2nd petitioners have also jointly cross-appealed against the ruling. For tidiness and for the purposes of eliminating any confusion, I intend to treat together the appeals by the 1st and 2nd respondents as one appeal even though filed separately, they being respectively the candidate at the election and the political party under whose platform the 1st respondent contested. I will thereafter, treat the cross-appeal of the petitioners.

The appeals

In the 1st respondent/appellant’s brief the following 5 issues have been submitted for determination:

1.Whether or not complaints against breaches of the Constitution and Companies and Allied Matters Act (1990) are cognisable in an election petition Grounds 1,2,3 and 4.

I think this issue as framed is too wide. This is not a court for academic exercise. The issue should be confined to the actual decision of the tribunal based on the petition in this case only. The tribunal recognised two classes of petitions. A petition under the Constitution and a petition under the Electoral Act, and held that under the former certain things are permissible but not under the latter as we shall soon find out. So the issue must be confined to petitions based on the Constitution only and not to petitions under the Act.