Professor Eric Agume Opia V. Chief Felix Ovuodoroye Ibru & Ors (1992)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

AWOGU, J.C.A.

The appellant and the 1st respondent were the two candidates at the election for the Office of Governor of Delta State held on 14th December, 1991. The appellant was the candidate of the N.R.C., while the 1st respondent was the candidate of the S.D.P. Following the election, the 1st respondent was returned as duly elected as Governor of Delta State. The appellant being dissatisfied with the result, filed a petition on 13th January, 1992, challenging the result before the Governorship Legislative Houses Election Tribunal, sitting at Asaba and presided over by the Hon. Justice S.O. Okuribido. The hearing commenced on 3rd February, 1992. After the conclusion of hearing and addresses by counsel, judgment was reserved sine die. On February 12th, 1992, the Tribunal delivered its judgment and dismissed the petition with costs. The appellant has appealed against the judgment to this court. His grounds of appeal are as follows:-

l. The Tribunal erred in law in failing to consider the contravention by the 2nd and 3rd Respondents of section 122(5) of the State Government (Basic Constitutional and Transitional Provisions) Decree No. 50 of 1991 and the effects of such contravention and thereby came to a wrong decision in the matter.

PARTICULARS

(a) The polling documents have all been already opened when they were tendered in the proceedings.

(b) No order of the Tribunal was applied for or obtained for the opening of the said Polling documents.

(c) The implications of the breach of the said statutory provisions are relevant and have far reaching consequences.

2. The Tribunal erred in law in making an order for the Petitioner to file further and better particulars and thereby came to a wrong decision in the case.

PARTICULARS

(a) The order for further and better particulars was incompetent and contrary to the provisions of paragraph 18 of Schedule 6 to Decree No.50 of 1991.

(b) Further and better particulars were unnecessary in the circumstances.

3. The Tribunal erred in law by holding that:-

“The Tribunal, having read the provisions of paragraph 5(3) of Schedule 6 in the light of the authorities relied upon by learned Senior Advocate (sic) in their address, has arrived at the conclusion that this prayer is incongruous and incompetent and that as a result the Petition should be and is hereby struck out.”

PARTICULARS

(a) Paragraph 5(3) of Schedule 6 to the Decree must be read together with paragraph 50 of Schedule 6 and sections 92(3), 102 and 105 of the Decree.

(b) The decision in the case of Ige v. Olunloye (1984) ISCNLR 158, (1984) 1 S.C. 258 relied on by the Tribunal does not apply to the case before it.