Chief Uche Okoroji V. Mazi Nnanna Ngwu & Ors (1992)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

NDOMA-EGBA, J.C.A.

Appellant, Chief Uche Okoroji, appeals against the judgment of the National Assembly Election Tribunal in Abia State, dated the 28th of September, 1992 whereby the 1st Respondent on record, Mazi Nnanna Ngwu, was confirmed as a duly elected member of the Federal House of Representatives for Arochukwu (Abia State). Appellant contested the seat on the platform of the Social Democratic Party. The 1st Respondent was for the National Republican Party. Upon full consideration of the evidence and careful examination of the legal authorities cited by counsel on both sides for its guidance, the Tribunal below found, as fact in course of its judgment that the appellant’s allegations were “totally baseless, unsubstantiated and lacking in merit”. In consequence, it dismissed appellant’s petition and confirmed the election of the 1st Respondent, Mazi Nnanna Ngwu as the duly elected member of the House of Representatives for thy Arochukwu Federal Constituency.

Wholly aggrieved by the decision aforesaid, the appellant appealed against the whole decision on fifteen grounds. These, without their particulars which are on record, are reproduced and set out exactly as follows:

GROUND 1

ERROR IN LAW

That the National Assembly Election Tribunal erred in Law when it accepted and acted on the illegal and inadmissible evidence adduced before it by the Respondents who did not file a list of objections pursuant to paragraphs 16(1) & 17(1) Schedule 4 Decree No. 18 of 1992.

GROUND 2

ERROR IN LAW

That the National Assembly Election Tribunal erred in Law when it failed to appreciate on the state of the pleadings and evidence before it the petitioner proved his allegation, since once the petitioner led credible evidence in proof on the fact that in Ohaeke Abam Ward Polling booths – Ndi Awora/Ndi Imha, Ndi Arusi Ogbaga, Ohaeke Abam I, Ohaeke Abam iv, and Ohaeke Abam respectively all the registered voters were alleged to have voted and yet many did not vote as their cards showed having not been accredited, the onus of proving that those voters with unaccredited cards were those who sold their voters Cards to Petitioner and later changed their minds and voted without their voters’ Cards shifted on the 1st Respondent who alleged those facts and who failed to discharge that onus.

See also  Chief Dogood Akpufu & Ors V. Kennedy Obipo & Ors (2008) LLJR-CA

GROUND 3

ERROR IN LAW

The National Assembly Election Tribunal erred in law when in the light of Exhibit ‘A’ and the failure of 3rd Respondent to declare the result as provided by the Decree it failed to hold that the purported reconstructed result purportedly declared by 2nd Respondent after an inordinate delay of four days from the alleged copies of results procured from the police and NRC Agents which exercise was carried out behind petitioner did not amount to substantial irregularity and non-conformity with the Decree No. 18 of 1992 which vitiated the said result of the election, and also contrary to the rules of Natural Justice.

GROUND 4

ERROR IN LAW

Membership Required

You must be a member to access this content.

View Membership Levels

Already a member? Log in here

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *