Samuel Etsu Lanto V. Hon. U. J. Wowo & 16 Ors (1999)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

MUNTAKA-COOMASSIE J.C.A.

The appellant, in this appeal, was the, petitioner before the Local Government Council Election Tribunal Abuja herein called Election Tribunal. The appellant Mr. Samuel Etsu Lanto was a candidate on the platform of the Peoples Democratic party hereinafter referred to as PDP for the Chairmanship of Kuje Local Government whilst the first respondent was the candidate for the All Peoples Party APP for the Chairmanship election for Kuje Area Council held on the 5th December, 1998. At the close of the election and after counting the 3rd respondent, i.e. the returning officer, Kuje Area Council, returned the 1st respondent as duly elected Chairman of Kuje Area Council of the Federal Capital Territory Abuja. The 1st respondent who was declared the winner scored a total of 12,278 lawful votes against the petitioner 10,217 votes. The petitioner, now appellant, was aggrieved by the declaring of the 1st respondent as the winner. He brought an election petition challenging the said declaration of the 1st respondent before the Election Tribunal. The Resident Electoral Commissioner Federal Capital Territory and all other 14 presiding officers of the polling stations complained of were duly joined including Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).

The main grouse was the 1st respondent was not qualified to contest the said election as he did not pay his tax as and when due and that the election conducted in eleven polling stations were marred with corrupt practices, undue influence, falsification, intimidation, personation and other offences against the Decree which voids the election.

Other complaints are that the 1st respondent was not elected by lawful majority votes cast in that if these results obtained by manipulation and falsification of the aforementioned polling stations are subtracted from the votes cast; the appellant will have lawful majority votes cast and should be so returned.

Finally, that the presiding officers in the aforementioned polling stations did not ensure compliance with mandatory provisions of Decree 36 of 1998 as they engaged in the utter disregard and breach of the provisions of the said Decree by their acts and/or omission, neglect, ineptitude which affected the result of the election.

The 1st respondent flatly denied all the allegations and complaints. Similarly all the respondents denied.

At the hearing of the petition 10 witnesses were called by the appellant (as petitioner). The 1st respondent called three witnesses in support of their respective stand points taken on their pleadings, 49 exhibits were, all in all, tendered. After the addresses of both learned counsel the Election Tribunal in its judgment delivered on 26th day of January, 1998, dismissed the petition in the following terms:-

“In view of our earlier holding that the 1st respondent paid his tax when it was due we also hold that if at all there is an irregularity, it has not substantially affected the result of election. The petition in our view lacks merit. It is accordingly dismissed and we confirm the election and the return of the 1st respondent Hon. V. I. Wowo as the duly elected Chairman of Kuje Area Council.”

The petitioner, now appellant, in the exercise of his right, approached this court on appeal by filing an appeal against the above judgment of the Election Tribunal. He filed seven grounds of appeal. I reproduce them hereunder without their particulars.

Ground one: The decision of the tribunal is unwarranted. unreasonable and cannot be supported having regard to the weight of evidence.

Ground Two: The learned trial tribunal erred in law when it held that the 1st respondent paid his tax as and when due because the evidence of PW1 is conclusive of the matter.

Ground three: The learned trial tribunal erred in law when it held that if at all there is an irregularity, it has not substantially affected the result of the election.

Ground four: The learned tribunal erred in law when it held that the evidence of the witnesses of the petitioner did not prove any of the allegations.

Ground five: The learned tribunal erred in law when it failed to consider the issues raised joined in the pleadings and evidence led.