Evangelist Johnson Igodo V. Godwin I. Owulo & Ors (1999)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

NZEAKO, J.C.A.

At the Oju Local Government Area of Benue State of Nigeria Chairmanship elections held on 5th of December 1998 and another election of 12th December 1998, the appellant and the 1st respondent were candidates. The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) at the conclusion of the elections declared the 1st respondent the winner.

Dissatisfied with the decision of INEC, the appellant filed a petition at the Local Government Council Election Tribunal holden in Makurdi. The petitioner/appellant in his petition complained:

(1) That the 1st respondent was not qualified to contest the election.

(2) That the 1st respondent was not validly elected by a majority of valid votes cast at the election.

(3) That the bye-election held at Ainu Council Ward on 12th December 1998 was unlawful as the election was voided by corrupt practices, offences and non-compliance with the provisions of the Decree.

Among others, the petition stated that the petitioner prayed the tribunal.

“That the said Godwin I. Owulo was not duly elected or returned and his election was void and that the said Evangelist Johnson Igodo ought to have been returned as duly elected.

The 1st respondent filed a reply. For the 2nd – 6th respondent, a joint reply was filed. The respondents thus joined issues with the petitioner on his petition.

The parties called evidence and cross-examined each other’s witnesses.

Trial concluded, the Election Tribunal dismissed the petition of the appellant and confirmed the declaration by the INEC of the 1st respondent Godwin I. Owulo as duly elected Chairman of Oju Local Government Council.

Dissatisfied with the decision of the Election Tribunal, the petitioner appealed to this court.

The grounds of his appeal are as follows:

1. The decision is against the weight of evidence.
2. The tribunal erred in law in holding that the election of 5th December 1998 in Ainu Council Ward of Oju Local Government Area was not conclusive in the circumstances of the case.
3. The trial tribunal erred in law when it held that the 2nd-5th respondents complied with Decree 36 of 1998 when it ordered a bye-election at Ainu Council Ward of Oju Local Government Area on the election rather than declaring and returning the appellant duly elected with the valid votes of 20,100 and required spread to the 15,348 valid votes of the 1st respondent.”
4. The tribunal misdirected itself on the facts when it held that the election of 5th December, 1998 in Oju Local Government Area was disturbed or substantially disturbed by an intervening cause.
5. The tribunal erred in law when it held that the second election ordered and conducted at in Ainu Council Ward on 12th December, 1998 was proper and lawful.
6. “The tribunal failed to adequately review and evaluate the evidence before it in coming to its decision dismissing the of appellant.”

The reliefs sought by the appellant are as follows: