Kate Mudiaga-erhueh V. Independent National Electoral Commission (Inec) & Ors (1999)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

SAKA ADEYEMI IBIYEYE, J.C.A.

This is an appeal against the ruling of the Delta State National Assembly Election Tribunal sitting in Asaba which was delivered on 3rd of May, 1999. The ruling is sequel to a preliminary objection raised by the 4th respondent to the incompetence of the petition filed before the Delta state National Assembly Election Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal). The Tribunal upheld the prayer of the 4th respondent by striking out the petition. The petitioner was aggrieved by that ruling and she appealed to this Court on three grounds which I shall consider presently.

The motion on notice which promoted the ruling appealed against by the appellant reads:

“AN ORDER striking out/dismissing this petition on the ground that it is an abuse of the process of Court and the Honourable Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to entertain the petition.

AN FURTHER TAKE NOTICE that the grounds upon which this application is based are as set hereunder and in the affidavit in support of the motion.

GROUND 5

(i) The petitioner and three others had prior to this petition filed a similar suit claiming substantially the service (same) reliefs against the respondents and the Peoples Democratic Party.

(ii) The petitioner and three others prior to this petition took out a similar suit claiming substantially the same reliefs against the respondents and the Peoples’ Democratic Party (P.D.P.) at Asaba High Court in Suit No. A/28/99 which was subsequently transferred to the Federal High Court Benin City where it is at the moment still pending.

(iii) The issues raised and or the relief sought by the petitioner in this petitions are not cognizable under Decree No.5, 1999 as issues to be entertained by the Tribunal.”

Chief Olisa Chukwura, senior Advocate of Nigeria and A.A. Onojovwo Esq. who respectively appeared for the petitioner/respondent and 4th respondent/applicant at the Tribunal proferred arguments for and against the prayers in the above reproduced motion. The Tribunal in a considered ruling held that the common complaint in grounds (i) and (ii) (above) on abuse of Court process did not amount to any abuse of process of Court.

As regards the third ground, the Tribunal held, inter alia, as follows:

“The Decree makes it imperative that the competence of a petition depends on meticulous compliance with the grounds and other requirements stipulated by the Decree.

We are unanimously of the view that the petitioner had failed to do so. In the circumstances, we have no other option but to strike out the petition. The petition is hereby struck out accordingly…………..”

The appellant was obviously dissatisfied with this ruling and she filed notice and Grounds of Appeal dated 3rd day of May 1999 in this court. The three grounds of appeal without their particulars are as fallows: