Friday Weniabo V. Nein Ebiakpo & Ors (1999)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

MICHAEL EYARUOMA AKPIROROH, J.C.A.

Governorship and Legislative Houses Election Tribunal sitting at Yenagoa delivered on 22nd March, 1999. The petition was in respect of the State House of Assembly election held on 30/1/99.

The 1st Respondent as the petitioner Nein Ebiakpo and Friday Weniabo were candidates at the election. The 1st Respondent contested under the platform of the All People Party (APP) while the appellant contested under the platform of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP).

At the end of the polls, the 1st Respondent was credited with 1,800 votes while the appellant was credited with 2,538 votes. The appellant was therefore declared the winner of the election having scored the highest votes in the said election.

The petitioner was dissatisfied with the results as declared by the 2nd-4th Respondents and accordingly filed a petition against it before the aforesaid election Tribunal. He set and the grounds, in which he based his petition in paragraph 4 of his petition. He concluded his petition by praying the Tribunal for the following reliefs in paragraph 8 of the said petition:-

“8 WHEREFORE your humble Petitioner prays that it may be determined that.: –

(a) the 1st Respondent was not duly elected and/or returned and/or elected by majority of lawful votes.

(b) the votes cast at the aforesaid wards 77 and 12 which were unjustifiably and legally excluded from the total votes of the petitioner and the 1st Respondent be restored respectively.

(c) The Petitioner NEIN EBIAKPO was duly elected and ought to have been returned elected and;

(d) Your humble petitioner re declared validly elected to represent Sagbama Constituency II in the State House of Assembly having polled the majority of lawful votes cast at the election.”

The 1st Respondent filed a reply to the petition and a Joint reply was filed by the 2nd-4th Respondents. The petition thereafter came on for trial before the Tribunal.

At the hearing, the petitioner led evidence in support of his petition while the appellant testified and called four other witnesses.

The 2nd-4th Respondents called no witness in support of the averments in their reply to the petition.

At the conclusion of the trial, and after submissions of learned counsel the tribunal in a reserved judgment delivered on 22/3/99 held inter alia that the petitioner was duly elected and ought to and declared him the winner of the election.