Silas Odo V. Fidelis Ayogu & Ors (1999)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

JOHN AFOLABI FABIYI, J.C.A.

As can be garnered from the Petition filed by the Petitioner on 12/3/99 especially at page 1 of the record of appeal, the Petitioner, 1st Respondent and one Onyeze Mike were candidates in the Federal House of Representatives election which was held on 20/2/99 nation-wide. Each of the three candidates desired to represent the good people of Igbo-Eze North/Udenu Federal Constituency in the Federal House of Representatives. The three stated candidates contested on the Platforms of Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), All Peoples Party (APP) and Alliance for Democracy (AD) respectively. At the end of the election, the 2nd – 4th Respondents declared the 1st Respondent as the winner. The Petitioner felt he had cause to cry foul and consequently filed this Petition at the National Assembly Election Tribunal, Enugu State on 12/3/99.

It is instructive to state that on 19/3/99, a motion on notice was filed on behalf of the Petitioner/Appellant who desired to join some Returning Officers at the stated election as co-respondents. Presumably, this was aimed at giving the Petition real live and blood. The motion was argued on 10/4/99.

In a two-page reserved ruling handed out by the Trial Tribunal on 12/4/99, the application to amend and/or join the necessary parties was refused. The Tribunal adopted their ruling in suit No. NAET/ST/EN/2/99. Surprisingly too, arguments of all counsel were not considered and appraised at all. The Petitioner/Appellant felt dis-satisfied with the interlocutory ruling and so appealed to this court on 16/4/99.

The Notice of Appeal dated 14/4/99 was filed on 16/4/99.

It was accompanied by six grounds of appeal which, without their particulars, read as follows:-

“(i) The Tribunal erred in law in refusing the application for amendment sought.

(ii) The Honourable Tribunal erred in law in its reliance on the decision in Appeal No. CA/A/EPPR/1/99: Chief Chuba Egolum v. General Olusegun Obasanjo in refusing the amendment.

(iii) The reliance placed by the Honourable Tribunal on the decision in Ogundiran v. Olalekan & Ors (1998) 8 NWLR Part 561) page 321 was equally misconceived and wrong in law.

(iv) The Honourable Tribunal erred in law when it relied on its ruling in Petition No. NAET/ST/En/2/99 and refused the amendment and stated:

‘The purported amendment Exhibit A is a substantial alteration of the original election petition.

Alteration of these matters are forbidden under the law cited above’.

(v) The Honourable Tribunal erred in Law when it failed to hold that paragraphs 7 to 19 of the 1st Respondent’s counter affidavit contravened the provision of section 87 of the Evidence Act.

(vi) The Honourable Tribunal erred in Law when in its Ruling, it adopted its Ruling in Suit No. NAET/ST/EN/2/99 to apply in this case and failed to distinguish this case with (sic) Chief Chuba Egolum v. General Olusegun Obasanjo.”