Action Congress & Anor. V. Dr. Anthony Manzo & Ors. (2008)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

ALFFRED P. EYEWUMI AWALA, J.C.A,

This appeal is predicated on the general election nation wide held on 21/4/2007 for seats at the senate including the one meant for Taraba North Senatorial District. The 2nd Appellant sponsored the 1st Appellant for the election. The 1st Respondent equally contested the election on the platform of the People Democratic Party (PDP), not jointed as a party in this appeal.

At the end of the collation of election results, the 1st Respondent Dr Anthony Manzo was returned elected with a total of 225, 981 votes whilst the 2nd Appellant came third with a total of 21,466 votes. Hon AIMashi Alhassan Al-Gaddas of the All Nigerian Peoples Party (ANPP) placed 2nd with a total of 30,744 votes. Aggrieved by the election result the Appellants filed a 77 paragraphed petition No. NAEPT/T6/S/20/07 dated 21/5/07 against the 1st Respondent and 27 other Respondents at the National Assembly/Governorship and Legislative House Election Tribunal for Taraba State holden at Jalingo (herein after called the lower tribunal).

The reliefs claimed by the Petitioners/Appellants are as follows:-

“WHEREOF pray that it be determined that Dr Manzo George Anthony the 1st Respondent was not duly elected or returned as senator elect for Taraba North Senatorial District during-the elections of 21st April 2007 herein. Your petitioners claim the following additional reliefs:-

i) An order of Court setting aside the unlawful and wrongful return of the 1st Respondent as declared by the 4th Respondent in the elections of 21st April, 2007.

ii) An order voiding the purported elections and return of votes declared for all the candidates in the election of 21st April, 2007.

iii) An order of the tribunal directing the 2nd to 10th Respondent to conduct fresh elections to fill the Senatorial seat for Taraba North Senatorial District within a period fixed by the tribunal.

iv) Any further order (s).”

The lower tribunal after a considered judgment delivered on 16/11/07 dismissed the petition on the ground that a good number of the paragraphs of the petition, precisely paragraphs 18, 25, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 38, 39, 41, 45, 46, 47, 48, 50, 54, 55, 56, 57, 59, 61, 62, 63, 65, 66, 67, 68, 70, and 72 were offensive following the objection raised by the 1st Respondent in his Reply to the petition, that the said paragraphs pleaded criminal conducts by the Presiding Officers at the polling units without joining them as Respondents in the petition. And for failure to prove late or non-arrival of polling materials in 16 out of the near 40 polling stations in the senatorial district.

Dissatisfied with the said judgment the Appellants filled a Notice of Appeal formulating five grounds. They distilled two issues for determination in their Appellants’ Brief of Argument deemed filled on 31/3/08 as follows:-

1. “Whether the lower tribunal was right to have struck out various and substantial paragraphs of the petitioners’ petition on the belated objection of the 1st Respondent on the ground that presiding officers in the affected units were not joined (Ground 1).
2. Whether the lower court was right in refusing to nullify the election of the 1st Respondent having regard to the state of the pleadings in respect of allegations of the late or non-arrival of electoral materials and the evidence led in that regards (Grounds 2, 3 and 5).”

Note that the 4th ground of Appeal was abandoned by the Appellants as they not distilled any issue from it.

On his part, the 1st Respondent adopted the two issues canvassed by the appellants with slight modification in his Brief of Argument filed within time on 31/3/08. They are as follows:-

1. Whether the lower tribunal was right to have struck out various and substantial paragraphs of the petitioners’ petition on the ground that the presiding officers in the affected units were not joined as respondents.
2. Whether on the settled state of the pleadings and evidence led at the trial, the lower tribunal was right in its finding that sufficient evidence was not adduced to sustain the petition in respect of late arrival of electoral materials.

Similarly, the 2nd to 28th Respondents also couched two issues for determination of this appeal in their joint Brief of Argument filed within time on 31/3/08, to wit;-