Chief Emmanuel Okechukwu & Anor V. Chief Princewill Chima Onyegbu & Ors. (2008)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

IBRAHIM MOHAMMED MUSA SAULAWA, J.C.A.

It is trite that the 2nd Respondent had on 14/4/2007 conducted election for membership in to the Atria State House of Assembly. The 3rd – 118th Respondents were the officers particularly charged by the 2nd Respondent to conduct the said election for Bende South State Constituency. Both the 1st Appellant and 1st Respondent had contested the election under the platforms of the People Democratic Party, (PDP), the 2nd Appellant and Progressive Peoples Alliance (PPA). A part from the 1st Appellant and 1st Respondent, five other candidates namely: Irogbu Felix, Barr. Uche Ogbonnaya, Egum N. Emmanuel, and Olu Moris I. Nnenna, had also contested the election in question under the platforms of the Action Alliance (AA), Action Congress (AC), All Nigeria Peoples Party (ANPP), and All Progressives Grand Alliance (APGA), respectively. At the conclusion of the said election, the 1st Respondent was declared and returned as the winner thereof, with a total of 6942 votes. A total of 2557 votes were credited to the 1st Respondent to clinch the second position in the race.

The results of the election did not however go down well with both Appellants. They accordingly filed a joint petition on 14/5/07 against the Respondents in the Governorship And Legislative House Election Tribunal, holden at Umuahia, Abia State, thereby praying for the following reliefs:

(a) That the 1st Respondent (Chief Princewill Chima Onyugbu) was not duly elected or duly returned by the 2nd – 5th Respondents

(b) That the 1st Respondent Chief Princewill Chima Onyugbu) did not score majority of the lawful valid votes cast in the election, and therefore ought not to have been declared elected or returned by the 2nd – 5th Respondents.

(c) That it may be determined by the Honourable Tribunal that the 1st petitioner was duly and validly elected by majority of the valid lawful votes cast in the election and therefore ought to have been returned as duly elected by the 2nd – 5th Respondents

(d) An order declaring the 1st Petitioner as valid and duly elected or returned having scored majority of the lawful valid votes cast at the election.

(e) Alternatively that the election of April 14, 2007 as regards Bende South Constituency be nullified and bye-election conducted by the 2nd Respondent.

At the end of the trial of the petition, the lower tribunal, corum Abdullahi Yusuf, J; (Chairman) C.L.O. Idahosa, A.L. Lawan, Sybil Nwaka, and Adulphus Enebeli, JJ; delivered a judgment on 10/01/2008, to the effect, inter alia, thus:

From the foregoing, therefore, the inevitable conclusion this Tribunal comes to is that the 1st petitioner did not score the majority of lawful votes did not prove falsification of results or over voting, the petitioners did not show that there was substantial non-compliance with the Electoral Act as to nullify the election in the Bende South Constituency.

This Tribunal cannot therefore invoke section 146(1) of the Electoral Act. This petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to cost. See page 809 of the record.

Dissatisfied with the judgment in question, the Appellants filed a notice or appeal (dated 30/01/08) on 31/01/08 in the lower tribunal’s registry. The notice of appeal was predicated upon a total of eight grounds of appeal, thereby praying this court to – “Set aside the decision of the Tribunal and grant the prayers contained in the Petition of the Appellants.”

It is rather instructive that parties had filed and served their respective briefs of argument. The Appellants’ briefs in particular was filed on 28/4/08 by Nwabu M. Nwosu Esq. Two issues distilled from the eight grounds of appeal were formulated therein, to wit- 2.1 Whether in the circumstances, the Tribunal was under a duty to apply the provisions of the Manual for Election officials, 2007 (Exhibit AK) and whether its failure did not occasioned (sic) a miscarriage (sic) (GROUNDS 1, 2, 3 and 6).

2.2 Whether the trial Tribunal had a duty (sic) evaluate the statements of results and other documents tendered, and admitted in evidence at the trial, including collating the results in order to determine as between the petitioners and the 1st Respondents who scored majority of lawful votes at the election. (GROUNDS 4, 5, 7 and 8).