Olusola A. Oke V.independent National Electoral Commission & Ors. (2008)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

CHIDI NWAOMA UWA, J.C.A.

This appeal is against the Ruling of the Election Petition Tribunal (per Hon. Justice C. O. Onyeabo (member), (hereafter referred to as the Tribunal), sitting in Abeokuta, Ogun State, delivered on the 30th day of October, 2007.

In the House of Assembly election, conducted by 1st, 2nd, 4th – 14th Respondents on the 14th April, 2007, held in Imeko – Afon Local Government Area of Ogun State, the 3rd Respondent was declared as having won in the said election and returned. The Appellant who was one of the candidates in the said election aggrieved by the declaration and return of the 3rd Respondent filed his petition before the Tribunal, dated 11/5/07 on the same day challenging the declaration and return of the 3rd Respondent.

The 1st, 2nd, 4th – 14th Respondents filed their joint Respondents’ Reply dated 13/8/07, on 15/8/07. The 3rd and 15th Respondents’ Reply dated 25/7/07 was filed on 25/7/07.

On 24th September, 2007 the 3rd and 15th Respondents filed a preliminary objection to challenge the validity of the petitioner’s petition, an order was sought striking out/dismissing the petition for want of jurisdiction. The preliminary objection was argued on the 5th of October, 2007, the Ruling of the Tribunal was delivered on the 30th day of October, 2007.

The 1st, 2nd, 4th – 14th Respondents in a motion on Notice dated 28/9/07 filed on the same day, also challenged the validity of the petition. The Appellant as petitioner was dissatisfied with the Ruling of 30th day of October, 2007 and filed this appeal against the Ruling, by the Notice of Appeal dated 9/11/07 filed on 20/11/07, at pages 243 – 249 of the record of appeal.

Three (3) issues were formulated by the appellant for the determination of this appeal, namely:-

“(i) Whether the 1st, 2nd, 4th – 14th Respondents’ objection dated 28/9/07, and the 3rd Respondent’s Motion on Notice dated 24/9/07, are competent and ought to have been heard and determined by the Lower Tribunal the way it did. (distilled from grounds 2 and 3).

(ii) Whether, in the circumstances of the Appellant’s petition, the Lower Tribunal was right to have held that the petition is incompetent on the ground of lack of ‘locus Standi’ on the part of the petitioner (distilled from grounds 1 and 5).

(iii) Whether the Lower Tribunal, in the circumstances of the petition, was right to have struck out the petition on the ground of “bad joinder” (distilled from Ground 4).

The 1st, 2nd, 4th – 14th Respondents did not file anything in response. The 3rd and 15th Respondents formulated three (3) issues for determination.

“(i) Whether (pursuant to paragraph 49(2) of the first schedule of the Electoral Act 2006) the Respondents objection was taken within reasonable time.

(ii) Whether the petitioner pleaded material facts in his petition to establish his locus standi and thereby vest the Tribunal with jurisdiction to entertain same.

(iii) Whether the Tribunal properly struck out paragraphs 6, 13, 17, 20, 22 and 23 of the petition and the names of the 5th – 14th respondents.”