Egnr. Nosakhare Isaac Osahon & Anr. V. Hon. Ehiogie West-idahosa & Ors. (2009)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

CHIOMA EGONDU NWOSU-IHEME (Ph.D), J.C.A,

The Appellant in Appeal No.CA/B/EPT/173/08, Hon. Ehiogie West-Idahosa was the 1st Respondent in Petition NO.EDNA/EPT/6/07 at the lower tribunal. He was the Candidate of the 21st Respondent in this appeal, the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) at the House of Representative election for Ovia Constituency held on the 21/4/07. The 1st Respondent in the appeal, Engr. Nosakhare Isaac Osahon, was the Candidate of 2nd Respondent, the Action Congress (A.C.). The 3rd to 20th Respondents in the appeal were the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, and its officials that conducted the said election.

At the conclusion of the election, the appellant was declared victorious and returned as elected. Dissatisfied with the declaration and return, the 1st & 2nd Respondents, as Petitioners, commenced proceedings by way of an Election Petition which they later amended at the lower tribunal by which they questioned the election on two grounds namely:

1. That the appellant (1st Respondent at the tribunal) was not validly elected by majority of lawful votes cast at the said election.

IN THE ALTERNATIVE,

2. That the election was invalid by reason of corrupt practices and or non compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act 2006; and then sought the following reliefs:

“(a) That it be determined that the 1st Respondent was not elected by a majority of lawful votes cast in the election and that his election be nullified and his return set aside.

(b) That it be determined that the 1st Petitioner was duly elected by a majority of lawful and valid votes cast and he should be returned as such.

ALTERNATIVELY

(a) That the result declared by the 2nd Respondent returning the 1st Respondent as winner be nullified and INEC be directed to conduct afresh election.

The Respondents filed their various replies to the Petition. Thereafter the Petition proceeded to trial, at the end of which the lower tribunal in its Judgment at page 860 of the record of appeal held that the Petitioners had proved their case of “Corrupt practices, violence and rigging beyond reasonable doubt as well as non-compliance which had substantially affected the election and are entitled to Judgment …..”

It then proceeded to nullify the election and return of the appellant (1st Respondent at the lower tribunal) and to order the conduct of a fresh election.

Dissatisfied with the Judgment, the appellant appealed to this Court on thirty one (31) grounds from which he formulated 9 issues which are not necessary, for their prolixity, to be set out herein.

The 4th Respondent at the lower tribunal also appealed against the Judgment in appeal NO.CA/B/EPT/175/08 and therein raised Ten issues for determination. The Petitioners at the lower tribunal also Cross-Appealed against the Judgment in appeal NO.CA/B/EPT/174/08 and raised only one issue for determination. All the three appeals were consolidated for hearing.

From all the issues formulated by the parties, it is my view that three issues which span the entire garmut of the grounds of appeal in all the three appeals and which cover all the issues variously formulated by the parties in these appeals are discernable and they are:

1. Whether from the pleading and evidence the lower tribunal was right in holding that the Petitioners proved their case beyond reasonable doubt.
2. Whether there was proper evaluation of the evidence led at the tribunal before the tribunal arrived at its decision.
3. Whether the tribunal was right in nullifying the election and return of the appellant and ordering a fresh election.

As these three issues are closely knit together, I propose to take them together.