Jude Ise-idehen & Anor V. Henry O. Okhuarobo & Ors (2009)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

GEORGE OLADEINDE SHOREMI, J.C.A.

This is an appeal against the judgment of the National Assembly/Governorship and Legislative Houses Election Tribunal Holden at Benin City, Edo State delivered on 21st day of April, 2008. The panel that heard the petition comprised Honourable Justices PETER N.C. UMEADI, A.S. TAHIR, ODANDE OGBUNIYA and S.M. ANJOR. Being dissatisfied with the whole decision, the Appellants filed a Notice of Appeal on 9th day of May, 2008. The Notice of Appeal containing 7 grounds is at pages 600-610 of the records.

The 1st Respondent, Henry O. Okhuarobo jointly brought a petition with his political party, the Peoples Democratic Party, the 2nd Respondent challenging the declaration of the 1st Appellant who is the candidate sponsored by the 2nd Appellant, the Action Congress, for the election held on the 14th day of April, 2007, into the Edo State House of Assembly, Ikpoba-Okha Constituency, as the winner of the said election. The 3rd to 17th Respondents are statutory body of persons and bodies charged with the responsibility of conducting the election whose result was challenged in the trial Tribunal. By his petition, the 1st Petitioner in the Tribunal below and 1st Respondent herein claims that he has a right to have been declared or returned as the winner of the election into the Edo State House of Assembly, Ikpoba-Okha Constituency.

THE PETITIONER BROUGHT HIS PETITION BEFORE THE TRIAL TRIBUNAL CLAIMING:

1. That although elections took place in the various Wards 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 and 9 on the 14th April 2007 of the Edo State House of Assembly, Ikpoba-Okha Constituency, the results of the election in the nine wards were not properly collated.
2. That the various result from the polling unit (as reflected in the various From EC 8A(i) at Wards 1,2,3,4,5 and 9 of the Edo State House of Assembly Ikpoba-Okha Constituency were not properly collated and that all the relevant results in the Form EC 8A(i) referred to in this petition should be properly collated in Form EC 8B(i) for the said Wards.
3. That upon a proper collation of the lawful votes cast at the election, JUDE ISE IDEHEN would

be found not to have been duly elected or returned and the said HENRY O. OKUAROBO was duly elected and ought to have been returned.

4. That the purported “returning” of the 1st Respondent as the person/candidate, Ikpoba-Okha Constituency to Edo State House of Assembly in the Legislative House Elections held on the 14th day of April, 2007 and the purported elections and return of the 1st Respondent be nullified.
5. That Henry O. Okuarobo was the winner of the election for Edo State House of Assembly, Ikpoba-Okha Constituency based on proper collation of the lawful votes cast at the election.
6. An order returning the 1st Petitioner as the elected candidate of the Edo State House of Assembly in Ikpoba-Okha Constituency in the Legislative House Election held on the 14th day of April, 2007 been a qualified candidate to contest the said election and having polled the highest number of lawful votes in the election of 14th April, 2007 in the said Ikpoba-Okha Constituency, Edo State House of Assembly.

In the main, the Petitioner in the trial tribunal challenged the return/declaration of the 1st Appellant as the winner of the election on the ground that he did not score the majority of lawful votes cast at the election, this, he claimed resulted from thuggery activities of the 2nd Appellant’s supporters who prevented INEC collation officers from collating the overall valid votes legally cast at the said election. ”

At the close of the case the Tribunal held as follows:

“In the light of the totality of the evidence adduced, coupled with the counsel submissions we are fortified in holding that there was no proper collation of the results. The Petitioners prayer includes:

That the purported “returning of the 1st Respondent as the person/candidate elected as member representing the Ikpoba-Okha Constituency at the Edo State House of Assembly Elections held on the 14th day of April, 2007, and the purported election and return of the 1st Respondent be nullified.

The Respondent wants us to dismiss the petition. It is the submission of the Respondent that the necessity to call the presiding officers or unit agents becomes more imperative in the light of the defence put up by the 1st and 2nd Respondents that the agents of the Petitioners took the result sheets to unknown destination to fill and later smuggle them in for collation.

The Petitioners too submitted that it was the Respondents in varying degrees that made proper collation of the result impossible. There is also an allegation RW2 before this Tribunal that a whole vehicle load of election materials was snatched. These allegations and counter allegations cast doubt on the authenticity of results, we therefore refused the application to collate the result of the election.

We accordingly annul the election and return of the 1st Respondent. We order the cancellation of Certificate of Return and order that a fresh election be conducted by INEC within 90 days from to day the 21st April, 2007. ”

The Appellant being dissatisfied by the judgment filed Seven (7) Grounds of Appeal set out herein without particulars.

GROUND ONE: