Mrs Onyido Ekwutosi Uchechukwu & Anor. V. Barr Uzama Simon Okpalake & Ors. (2010)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

AMIRU SANUSI, J.C.A.(Delivering the Leading Judgment)

This is an appeal against the judgment of the National Assembly/Governorship and Legislative Houses Election Tribunal, Awka, Anambra State (hereinafter referred to as (“the Tribunal”) delivered on the 14th day of May 2008. The 1st appellant herein contested election into the Anambra State House of Assembly on the platform of the All Nigerian Peoples Party (A.N.P.P). The election was held on the 14th day of April 2007.

The 1st respondent also contested the same election on the ticket of Peoples Democratic Party (P.D.P). Both the 1st appellant and the 1st Respondent contested the said election as members of the House of Assembly of Anambra State for the Ihiala II Constituency. The 2nd appellant herein and the 2nd respondents were the two registered political parties which sponsored the 1st appellant and 1st respondent respectively. The third respondent is the statutory body which conducted the elections with the assistance of 4th to 16th respondents who are its officials. At the end of the election, the 1st respondent was declared and returned winner of the election by the 5th Respondent, its Returning Officer.

After the declaration of results of the election by the 5th respondent in favour of the 1st respondent, the two appellants herein became dissatisfied with the declaration and return of the 1st respondent as the said winner of the election by scoring majority of lawful votes cast at the election, hence they filed their joint petition at the tribunal on 11th May 2007. The grounds upon which the petitioners now appellants presented the petition as contained in Paragraph 8 of their petition are adumbrated below –

1. That the 1st respondent was not elected with the majority of lawful votes cast at the election held on 14/4/2007 not having polled the highest number of majority of the lawful votes cast at the said election.
2. That the 3rd to 16th respondents should not have duly returned or declared, the 1st respondent as the winner of the said election.
3. The election or return of the 1st Respondent is invalid by reason of corrupt practices and non compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act 2006.
4. The 3rd to 16th Respondents unlawfully excluded the valid votes cast for your petitioners in determining the winner of the election.

Upon the above mentioned grounds of the petitioners’ petition, the petitioners sought the under-listed reliefs from the tribunal, namely –

(a) A declaration that the said 1st Respondent was not duly elected or returned and should not have been declared as duly returned or elected by the 3rd to 16th Respondents

(b) A declaration that the 1st petitioner is validly and duly elected or returned into the House of Assembly election for Ihiala II Constituency, having scored or polled the highest number of lawful votes cast at the said election of 14th April 2007. The Appellants claimed in the ALTERNATIVE

(c) A declaration that the election conducted for the Anambra State House of Assembly for Ihiala II Constituency is declared null and void for substantial rigging and corrupt practices which marred the election

(d) An order directing the 3rd Respondent to conduct a fresh election for the Anambra State House of Assembly for Ihiala II Constituency.

After filing and exchanging of pleadings, pre trial conference was held by the tribunal. Later hearing of the petition commenced in earnest.

The appellants called eight witnesses at the trial including the 1st petitioner/appellant herein, and tendered several documentary exhibits. On their part, the 1st and 2nd Respondents called three witnesses and also tendered several documentary exhibits. The 3rd to 16th Respondents called one witness, the Local Government Electoral Officer i.e. the 4th Respondent herein, and through him several documentary/electoral documents were also tendered in evidence. At the conclusion of and adoption addresses by learned counsel, the tribunal delivered its considered judgment on 14/5/2008 wherein, the joint petition of the two petitioners now appellants, was dismissed in its entirety.

Aggrieved by the decision of the tribunal dismissing their petition, the two petitioners appealed to this court vide their Notice of Appeal dated 30th May 2008 which contained six grounds of appeal but with leave of this court, the original notice of appeal was amended bringing about the increase of number of grounds of appeal by one in the Amended Notice of Appeal to make them seven instead of six grounds of appeal.

In keeping with the rules and procedure applicable in this court, parties filed and exchanged briefs of argument. The Appellants herein in his Amended Brief of Argument dated 23/1/2009 but filed on 25/3/2010 raised four issues for the determination of this appeal which are set out hereunder –

(a) Whether the tribunal misconceived the case of the parties (Grounds 1, 2, 4 & 5)