Senator (Dr.) Chris Nwabueze Ngige & Anor V. Independent National Electoral Commission & Ors (2014)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

EMMANUEL AKOMAYE AGIM, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

In the October 2013 general election to the office of Governor of Anambra State held in Anambra State, the 3rd respondent who was the 4th respondent’s candidate in that election was declared the candidate with the highest number of votes cast at the election and then declared elected and returned.

By an election petition No. EPT/GOV/AN/02/2014 dated and filed on 20-12-2013, the appellants herein as petitioners questioned the election and return of the 3rd respondent. Upon being served with the petition, the respondents filed their respective replies to the petition.

In the 1st and 2nd respondents’ reply to the petition, it is stated that-

a. “1st and 2nd respondents shall pray the Tribunal at the pre-hearing conference, to strike out the 5th respondent from the petition on the ground that the 5th respondent is not a respondent within the contemplation of the Electoral Act, 2010 (As Amended), (hereinafter referred to as the Electoral Act).

b. To strike out the following paragraphs of the petition, viz-

(i) Paragraph 14(i)(ii)(iii), 15 (A)(1) on the ground that the facts pleaded are pre-election matters.

(ii) Paragraph 14(E),(aa), (ab), (ac), (ad), (ae), (af), (ag), (ah), (ai), (aj), and 23 on the grounds that-

(a) The facts pleaded are pre-election matters which are outside the jurisdiction of the Election Tribunal.

(b) The High Court of Anambra State in OT/140/2013: Oli v. Chief Obiano & Ors, which dealt with the issue of qualification of the 3rd respondent by reason of the alleged multiple registration determined that the 3rd respondent was qualified to contest for the office of the Governor of Anambra State.

(iii) Paragraph 15 (A)(v), (B)(i), and (C)(i) & (ii) of the petition is imprecise, and vague as the polling units affected by the alleged anomalies were not mentioned.

(iv) Paragraph 17(15)(i), (ii), (iii), (iv), (v) (a) of the Petition constitute pre-election matters not related to the election and grounds of the Petition.

(v) Paragraph 18(vi) and (vii) of the Petition on the ground that they are imprecise, nebulous and vague.

(vi) Paragraph 21(A)(5) of the Petition for the reason that the paragraph complained against “polling unit 008″ which was not tied to any ward.”