Abdulazeez Idris King & Anor. V. Suleiman Abdul Kokori & Ors. (2008)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

RABIU DANLAMI MUHAMMAD, J.C.A.

On 21st April, 2007, elections were held throughout the country into the National Assembly. The 1st appellant Abdulazeez Idris King contested under the platform of the 2nd appellant, peoples Democratic Party (PDP) for the Okene/Ogori Magongo Federal Constituency of Kogi State. The result of the said election was declared on the 22nd day of April, 2007. The 1st respondent herein, Suleiman Abdul Kokori, who was sponsored by the Action Congress (AC), was declared the winner by the 2nd 3rd and 4th respondents. The appellants were not satisfied with this declaration. They therefore, filed a petition before the Election Petition Tribunal sitting at Lokoja, Kogi State challenging the declaration of the 1st respondent as the winner of the election.

After full trial, the tribunal in its judgment dismissed the petition. The tribunal stated:-

“from the chart herein attached to this judgment, the candidate of Peoples Democratic Party scored total votes of 26,585 while the Action Congress candidate scored 31,527 votes.

In the light of the foregoing it is our view and we so hold that the Petitioners have failed to prove the grounds upon which the petition was presented and the petition falls for lack of merit and is accordingly dismissed. ”

The petitioners were aggrieved by this decision. They appealed to this court. The Notice and Grounds of Appeal contains eleven grounds of appeal. In accordance with the Rules of this Court, briefs of argument were filed and exchanged. The appellants in their brief of argument formulated eight issues for the determination of the appeal. The 1st respondent also identified eight issues for the determination of this appeal. The issues formulated by the appellants are:

”1. Whether the trial Tribunal was in error, when it struck out ground B of the Appellants’ Petition on the ground that the said ground is unknown to the law (Arising from ground One).

2. Whether after nullifying the result from 4 wards namely: Abuga Ozuja, Okene Eba/Agassa, Orietesu and Otutu, the trial Tribunal was right in accepting and computing votes from some polling units of the same ward in favour of the 1st Respondent (Arising from ground Two).
3. Whether the trial Tribunal was right in crediting the 1st Respondent with 10,859 votes from Idoji Ward in Exhibit C2.

And if correct, whether it was right to at the same time credit him with 6,053 votes from some of the polling units from the same

Idoji Ward (Arising from ground Three and Four).

4. Whether the trial Tribunal was right in crediting 1,785 votes from Upogoro/Odenku Ward arising from Exhibit C6 in favour

of pt Respondent. And at the same time crediting him with 1,160 votes from Exhibit H, H1 and H3 which are results from polling units from the same ward from which 1,785 votes had been credited to 1st Respondent. (Arising from ground Five).

5. Whether the trial Tribunal was right in validating votes from Exhibit G4 -G13 which had no INEC stamp after invalidating

Exhibit H4, F, F1, F5, K, J, J1-J5 and J7-J18 for absence of INEC stamp in line with section 64(2) of the Electoral Act.

(Arising from ground Six).

6. Whether the finding of the trial Tribunal was not perverse when it held that the evidence of PW1 and PW3 was vague having regard to the standard of proof required of the Appellant, when the Respondents had no defence to deny the claim of the Appellants. (Arising from ground Seven and Eight).
7. Whether the trial Tribunal was right in admitting and acting on Forms EC8A (ii) from various polling units of Idojl and Otutu Ward. (Arising from ground Nine).
8. Whether the trial Tribunal was right in its calculation and computation of valid votes earned by the contending parties. (Arising from ground Ten).

The issues formulated by the 1st respondent are:-

1. Whether the decision of the trial Tribunal which dismissed ground 8 of the petition as not being in compliance with the Electoral Act was proper and right. (Ground 1 of the Notice of Appeal).
2. Whether from the judgment of the Tribunal it nullified the results in all the polling units in four wards, Abuga Ozuja, Okene-Eba/AgassQ, Orietesu and Otutu ward, which prevents the Tribunal from computing some polling units results in the wards. (Ground 2 of the Notice of Appeal).
3. Whether the analysis and computation of the votes and results are calculated by the trial Tribunal in its chart with respect to Abuga, Ozuja, Okene-Eba, Orietesu and Otutu wards were flawed and palpably wrong as to vitiate the judgment of the Tribunal. (Ground 3, 4, and 5 of Notice of Appeal)
4. Whether the non-stamping of some polling units results forms’ have been shown to be in substantial non-compliance as to invalidate the elections conducted ;n the polling units. (Ground 6).
5. Whether the evidence of PW1 and PW3 were challenged under cross-examination as to render their evidence unreasonable and lacking in substance in relation to the proof of the allegations of crime contained in the petition (Ground 7 and 8).
6. Whether the trial Tribunal was right in admitting and relying on various Forms ECBA (ii) being the polling units results from Otutu and Idoji wards. (Ground 9).
7. Whether the 1st Respondent scored the lawful majority of the lawful votes cast at the election to warrant the reaffirmation of his return by the Tribunal in its judgment. (Ground 10 and 11).
8. Whether the Appellant having failed to formulate any issue or argue ground 11 in the Notice of Appeal has abandoned the ground.

It could be seen the two sets of issues are similar. I will therefore use the issue formulated by the appellants for the resolution of the appeal.