Action Congress (AC) & Anor V. Kenan Y. Kaigama & Ors (2007)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

BULKACHUWA, J.C.A. 

The first appellant is a registered political party which sponsored the 2nd appellant in the 14th April, 2007 general election to the Taraba State House of Assembly for Bali 1 Constituency. The 2nd appellant contested the election with amongst others the 1st respondent, at the end of which the 3rd respondent who conducted the election declared the 1st respondent as the winner and returned him as the duly elected member representing Bali 1 Constituency in the Taraba State House of Assembly.

The appellant being dissatisfied with the outcome of the election filed a petition before the Governorship/Legislative Houses Election Petition Tribunal, Jalingo, Taraba State on the following grounds:

“(1) Your petitioner states that the 1st respondent is not qualified to contest the election of 14th April, 2007 on grounds of educational qualification and age.

(2) Your petitioner states also and in addition to or in alternative to the above that the election of 14/4/2007 in the area set out in this petition was characterized by irregularities and electoral malpractice and the return of 1st respondent is undue (sic).”

On being served with the petition the 2 sets of respondents filed motions challenging the competence of the petition and the jurisdiction of the lower tribunal to entertain same, on the grounds that;

(1) The petition dated 14th May, 2007 was neither signed by Caleb K. Atiman, Esq (the solicitor named at the foot of the petition) nor by any of the petitioners;

(2) The petition dated 14th May, 2007 has no occupier in the address for service on the petitioners;

(3) The tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear and determine the allegation raised in paragraphs 16, 17, 18, 19 and 23(a) and (c) of the petition as they relate to information contained in the 3rd respondent’s Form CF 001;

(4) The tribunal cannot entertain evidence in respect of the allegation raised in paragraphs 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 21 of the petition as they raised allegation against presiding officers that have not been joined in the petition.”

After listening and considering the arguments of counsel on the above application, the lower tribunal in a considered ruling delivered on the 13/7/07, struck out the petition on the ground that the petition was not properly initiated before it having not been signed by the solicitor whose name appeared at the foot of the petition.

The petitioner, now appellant being dissatisfied with the said ruling has appealed to this court on 3 grounds of appeal. Parties filed and exchanged their briefs of argument and at the hearing of this appeal they adopted same.

In his brief, the appellant raised the following issues for the determination of this appeal:

1. Whether the tribunal below was right to have declined jurisdiction to adjudicate on the appellants’ petition No.EPT/TR/SHA/06/2007 dated and filed on the 14th May, 2007 by striking out same on the ground that the said petition was not signed by the solicitor whose name appeared at the foot of the petition.
2. Whether it was proper for the tribunal below to have struck out the 10th respondent’s name from the petition on the ground that he is a non-juristic person and thus not properly before the tribunal.

The two sets of respondents i.e. 1st respondent and 2nd – 10th respondents adopted the issues formulated by the appellant and based their arguments on them.