Adamu Muhammed Yahaya V. Jubril Aminu & Ors (2003)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

OLUDADE OLADAPO OBADINA, J.C.A.

This is an appeal against the decision of the National Assembly/Governorship and Legislative Houses Election Tribunal holden at Yola in Adamawa State, delivered on the 6th day of June, 2003; Coram: their Lordships Hon. Justice Abdullahi, Yusuf, chairman; Hon. Justice Akon Kpeme, member; Hon. Justice Wahid Kolade Olaifa, member; Hon. Khalid Abdullahi Waiya, member; and Chief Registrar Adam Idris, member (hereinafter called the tribunal).

The appellant herein was the petitioner at the tribunal, while the respondents were the respondents.

By his petition at the tribunal, the petitioner challenged the election and return of the 1st respondent as the elected senator for Adamawa Central Senatorial District. The petitioner alleged rigging and electoral malpractices. The main complaints of the petitioner were alleged over-voting, alleged one hundred percent (100%) voting and alleged non- voting in various polling stations and units. The 1st respondent entered a conditional appearance and proceeded to raise a preliminary objection, seeking for an order either to dismiss or strike out the petition, or strike out substantial paragraphs of the petitioner’s petition; or in the alternative, an order directing the petitioner not to lead evidence on specific paragraphs of the petition.

The grounds of the objection by the 1st respondent were two, namely:

(1) That the petitioner did not specify parties interested in the petition and

(2) That the petitioner did not join as co-respondents, officers whose conducts were challenged.

The 5th respondent filed a similar objection. The tribunal heard arguments of all the counsel for the parties and in its considered ruling dated 6th of June, 2003, the tribunal upheld the objection and struck out the petitioner’s/appellant’s petition. The petitioner was not satisfied with the decision contained in the said ruling. He therefore appealed to this court on five (5) grounds of appeal.

From the five (5) grounds of appeal, the petitioner identified only one issue as follows:

“Was the Election Petition Tribunal right in striking out the appellant’s petition and holding same incompetent for non-joinder of necessary parties?”

From the same five (5) grounds of appeal filed by the petitioner, the 1st respondent also raised one issue in the following terms:

“Given the petitioner’s complaints of irregularities and malpractices at the polling units, was the tribunal right in striking out the petition on ground of non-joinder of presiding officers.”

Similarly, the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 6th – 61st respondents also distilled one issue from the grounds of appeal filed by the appeal. The issue reads as follows:

“Whether the tribunal was legally justified to have struck out the petition on 6/6/2003 for being incompetent, by reason of non-joinder of necessary parties to the petition?.”