Alh. Ideje Sa’idu Samamo V. Tusha’u Muhammad Anka & Ors (1999)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

OMAGE, J.C.A. 

The verdict of the Senatorial election which took place on 20th February, 1999 in the Zamfara West Senatorial District as declared by the 2nd Respondent in this appeal is as follows:-

“The 1st Respondent; 62,997 votes Appellant 62,044 votes the 1st Respondent was declared the winner, and the 2nd Respondent declared the 1st Respondent duly elected the Senator for Zamfara West.

The Petitioner, the appellant in this appeal was dissatisfied with the declaration made by the 2nd Respondent; and went to the Election Tribunal.”

He filed a petition dated 12th March, 1999 before the National Assembly Election Tribunal sitting in Guria Zamfara State of Nigeria. In the petition the petitioner averred the following which I have summarised as heads of complaint as follows:-

(a) That the 1st Respondent was not duly elected by majority of lawful votes cast at the said election.

(b) That the said election is voided and invalid by reason of corrupt practices, and non compliance with the provisions of Decree No 5 of 1999.

(c) That the 2nd Respondent and its named agents did not observe the electoral guidelines.

(d) That votes cast at the Sakura polling station in Sakura Local Government Area were not correctly added up or counted at the Polling Station, and that the candidates were merely awarded votes. Upon service of the petition on the 1st Respondent, he made a conditional appearance and filed notice of a preliminary objection on the following grounds.

(1) That the petition is incompetent for non disclosure of the address and name of the occupier of the premises where the petitioner resides within 5 five kilometers of the post office in the judicial division.

(2) For non joinder of necessary parties.

(3) That since the above is not in compliance with the provision of Decree No 5 of 1999, the lower court has no jurisdiction to hear the petition.

The 1st Respondent also filed reply to the petition see the record of proceeding in the lower court. The 2nd – 39th Respondent filed a reply to the petition. The lower Tribunal rightly took before the hearing of the petition, the preliminary objection made by the 1st Respondent on petition. The lower Tribunal after hearing arguments and submissions on the preliminary objection raised by the 1st Respondent recorded on page 43 of the record, that it considered following issues which arose for its determination.

(1) “Whether failure to state the “Occupier” in the present petition filed by the petitioners herein as, required by paragraph 5 (4) and sub paragraph 5 (5) of schedule 5 to Decree No 30(sic) 5 of 1999 is fatal.