Angos Dide & Anor. V. Ebiotu Seleiletimibi & Ors. (2008)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

IBRAHIM MOHAMMED MUSA SAULAWA, J.C.A.

This is an appeal against the judgment of the Governorship and Legislative Elections Tribunal holden at Yenagoa, Bayelsa State delivered on 25/9/07, thereby dismissing the Appellants’ petition No.: LH/EP/BYS/11/07.

As it would appear from the records of the lower tribunal, on 14/4/07 the 3rd and 4th Respondents had conducted an election for membership into the Bayelsa State House of Assembly. The 1st Appellant, 1st Respondent and one Mr. Wilfred Ogbe had contested the said election on the platforms of the Labour Party (LP), the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and Movement for the Restoration and Defence of Democracy (MRDD) respectively. At the conclusion of the election in question, the 3rd Respondent declared the 1st Appellant as the winner thereof.

Dissatisfied with the result of the election, the Appellants filed their petition dated 14/5/07 in the lower tribunal praying for the following reliefs:

(a) That it be determined and I am the rightful winner of the Bayelsa State House of Assembly Election for Ekeremor Constituency II conducted on 14/4/2007 having scored the majority of lawful votes cast at the election.

(b) That the 1st Respondent did not win and cannot be declared the winner of the said election having not scored the majority of votes cast at the election.

(c) That it be determined that the 1st Respondent ought not to, and was not qualified to have contested the election on grounds of perjury and deliberate falsehood regarding his age and place of birth.

(d) That the 4th Respondent should issue the return certificate to me as I am the duly elected candidate for the said election.

(e) Alternative to relief (c) above, that it be determined that the original result forwarded by the 3rd Respondent to the Headquarters of 4th Respondent wherein I was returned as the duly elected candidate for Bayelsa State House of Assembly Election for Ekeremor Constituency II ought to be and is the correct version of the result of the said election.

Both the 1st and 4th Respondents filed their respective replies to the petition. The hearing of the petition commenced on 20/8/07, with the 1st petitioner testifying as PW1. The Appellants’ second witness (PW2) was one Oladeji Blessing Tunde, who testified on the same date. On 21/08/07, when the petition came up for continuation of hearing, the petitioners’ senior counsel, Mr. Adedipe SAN was absent but sent a letter to the lower Tribunal seeking an adjournment of the petition, on the ground that he had another election matter to attend on 23/8/07 in Akure, Ondo State. The lower tribunal, in considering the application in question, held inter alia, thus:

In the circumstances of this case, especially having regard to our Rulings of 21/08/07 on this and other related applications by the said counsel to the Applicants Mr. Adedipe SAN we are of the view that this application for adjournment does not only lack merit but is also a patent abuse of legal process. It is therefore refused. In consequence of the refusal the petitioners are deemed to have closed their case. The Respondents are therefore hereby called upon to open their defence since these were all in our ruling yesterday adjourning the matter today.

Consequently, both the counsel to the 1st and 2nd Respondents declined to call any witness and opted to rather rely on the 4th Respondent’s witness. One Patience Bokiri testified for the 4th Respondent as DW1, thus bringing the case for the defence to a close. The lower tribunal accordingly adjourned the petition to 10/8/97 for adoption of written address.

It is instructive that on the said 10/9/07, the petitioners’ counsel, Mr. Adedipe SAN, filed a Motion on Notice dated 07/9/07 seeking the following reliefs:

1. An Order setting aside the order of the Honourable Tribunal made on 22nd day of August, 2007 where in the petitioners/Applicants were foreclosed from calling further witness(s) in this petition.
2. An Order granting the petitioner/Applicant (sic) leave to conclude their defence through their last witness.
3. And of such Order or Orders as this Honourble Tribunal may deem fit to make in the circumstances of this petition.

The said Motion was expeditiously heard by the lower tribunal on the same day it was filed i.e. 10/9/07. At the conclusion of the oral submissions of the respective learned counsel on the application in question, the lower tribunal came to the following conclusions: