Banjo Omotola Peter V. Independent National Electoral Commission & Ors. (2008)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

M. DATTIJO. MUHAMMAD, J. C. A.

The 14th April 2007 Election into the Ogun State House of Assembly was conducted by the 1st, 2nd, 4th – 15th Respondents in this appeal. The 3rd Respondent, Alausa Olawale Hassan sponsored by the 16th Respondent, the P.D.P., contested the Ijebu Ode Constituency seat in the election and was

returned duly elected at the end of the polls. Aggrieved, the appellant herein, as the petitioner at the tribunal below, filed a petition dated 11th May, 2007 challenging the return of the 3rd Respondent. The two sets of Respondents to the petition, the 1st 2nd, 4th -15th Respondents and the 3rd and 16th Respondents filed their replies dated 12th and 11th June, 2007 respectively on 13th June. 2007.

The 3rd and 16th Respondents by an earlier application dated and filed on 10th July, 2007 at the pre-hearing stage of the petition, challenged the competence of appellant’s petition. The petition was said to have breached paragraphs 8(1) and 4(1) c, d and (3) of the 1st schedule to the electoral Act 2006. In the tribunal’s ruling dated 8th August, 2007 on the application, though the petition survived, its paragraph 25 (a) and (b) was ordered struck out.

Subsequently, the two sets of Respondents filed two separate but similar applications challenging the jurisdiction of the tribunal to hear appellant’s petition that had not disclosed the petitioner’s locus standi. The sole issue for the tribunal’s determination on the basis of the consolidated applications reads:

“Whether the petition is competent not having complied with the mandatory provisions of paragraph 4(1) (b) of the first schedule of the Electoral Act 2006 and S.106 (1) of the 1999 Constitution”.

In the tribunal’s ruling delivered on 24th October, 2007, sec pages 238 -254 of Volume 2 of the record of appeal, the objections of the two sets of Respondents were upheld and the petition accordingly struck out. Being dissatisfied with this ruling of the tribunal, the Petitioner has appealed to this court on a notice dated 13th but filed on 14th November, 2007 containing three grounds.

Parties have filed and exchanged briefs of arguments including appellant’s reply brief. These briefs have been adopted and relied upon by the parties at the hearing of the appeal.

In the appellant’s brief, the two issues formulated for the determination of the appeal read:

“(1) whether the respective applications of the 2 sets of respondents, upon which the lower tribunal’s ruling was based are competent (distilled from Ground 2)

(2) Whether m the circumstance of the appellant’s petition, the lower tribunal was right to have held the petition is incompetent on the ground of lack of locus standi on the part of the Petitioner (distilled from grounds 1 and 3)”

The 1st, 2nd, 4th – 15th Respondents have also distilled two issues in their brief of argument thus:-

“(1) whether the respective applications of the two sets of Respondents upon which the tribunal based its ruling arc competent.

(2)whether considering the facts pleaded in the petition, the Petitioner had disclosed his locus standi to present the petition before the lower tribunal.”