Busola Oyebode & Anor V. Ogundele Gabriel & Ors (2011)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

TOM SHAIBU YAKUBU, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

On 17th November, 2011, I dismissed this appeal and pursuant to section 9(8) of the second Alteration No.2 of 2010 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, (as amended), reserved the reasons therefore to a future date. The said reasons are hereby given.

The National and House of Assembly Election Petitions Tribunal sitting at Ado-Ekiti on 21st September, 2011 upheld the election of the 1st Respondent as the member representing Efon Constituency at the Ekiti State House of Assembly, in the general elections of 26th April, 2011. The Appellants’ petition against the aforementioned election was dismissed. The petitioners/appellants not being satisfied with the judgment of the lower tribunal, appealed to this Court. The appeal was erected on six (6) grounds of appeal. For ease of reference and appreciation, the said grounds of appeal, are reproduced hereunder, to wit:

“GROUNDS OF THE APPEAL

1. GROUND ONE

The learned Justices of the trial Tribunal erred in law and misdirected themselves as to facts when they failed to nullify the election and order a re-run into Efon House of Assembly Constituency having regard to the avalanche of believable oral and documentary evidence tendered by the appellants on the massive substantial non-compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act, 2010 as amended.

i. There were evidence of non-compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act led at the trial.

ii. Appellants led unrebutted credible evidence on non-accreditation and other Electoral malpractices in most of the polling units where the election was conducted’.

iii. The purported form EC8As in many of the polling units were falsified.

iv. The testimonies of the witnesses for the appellants on substantial non-compliance were without any credible rebuttal from the Respondents.

2. GROUND-TWO

The learned Justices of the lower Tribunal erred in law and misdirected themselves as to the facts of the case when it held thus;

“Furthermore, as no evidence was led on the documentary evidence tendered before the court, as regards the allegation of non-compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act, 2010, the submission of the learned counsel to the 1st and 2nd Respondents that the said documents were simply “dumped” on the tribunal is not only meritorious but unassailable”

PARTICULARS

i. The documents were pleaded.

ii. They were tendered and admitted in evidence by consent of parties.