Chief Bola Ige V. Dr Victor Omololu Olunloyo & Ors (1984)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

OBASEKI J.S.C.

On the 19th day of October, 1983, after hearing all counsel

appearing in this appeal, I dismissed the appeal and reserved my reasons till today. I now give my reasons for the judgment.

On the 13th day of August, 1983, the Federal Electoral Commission conducted the gubernatorial election in Oyo State to the office of Governor of the State. Following the close of counting of the votes cast at the election, the returning officer appointed by the Federal Electoral Commission for Oyo State gubernatorial election, Mr. S. S. Ajibade, declared Dr. Victor Omololu Olunloyo the first respondent, duly elected. He contested the election under the sponsorship of the National Party of Nigeria (NPN). Chief Bola Ige, the petitioner/appellant, was also a candidate at the election, having been sponsored by the Unity Party of Nigeria (UPN).

There were four other candidates, one each being sponsored by the NPP, the GNPP, the PRP and the NAP respectively. The result of the election declared by the third respondent i.e. the returning officer showed that Dr. Victor Omololu Olunloyo received a total of 1,603,267 votes while Chief Bola Ige received a total of 1,095,877 votes. Chief Bola Ige was not satisfied with the results so declared and decided to challenge the election or return of Dr. Victor Omololu Olunloyo in the Oyo State High Court.

He presented and filed his election petition on the 22nd day of August, 1983. There were four respondents to the petition namely (1) Dr. Victor Omololu Olunloyo, (2) The Chief Electoral Officer for Oyo State (Mr. Stephen Sunmiboye Ajibade); (3) The Returning Officer, Mr. Daniel Adepoju Lapade Laniran and (4) The Federal Electoral Commission (FEDECO). The petition closed with a prayer which reads:

“Wherefore your petitioner prays that it be determined,

(1) that the first respondent, that is to say, the said Dr. Victor Omololu Olunloyo was not duly elected and/or returned and that his election is void.

(2) that your petitioner was duly elected and ought to have been elected and returned.”

The respondents filed their replies to the petition. The first respondent filed his own reply separately while the second, third and fourth responfiled a joint reply.

At the close of evidence on the 9th day of September, 1983, Mr. Chukura, S.A.N., learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant, made an unsuccessful oral application to amend the prayer by adding an alternative prayer to read:

“And in the alternative that the election is void.” The election panel refused the application on the ground that such an amendment is not permissible after 14 days from the date of the announcement of the results. The results were announced on the 16th day of August, 1983. Section 136 (2) of the Electoral Act bars such amendments.

The petition was heard by a panel of 5 judges namely, Olowofoyeku, J.; Chairman; Oloko, J; Ayorinde J.; Alao, J; and Popoola, J. At the close of counsel’s addresses, the panel retired to deliberate on the judgment to give. On the 12th day of September, the court (Olowofoyeku, J. and Oloko, J. dissenting) dismissed the petition in a well considered judgment, the closing paragraphs of which read:

“The third respondent has said he prepared exhibit 102 from exhibits 125 and 125U before he declared the results of the governorship election. The second respondent, like the third respondent and the second witness for the respondent was not shaken under cross-examination…