Chief Chris Nwaukoni V. Joan Onyemachi Bielonwu & Ors. (2010)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

CHIOMA EGONDU NWOSU-IHEME, (PH.D.), J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

The Appellant and the 1st Respondent were candidates for the Delta State House of Assembly elections for Aniocha South Constituency held on 14th of April, 2007 and conducted by the 2nd to the 12th Respondents. While the Appellant contested that election under the platform of the Peoples Democratic Party, the 1st Respondent contested under the 13th Respondent, the Accord Party. At the conclusion of the said election, the 1st Respondent was declared winner and thus returned as elected by the 2nd and 3rd Respondents. Aggrieved by the declaration and return, the Appellant, as Petitioner in the lower tribunal commenced proceedings therein by petition challenging the said declaration and return on six grounds set out in the petition as follows:

“(a) The 1st Respondent returned as winner of the election did not contest the election under any party from the printed ballot paper used for the election and in particular the Accord Party. Consequently all votes allegedly cast and counted for her are null and void.

(b) The 1st Respondent who is a PDP member up till the time of the election could not in all circumstances have been nominated by any party and in particular the Accord Party under which she was declared elected in that after the time nomination closed she got an order of court to be substituted for Petitioner as PDP candidate.

(c) The declared election results included that of Wards 4 and 5 despite the fact that no election took place in those wards the same having been marred with violence, gun shots which scared away voters while the collated results in Ward 9 was falsified when compared with the unit results from the ward.

(d) There was no basis to cancel the results of the stronghold of the Petitioner in Wards 1, 8 and 11 on the ground that the unit results were fraudulently kept away by Returning Officers in those wards from the constituency Returning Officer after the close of peaceful election in the units of the said wards. The collated results were not based on unit results in the wards an act deliberately (sic) done to enable 8th, 9th and 10th Respondents to falsify same to favour 1st Respondent, The unit results of the affected wards were given as required by law to Security Agencies and Agent of Petitioner.

(e) The Petitioner scored majority of the lawful votes cast at the election if the unit result in Wards 1, 8 and 11 are added to the results declared by INEC on 15th April, 2007 but with a wider margin if Wards 4 and 5 results are cancelled and the paper results in Ward 9 based on the units results are used instead of the falsified result allegedly collated but not used on the unit results in Ward 9.

(f) All results allegedly scored by 1st Respondent with the letter A without a party symbol or logo, which is mandatory, should be nullified or voided.” (See pages 544 – 345 of Vol. 1 of the Record of Appeal).

Now based on the foregoing grounds the Appellant crystallized the prayers he sought at the lower tribunal in the following terms:

“(i) That 1st Respondent did not contest the State House of Assembly Election into the Aniocha South Constituency under any party or Accord Party.

(ii) An order cancelling the results in Wards 4 and 5 of Aniocha South Constituency on the ground that there was no election in the two wards the same having been marred by election violence, gunshots so that whatever results declared were falsified.

(iii) An order that the cancellation of results of the election in Wards 1, 8 and 11 was unjustified being the fraudulent acts of 8th, 9th and 10th, Respondents who did not produce unit results handed over to them after the election in order to cover up their falsification of collated results and for the court to collate or add the unit results already collated by Petitioner from the Agents copies of the unit results or from other bodies entitled to the units results of the election, Wards 1, 8 and 11.

PARTICULARS OF FRAUD

(1) Keeping away time unit results from 4th and 5th Respondents