Chief Prince a. N. Ukaegbu V. Chief Nnanna H. Uzor & Ors. (2) (2006)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

V.A.O. OMAGE, J.C.A.

This is an appeal against the judgment in the decision of the National Assembly Election Tribunal delivered on 19/3/2005 which sat at Aba. The decision of the said Tribunal is founded on the petition of Prince A.N. Ukaegbu, against the 1st Respondent, Chief Nnanna Uzor who had contested the election on the platform of A.D. The petitioner/appellant had contested the election of 12th April, 2003 on the platform of a party which he never stated in his petition, but from other indications it showed that the petitioner contested his election on the platform of APGA. In the petition in the Tribunal below as in this court, the appellant cited also the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) as the 2nd respondent, Electoral Officer, Aba North Local Government, Electoral Officer, Aba South Local Government, Returning Officers, Wards Collating Officers of Wards 1-12 Aba South Local Government, as the 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th Respondents, respectively. The appellant filed eighteen grounds of appeal including his additional ground and formulated thereon thirteen issues as contained in his brief filed in this court on 27th April, 2005. For the treatment of the issues it is necessary to state hereon the issues:

“(1) Whether the joint Reply of 2nd-7th Respondents either as a whole or as it pertains to the 2nd Respondent ought to be struck out for failure of the 2nd Respondent to obey the order of discovery?

(2) Whether the evidence of RW1 and RW2 regarding their roles as agents on the day of election are supported by the relevant averments in the Reply of the 1st Respondent?

(3) Whether the Tribunal rightly held that the 1st Respondent was qualified for the election?

(4) Whether the failure of the Tribunal to rule on the effect of failure of the 2nd Respondent to produce the form of the 1st Respondent in evidence led to a miscarriage of justice?

(5) Whether the Tribunal committed a breach of right to fair hearing in suo motu raising and deciding on the issue of late nomination as a ground for questioning an election and what, if any, is the effect?

(6) Whether the Tribunal was right in admitting and relying on exhibits R9 and R38 (i.e. result forms tendered by the 2nd to 5th Respondents) when they did not plead any vote and did not file any list of objection as required under paragraph 15 of the 1st Schedule of the Electoral Act?

(7) Whether the certified true copies of the result tendered by the 2nd to 7th Respondents satisfied the conditions required for the presumption of genuineness and correctness?

(8) Whether the Tribunal erred in law in failing to enter a decision on the effect of failure of the Respondent to join issues on votes with the petitioner and whether the failure led to a miscarriage of justice?

(9) Whether the allegation of alteration and inflation of votes in favour of the 1st Respondent was proved?

(10) Whether there is a cause of action against the 1st Respondent in respect of the allegation of inflation and alteration of votes?

(11) What is the legal effect of exhibit P64 which showed that number of votes ascribed to the 1st Respondent in Ward 12 in exhibit r25(11) were more than the accredited and registered voters?

(12) Whether the judgment is against the weight of evidence?