Col. Muhammadu Bello Kaliel (Rtd.) & Anor V. Alhaji Mohammed Adamu Aliero & Ors (1999)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

D. MUHAMMAD, J.C.A.

The appellants herein were the petitioners at the Governorship and Legislative House Election Tribunal Birnin Kebbi. They were sponsored by the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) to contest the election as Governor and Deputy Governor of Kebbi State at the election held on 9th January, 1999. The 1st and 2nd respondents contested the election for the same positions under the umbrella of the All Peoples Party (APP). At the close of the election, the returning officer, i.e. the third respondent returned the 1st and 2nd respondents as duly elected by a majority of 257, 489 votes. The appellants were said to have obtained 208,522 votes.

The appellants were dissatisfied with the results declared by the returning officer. They, therefore presented a petition before the Governorship and Legislative Houses Election Tribunal, Birnin Kebbi, (hereinafter referred to as “the tribunal”).

In the petition, the appellants prayed for the following declarations:-

“(i) That the 1st and 2nd respondents were not qualified to contest the election of 9th January, 1999 and that all the votes cast in their favour at the said election are invalid, null, void and of no effect.

(ii) That the election of the 1st and 2nd respondents is vitiated by corrupt practices.

(iii) That the petitioners and not the 1st and 2nd respondents are the persons duly elected by majority of lawful votes, cast at the election.

Alternatively:-

(iv) An order nullifying the election of 9th January, 1999 and order for fresh election.

(v) And such further orders as this honourable tribunal may deem fit to make in the circumstances.”

Before the petition was heard by the tribunal, the 2nd respondent filed a motion on notice praying for the following orders:-

“1. An order striking out the petition for non-compliance with section 133(2) of Decree No.3 of 1999, paragraphs 5 and 7 of Schedule 6, and paragraph 6(3) of Schedule 5 of Decree No.3 of 1999.

2. An order striking out the petition for lack of jurisdiction based on the reasons and grounds in prayer 1 above.
3. Such other or further order(s) as the honourable tribunal shall deem fit to make in the circumstances.”

The tribunal heard arguments from all the counsel in the matter and in a reserved ruling it held that the petition was not properly before the tribunal because the petitioners failed to provide the address for service as well as the name of the occupier of the address as required by paragraph 5(4) or Schedule 6. The tribunal also held that the petitioners did not join all the necessary parties to the petition. The tribunal then struck out the petition.

Aggrieved with this decision, the petitioners appealed to this court. They filed five grounds of appeal. The second respondent also cross-appealed. However, at the hearing of the appeal, the 2nd respondent applied to withdraw the cross-appeal. The cross-appeal was struck out accordingly. Shorn of their particulars, the grounds of appeal read:-