Dame Pauline Tallen & Ors. V. David Jonah Jang & Ors. (2011)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

CLARA BATA OGUNBIYI, J.C.A: (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

This is a cross-appeal against the Ruling of the Plateau State Governorship Election Tribunal, sitting in Jos (Coram Hon. Justices Joseph Jella, Olayinka D. Afolabi, Benson Ogbu) made on the 25th day of July 2011 wherein the learned Justices dismissed the 1st – 3rd Respondents’ motion on notice dated 14th July, 2011 which sought to set aside the order of the Tribunal made on 5th July, 2011 as well as to dismiss the petition as abandoned.

The background facts emanating from this appeal is apt and would be succinctly stated as follows:

The Cross-Appellants/Petitioners filed this Petition to challenge the declaration of the 1st and 2nd Respondents as winners of the April 26, 2011 gubernatorial election held in Plateau State by the 4th Respondent. The Respondents filed their response to the Petition.

The 3rd Respondent’s Reply to the Petition was served on the Petitioners’ Counsel, Paschal N. Mammo Esq., on 6/6/2011 while that of the 1st and 2nd Respondents was served on the same Petitioners’ Counsel on 10/6/2011.

The Petitioners however filed their reply to the 1st and 2nd Respondents’ reply as well as 3rd Respondent’s reply on 10/6/2011. The process was served on all Respondents on 10/6/2011 except the 3rd Respondent who was served through its Counsel on 13/6/2011.

On 15/6/2011 the Petitioners’ Counsel filed a motion ex parte dated 14/6/2011 praying this Honourable Tribunal for, inter-alia, an Order directing the issuance of pre-hearing conference notice on all the parties in this petition.

On 20/6/2011 the 4th Respondent filed a motion on notice dated 18/6/2011 in which it sought an order of the Tribunal enlarging the time within which the 4th Respondent may file and serve its reply to the petition as well as an order deeming the reply filed and served as having been properly filed and served.

On 22/6/2011, the 4th Respondent’s motion for enlargement of time was moved and granted. Hence, the Tribunal made an order deeming the 4th Respondent’s reply filed and served as having been properly filed and served with effect from that date.

In the circumstance that the 4th Respondent was out of time in filing its reply, the time to file the petitioners’ reply to the 4th Respondent’s reply began to run from the day the order of the Tribunal was made enlarging the time for the filing and service of the 4th Respondent’s reply.

Based on the preceding, the Petitioners filed and served their reply to the 4th Respondent’s reply on all the Respondents on 25/6/2011.

On 1/7/2011, the Petitioner filed a motion ex parte dated 1/7/2011 seeking from the Honourable Tribunal, inter-alia, to direct the issuance of pre-hearing notice on all parties in the petition. (Page 1574 of the Record of Appeal)

On 5/7/2011, the Cross-Appellants/Petitioners application for issuance of pre-hearing notice was heard and granted by the Tribunal which made the order directing the issuance and service of pre-hearing conference notice on the parties in the case and thus set down the matter for pre-hearing session.

On 14/7/2011 the 1st – 3rd Respondents filed a motion on notice seeking, inter alia, an order setting aside the order of 5th July, 2011 for issuance of the Pre-Hearing Notice and dismissing the Petition as abandoned petition. (Page 1584 of the Record of Appeal)