Dickson Ifiok Inyang & Anor V. Hon. Ifiok Anietie Etuk & Ors (2012)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

MOHAMMED LAWAL GARBA, J.C.A. (delivering the Leading judgment)

On the 07-01-2012, I had dismissed this appeal summarily for reasons which I reserved for a later date. I would now give my reasons for that decision, but before then, I would in brief, state the facts from which the appeal arose as borne out by the printed record before us.

The Appellant and 1st Respondent were candidates, among others, who contested the election conducted by the 3rd Respondent for the Nsit Ibom State Constituency of Akwa Ibom State on the 26-04-2011. They were sponsored by their respective political parties; the 2nd Appellant and the 2nd Respondent for the election at the end of which, the 1st Respondent was declared and returned as the winner. Not satisfied with the returned, the Appellants presented an election petition before the National and State Houses of Assembly Election Tribunal sitting at Uyo (to be called the tribunal after now) in which they questioned the election. The petition was presented (filed) on the 17-05-2011.

In the course of the proceedings of the petition, the Appellants filed an application on the 03-11-2011 in which they prayed for “an order of the tribunal” granting leave to the Petitioners to file ns an additional written witness statement on oath of Mr. Joshua vs Ekrang und deeming the separately filed

Mr. Joshua vs. Ekrang’s written witness statement on oath as properly filed and served.” At page 890 of the record of the appeal, the tribunal ruled that:

“In conclusion we find that this application lacks merit and it ought to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed.”

Later on at page 896 of the record of appeal, the tribunal stated thus:

“However, having concluded the business of the day we invite all Counsel in this petition to address the Tribunal on the proprietary of this petition to continue on Monday the 14th of November, 2011, today being the 180 days of the petition before this Tribunal.”

After taking addresses from the learned Counsel for the parties, the tribunal in its ruling delivered on the same 12-11-2011 which appears at pages 904-907 of the record of appeal, had concluded thus:

“It is very obvious that this petition is at the stage of pre-trial as at today and there is no way this Tribunal could hear a total of 26 witnesses which all the parties intend to call to prove their respective cases at the end of pre-trial, today, and also call for the addresses of Counsel today and also deliver our judgment today. So if judgment is delivered outside the 180 days it shall be deemed to be unconstitutional the petition having been dead. We therefore come to the final view that the petition lapses today and cannot be continued. It is hereby struck out on the ground of abatement. ”

As to be expected, the Appellants were dissatisfied with, indeed aggrieved by both decisions of the tribunal dismissing their application to file additional witness statement and striking out their petition on ground of abatement.

The Notice of Appeal filed by the Appellants against the decisions of the tribunal was dated and filed on the 29-11-2011 and it contains nine (9) grounds of appeal. It runs from pages 980 to 990 of the record of appeal.

In the Appellants’ brief filed on 12-12-2011, the learned Counsel for the Appellants; Mr. S.C. Peters, Esq. who settled it, distilled two (2) issues from the grounds of appeal which he submitted for determination. They are:

“(a) Whether in the circumstances of the appellants’ petition before the National and State Houses of Assembly Election Tribunal, Akwa Ibom State, the said tribunal was correct in law to have struck out Appellants/petitioners’ petition on the 12-11-2011. See grounds 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 9 of the Grounds of Appeal.