Ebi Matthew Sunny Goli & Ors V. Hon. Nelson Belief & Ors (2008)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

TIJANI ABDULLAHI, J.C.A.

This is an appeal from the ruling of the National Assembly/Governorship Legislative Houses Election Tribunal hereinafter referred as the lower Tribunal sitting at Yenagoa delivered on the 23rd of July 2007 wherein the petition of the Appellant was dismissed for non-compliance with the provisions of Section 144 (1) of the Electoral Act, 2006.

It is pertinent to state from the onset that after the declaration of the results of the election in which the 1st Respondent was returned as the winner of the election with 187, 760,06 as against the Respondents who scored 6,593, 435, 657 and 634 votes respectively, the Appellants who were the Petitioners jointly filed a single petition together with their political parties challenging the return of the Appellant.

On the 12th of July, 2007, 2nd to the 5th Respondents filed a Notice of Preliminary Objection as follows:

“TAKE NOTICE THAT at the hearing of this petition.

The 2nd to 5th Respondents/Applicants shall move this Honourable Tribunal by way of Preliminary Objection for:

AN ORDER striking out the petition as same is incompetent and not properly before this Honourable Tribunal;

AND FOR such further or other orders as this Honourable Tribunal shall deem fit to make in the circumstance.

AND TAKE NOTICE THAT the grounds for the preliminary objection are as follows:

1. That the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Petitioners/Respondents, being candidates sponsored by the 4th, 5th and 6th Petitioners/Respondents respectively in the 21st April, 2007 National Assembly Elections for the Brass/Nembe Federal Constituency of Bayelsa State, are persons and parties with divergent interests in the said election and cannot therefore be joined as co-petitioners in one petition.
2. That the joinder of 1st to 6th Petitioners in one petition is bad for misjoinder as the requisite common interest which should ground a joinder of Petitioners is absent in this petition.
3. That each of the political parties in this petition having sponsored each of 1st to 3rd petitioners/Respondents, have separate and distinct causes of action accruing to each of them by virtue of Section 144 (1) of the Electoral Act, 2006 as amended and cannot therefore jointly present and maintain an election Petition.
4. That this petition fails the acid test of jurisdiction because a Court or Tribunal is vested with jurisdiction when, inter alia, the action is initiated by due process of law.”

The lower tribunal after hearing arguments from counsel on Preliminary Objection supra held thus:

“In the end we find the Preliminary Objection has merit. Consequently we hold that the petition lacks competence and hereby strike it out.”

Dissatisfied with the ruling of the lower Tribunal, the petitioners hereafter referred as the Appellants filed a Notice of Appeal consisting of two grounds. The grounds with their particulars read thus:

3. GROUNDS OF APPEAL
4. ERROR IN LAW

The tribunal erred in law when it held that we are of the view that from the facts in the petition the three different candidates is a clear violation of Section 144 of the Electoral Act.

PARTICULARS OF ERROR