Franklin Okonkwo V. Samuel Mbadiwe Onovo & Ors (1999)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

MUSA DATTIJO MUHAMMAD, J.C.A. 

There were nation-wide elections into Local Government Councils on 5th December, 1998. Mr. Samuel Mbadiwe Onovo had contested this election on the platform of the peoples Democratic Party (PDP), one of the registered political parties in the country. He sought election to office of a councilor for the Nomeh Ward of Nkanu East Local Government Area of Enugu State. Mr. Franklin Okonkwo had contested the same election and for the same seat as did Mr. Samuel, hereinafter called the petitioner/respondent. Mr. Franklin, who for the purposes of this appeal will be referred as the 1st respondent/appellant contested the election under the umbrella of the all peoples party (APP), another political party. Mr. Sunday Nkumah was fielded by the Alliance for Democracy (AD) as the third contestant. The first respondent/appellant was declared the winner.

The petitioner/respondent approached the Enugu State return Election petition Tribunal praying that the appellant/respondent’s/be declared void and a fresh election for the office of the councillor for the Nomeh ward be ordered. Petitioner’s complaint about appellant/respondent election was based on the following grounds:-

(i) That the election was voided by corrupt practices, irregularities or offences against the Local Government (Basic constitution and transitional provisions) Decree 36 of 1998.

(ii) That the first respondent was not duly elected by a majority of valid votes.

(iii) That the first respondent was not qualified to contest the said election.

The petitioners’ case at the tribunal was that there were no elections at the four booths designated for Nomeh ward. Voting had started in two out of the four booths when thugs led by the All Peoples Party chairman made its continuance impossible. At the two remaining booths, voting had not even commenced before elections were stopped by the same All Peoples Party thugs. Ballot boxes and electoral materials for the four booths were conveyed to the police station for custody and they were so kept there until they were produced at the tribunal for the purposes of the trial that brought about this appeal. The parties to the petition led evidence before the tribunal and in a considered judgment the tribunal voided the declaration of the appellant/respondent and ordered a fresh election as prayed by the petitioners. The appellant/respondent was dissatisfied and came before us with this appeal.

The appellant/respondent filed two grounds of appeal complaining against the whole decision of the tribunal. These grounds are:-

GROUND I

ERROR IN LAW – The election tribunal erred in law when it held that the petitioner/respondent proved his allegations of corrupt practices and offences against the Decree 36 of 1998.

PARTICULARS OF ERROR

(a) The standard of proof required in respect of the said allegation is beyond reasonable doubt.

(b) The evidence of the petitioner/respondent and his witnesses taken together destroyed his case.

(c) No reason was proffered by the tribunal why it rejected the evidence of the 3rd respondent.