Godswill Otu Ekasi Otu V. Independent National Electoral Commission (Inec) & Ors (1999)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

AKPABIO, J.C.A. 

This was an appeal against a decision of the Local Government Election Petition Tribunal in respect of Akwa Ibom State sitting at Uyo, under the Chairmanship of Omokri, J. delivered on the 26th January, 1999 in petition No. LGET/AK/23/98. Wherein the petition of the petitioner was struck out for being incompetent, in that it was filed outside the prescribed time. The petitioner being dissatisfied with that ruling has now appealed to this court. From henceforth the petitioner will in this judgment be referred to as the “appellant.”

At the said Local Government election which took place on the 5th December, 1998, the appellant contested for the post of Councilor under the platform of the “All Peoples Party (APP) at Eket Urban Ward 11. Two other candidate contested against him viz.:- Effiong Akpan Akpan on, the platform of Alliance for Democracy (AD) while the third, one Isang Godwin Isaiah (now the 3rd respondent) contested on the platform of the Peoples Democratic Party (P.D.P.). Even though, according to the appellant, credible elections took place at only five or the seven polling stations in the ward, while the elections at the other two were disrupted, the returning officer nevertheless returned the 3rd respondent (Isang Godwin Isaiah) as the duly elected candidate with the majority of lawful votes: even without declaring the results in the two polling stations in which voting was disrupted. He therefore field his petition against the election as already set out above.

However, after pleadings had been filed, but before commencement of hearing an application on notice dated 14th January, 1999, was brought on behalf of the 3rd respondent praying the tribunal for an order.

‘(a) Setting aside or dismissing the petition of the petitioner for being incompetent.

(b) And for any other order as this honourable court may deem fit to make in the circumstance.’

The ground for the alleged incompetence was stated to be

“that the petition was statute-barred as at the time when the petitioner filed same”.

In a 6-paragraph affidavit in support of the motion, it was stated that under the electoral laws, a petition against the result of a Local Government Election has to be filed within 14 days from the date of the election, But in the instant case it was discovered that the petition was filed with the tribunal on 28th day of December, 1998, while the result of the said election was declared by 2nd respondent on 5th December, 1998. In effect between the date of the result and the date of filing of the petition 23 days had elapsed.

On 14th day of January, 1999, another application similar to that filed on behalf of the 3rd respondent was also filed on behalf of 1st and 2nd respondents, asking that the petition of the petitioner be dismissed for being “time-barred”.

In a counter-affidavit of seven paragraphs with eleven sub-paragraphs filed on behalf of the appellant he did not dispute the date of filing his petition, nor the date on which the election was held. Rather, he continued to contend that the voting in two or the seven polling stations in his ward was inconclusive, and so the 3rd respondent was wrongly declared as the winner.

In due course, the application came for hearing before the tribunal on 22nd January, 1999 after which ruling was reserved to 26th January, 1999.

On 26th of January, 1999, the tribunal came out with a six-paged unanimous ruling in which the petition of the appellant was held to be incompetent, and as struck out with no order as to cost.

The petitioner being dissatisfied with the above decision has now appealed to this court as the Constitutional Court on four grounds from which three issues were formulated as follows: