Hon. Chukwuka (Chuchu) Onyema V. Mr. Afam Ogene & Ors. (2011)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

AYOBODE OLUJIMI LOKULO-SODIPE, J.C.A: (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

This is an appeal against the Ruling delivered on 11/7/2011 by the National and State Houses of Assembly Election Tribunal, Awka Anambra State, (hereafter simply referred to as “the Tribunal”) striking out Petition No. EPT/AN/NAE/HR/54/2911 on the ground that it lacks the jurisdiction to entertain the same as the Petition failed to comply with Paragraph 4(1)(c) of the 1st Schedule to the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended). The Electoral Act 2010 (as amended) will hereafter be simply referred to as “the Electoral Act”.

The Appellant as Petitioner instituted Petition No. EPT/AN/NAE/HR/54/2011 on 24/5/2011 before the Tribunal challenging the declaration and return of the 1st Respondent – Mr. Afam Ogene by the 3rd – 5th Respondents as the winner of the election to the National Assembly (Federal House of Representatives) for Ogbaru Constituency of Anambra State held on 9/4/2011; but which election, the 5th Respondent wrongly declared as inconclusive. It is the case of the Appellant that he was the candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party (hereafter simply referred to as -PDP”) at the election. He further averred in paragraph 4 of the Petition thus;

“That as earlier on stated above, after the election of 9/4/2011, the INEC had declared the same inconclusive albeit wrongfully, she had later declared the following result on 6/5/2011.

(i) Accord Party – 2871 votes;

(ii) ACN Party – 1919 votes;

(iii) ADC Party – 143 votes;

(iv) ANPP Party – 234 votes;

(v) APGA Party – 10153 votes (declared winner);

(vi) CDC Party – 78 votes

(vii) Labour Party – 91 votes

(viii) PDP – 8543 votes;”

The Appellant pleaded that he would at the trial rely on a copy of the declaration of result in which Afam Ogene of the APGA Party was declared as the winner of the election with 10,153 votes.

The Respondents to the Petition duly filed their respective Replies w1h the 3rd – 5th Respondents filing two Replies by two different counsels. The question of dual representation for the 3rd – 5th Respondents was resolved in the course of the proceedings on 4/7/2011. Also in the course of the proceedings on the said 4/7/2011, the Tribunal stated thus:-