Hon. Dr. Sampson Orji V. Hon Chief Mao Ohuabunwa & Ors. (2006)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

MUSA DATTIJO MUHAMMED, JCA,

The appellant and 1st respondent in this appeal were candidates at the National Assembly Election for Arochukwu/Ohafia federal constituency, The election took place on 12th April 2003. The appellant contested the election on the platform of the All Nigeria’s Peoples Party (ANPP). The 1st respondent did so on the ticket of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP). At the end of the elections, 1st respondent was returned by the 2nd respondent as the duly elected member representing Arochukwu/Ohafia Federal constituency. Aggrieved by 1st respondent’s return, the appellant filed a petition on 12th May 2003 seeking the nullification of the election in ten wards out of the twenty-two that made up the Arochukwu/Ohafia Federal constituency. Appellant also prayed the Tribunal that he be declared validly elected and returned having polled the highest number of lawful votes cast at the election.

Appellant’s petition was heard at the end of which hearing the lower tribunal in its considered judgment of 16th February dismissed the said petition. Being dissatisfied with the decision, appellant has now appealed to this court on eleven grounds.

Parties have filed and exchanged briefs of argument. Same including appellant’s reply brief, have been adopted and relied upon by the parties herein as their arguments for or against the appeal. The seven issues formulated in the appellant’s brief as having arisen for the determination of the appeal reads as follows:-

“2.01 Whether from the state of the evidence adduced the Tribunal was right to hold that the petitioner did not establish the allegations of substantial noncompliance with the principles of the Electoral Act in the ten Wards in issue in the Petition.

2.02. Whether the unauthorized substitution of the INEC trained Presiding Officers with non INEC appointed and trained persons during the elections in the 8 Wards of Arochukwu Local Government Area being part of the constituency did not amount to substantial non-compliance with the principles of the Electoral Act particularly Section 135(1) and (2)

2.03 Whether in the face of the evidence adduced by the Petitioner the unit results produced by the non-INEC appointed persons can be said to be the result if the election in the ten Wards in issue and/or the best evidence of the result of the election being questioned.

2.04 Whether the Tribunal properly and judicially evaluated the evidence of PW3 and whether it was right in holding without supportive evidence that “The evidence of PW3 Ward Returning Officer for Ndi Etiti was a reproduction of what he was told.”

2.05. Whether the Tribunal was right to expunge a material portion of the evidence of PW6 after ruling and admitting same upon a fully argued objection of the Respondents.

2.06 Whether from the evidence adduced by the Petitioner the Tribunal was right in holding that the Petitioner did not establish the allegation of corrupt practices against the respondents.

2.07. Whether the judgment of the Tribunal is not against the weight of evidence.”

At page 10 of the 1st respondent’s brief a lone issue has been formulated for the determination of the appeal. It reads:-

“Whether the tribunal was right when it held that the petitioner did not prove any non-compliance with the Electoral Act, 2002 or any corrupt practice under the Act to warrant the invalidation of this result of election in any of the 10 wards complained of and so dismissed the petition.”

The 2nd – 42nd respondents have also formulated a single issue at page 2 of their brief for the determination of the appeal thus:-