Hon. Ralph Okeke & Ors. V. Chief (Mrs) Edith Mike Ejezte & Ors. (2010)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

MOHAMMED L. TSAMIYA, J.C.A.(Delivering the Leading Judgment)

The petitioner and the 1st respondent were two major contestants, who contested for the seat of the Anambra East/West Federal Constituency in the House of Representatives at the election held on 21st day of April, 2007. The Petitioner and the 1st respondent were sponsored by their respective political parties. The A.N.P.P. fielded the petitioner while the 1st respondent was fielded by P.D.P. The election was conducted by the 6th respondent.

The 6th respondent, to be remembered, had the Constitutional and statutory powers to do so. The 2nd – 5th respondents were the officials of the 6th respondent which is the Independent National Electoral commission (INEC). At the conclusion of the election on the said 21st April, 2007, the 6th respondent announced the results of the election and declared the 1st respondent as the winner and returned him as the elected member of Anambra East/West Federal Constituency in the House of Representatives.

Being dissatisfied with final out-come of the election, the petitioner filed petition against the respondents at the Anambra State National Assembly/Governorship/Legislative Houses Election Petition Tribunal holding at Awka. The grounds and facts upon which the petition was anchored are as adumbrated in paragraphs 1 – 27 at pages 1 – 9 of Vol. 1 of the records. In the petition the petitioner alleged:

1. That the 1st respondent, (Ralph Okeke) was not validly elected.
2. That the 1st respondent did not score a majority of the valid votes cast at the election.
3. That the results allegedly awarded in Anambra West and some parts of Anambra East in the said election into Federal House of Representatives for Anambra East/West Constituency be nullified and the return of the petitioner as the winner of the election voided.
4. That the petitioner be declared as elected.

The grounds upon which the petition was brought are as follows:

(a) Appellant was not duly elected by the majority of lawful votes cast.

(b) That the petitioner was the person duly elected and ought to have been returned as such.

Upon being served with the petition, all the respondents filed their respective replies debunking all the allegations contained in the petition. They all contended that the election was free, fair, and that all materials for the election arrived reasonably on times at their intended destinations and that the election was duly conducted and no irregularities.

At the close of pleadings the petition proceeded to pre-hearing session in line with the provisions of the Election Tribunal and Court Practice Direction 2007 (as amended). During the pre-hearing sessions, several interlocutory applications filed by the parties to the petition were duly heard and determined. The Honourable Tribunal having considered the totality of the pleadings and the issues submitted for determination by the parties herein, which are similar, formulated the following two issues which the Tribunal thought, as apt and germane for determination in the report of the pre-hearing session:

1. Whether the petitioner ought not to have been returned based on the majority of the lawful votes cast at the questioned election held on 21st April, 2007 in Anambra East/West Federal Constituency.
2. Between the petitioner and the 1st respondent who was validly elected by a majority of lawful votes cast at the said election. (See vol. ii, page 1189 of the Records of Appeal.

At the hearing of the petition, the petitioner called nine (9) witnesses and styled PW1 to PW9 in support of her petition and tendered numerous documents. All the said nine (9) witnesses were cross-examined in a bid to establish her case. She finally closed her case on …….. The 1st respondent and 2nd – 6th respondents in their defence called a total of sixteen (16) witnesses and styled DW1 – DW16. The Documentary evidence admitted by the Tribunal were marked as Exhibits “A – U” (see vol.1 pages 100 – 101 of the records of appeal).

Upon the conclusion of hearing and in compliance with paragraph 5(12) – (14) of the Practice Directions 2007, the Tribunal ordered the filing and exchange of written final addresses. Consequently, the Tribunal adjourned the petition to 6/3/2008 for adoption of the final addresses which same were duly complied with and the matter was adjourned for judgment. The Tribunal delivered its judgment on 15/5/2008 annulled the results of Election in some units and held that: “the petition of the petitioner partly succeeds.” The tribunal there upon held as follows:

1. “That the 1st respondent, Hon. Ralph Okeke of the PDP was not validly elected and was not validly returned as the winner of the said election.
2. That the said 1st respondent did not score a majority of the valid votes cast at the election.
3. That the results as declared by the 6th respondents (INEC) in respect of Aguleri ward 1, Umuoba-Anam ward, Nsugbe ward I and II, and the entire ten (10 wards in Anambra West Local Government Area are null and void and of no effect whatsoever and are nullified.
4. That the return of the 1st Respondent by INEC (2nd – 6th Respondents) as the winner of the election in dispute is set aside and nullified.
5. That the result of the election in the eleven (11) wards of Anambra East Local Government Area held on 21/4/2007 is validated.
6. That the 2nd – 6th Respondents particularly the 6th Respondent (INEC) is to conduct a fresh election in the Anambra west Local Government Area not later than 3 months from the date of this judgment.
7. That the result of the fresh election when validly declared by the INEC shall be added to the already valid scores of the Candidates and the candidate with the majority of the valid votes cast when so added, shall be returned by INEC as the winner of the election in to the Anambra East/West Federal Constituency in the House of Representatives.
8. That having the results of the election in dispute been validated as follows:

(a) That petitioner (1st Respondent – 18, 642) votes.

(b) The 1st Respondent (Appellant) 6,870 votes.

Both candidates along with other candidates of other parties, who were to have contested the said election in dispute, shall contest the fresh election to be held by INEC not later than 3 months from the date of the judgment in the Anambra West Local Government Area.” (See p. 1375, vol. II of the records of Appeal).