James Yakubu & Anor V. Independent National Electoral Commission & Ors (2008)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

UZO NDUKWE-ANYANWU, J.C.A.

The 1st Appellant James Yakubu was the Petitioner in the Lower Tribunal and was sponsored by the 2nd Appellant, Peoples Democratic Party (PDP). The 5th Respondent Samaila Mohammed was sponsored by the 6th Respondent, All Nigeria Peoples Party (ANPP). Both parties contested for the Bassa/Jos North Federal Constituency Seat on 21st April, 2008. At the end of the elections the 5th Respondent was declared winner having scored a total of 84,331 votes and was returned. The 1st Appellant came second with a total of 79,169 votes. The 1st Appellant was dissatisfied with the return of the 5th Respondent and he then presented a petition to the Governorship and Legislative Houses Election Tribunal Holden at Jos, Plateau State. The Appellants challenged the return of the 5th Respondent on two grounds to wit:

(1) Lack of sponsorship and nomination of the 5th Respondent by the 6th Respondent as a candidate (grounds 1 and 2).

(2) Lack of qualification of the 5th Respondent as candidate at the Federal House of Representatives Election held on 21st April, 2007 for being indicted for fraud (ground 3).

At the end of the trial the Tribunal delivered its considered judgment on the 23rd November, 2007, dismissed the petition and confirmed the declaration and return of the 5th Respondent as duly elected for the Bassa/Jos North Federal Constituency of Plateau State.

The Appellants were dissatisfied hence this appeal. The Appellants filed their notice and 8 grounds of appeal. The Appellants formulated 2 issues for determination to wit:

(1) Whether the Tribunal was right when she declined jurisdiction on grounds 1 and 2 of the petition on the reason that the grounds relate to sponsorship and nomination of candidate (grounds 4, 5 and 7).

(2) Whether the judgment of the Tribunal in its totality was not perverse and if it was what are the consequential reliefs this Honourable Court can grant? (Grounds 3 and 6).

The 5th and 6th Respondents filed their joint brief and also formulated two issues for determination to wit:

(a) Whether in view of the fact that grounds 1 and 2 of the petition raised the issues of nomination and sponsorship of the 5th Respondent by the 6th Respondent, the Lower Tribunal was right when it declined jurisdiction to determine same.

(b) Having regards to the pleadings in the petition and replies and the totality of the evidence, whether the judgment of the Lower Tribunal is perverse and whether the Court can grant any consequential relief in the circumstances.

The two issues distilled by both parties are similar in content however I will utilize that articulated by the Appellants to make sure that the points articulated are trashed out thoroughly.

ISSUE ONE

The learned counsel to the Appellants submitted that the Tribunal ought to adopt a holistic attitude in deciding whether or not to assume jurisdiction over the issues arising from grounds 1 and 2 of the petition. See Adeyemi Vs. Opeyori (1976) 9-10SC 31; UBN Vs Intergrated Timber & Pt wood Producers Ltd (2000) 12 NWLR Pt. 680 pg 95 at 110.