Kien Asuode Michael Seikegba V. Mr. Kalanama Penawou & Ors (1999)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

SAKA ADEYEMI IBIYEYE, J.C.A.

The appellant, Mr. Kien-Asuode Michael Seikegba, who was the Petitioner and the 1st respondent, Mr. Kalanama Penawou, who maintains the same position in this appeal alongside three other contestants before the Delta state Local Government Election Tribunal sitting in Asaba (thereafter referred to as the Tribunal) vied for the office of the Chairman of Bomadi Local Government council in a bye-election which took place on the 20th day of March 1999. The appellant and the 1st respondent, among others, contested on the platforms of the Peoples Democratic Party (P.D.P.) and All Peoples Party (A.P.P.) respectively. At the close of poll, the 1st respondent was returned by the 2nd to the 6th respondents as the Chairman of Bomadi Local Government council having scored a total of 11,718 votes as against 10,712 votes scored by the appellant.

The appellant felt aggrieved by this declaration and he filed a petition before the Tribunal challenging the return of the 1st respondent in paragraphs 14 and 15 of his petition. Paragraphs 14 and 15 without the particulars in the latter read;

“14. Your petitioner avers that the return of the 1st respondent was invalid by reason of corrupt practices or offences against the law under which the Local Government election were conducted; and/or the 1st Respondent was not duly elected by a majority of lawful votes cast at the election.

15. Your petitioner avers the election was voided by electoral malpractices caused by the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th respondents in that …………”

The 1st respondent and the 2nd to 6th respondents filed their reply and joint reply respectively. At the end of trial the Tribunal dismissed the petition for want of merit;

The appellant was dissatisfied with this decision and he appealed to this court on three grounds as per Notice of Appeal dated 18th of May 1999.

In accordance with the Rules of this court, the three parties namely the appellant, the 1st respondent and the 2nd to the 6th respondents filed and exchanged their briefs of argument in which each party formulated issues calling for determination. The following issues were distilled from the grounds of appeal by the appellant.

“1. Whether the Tribunal was right in saying it had no facts before it to answer the question whether the 1st respondent met the requirements of Section 54(4) of the Decree No. 36 of 1998.

2. Whether the Tribunal was right in dismissing the petition, holding that the petitioner did not prove the alleged falsification of results in Bomadi Ward 1, Kpakiama Ward II, Syama Ward III and Akugbene Ward 8.”

The 1st respondent on his part formulated the following two “points” for determination:

“1. Whether the petition has complied with provisions of the Decree to confer jurisdiction on the Tribunal~

2/ whether there was sufficient proof to enable the petitioner to succeed.

The 2nd to 6th respondents in their brief of argument identified the following issues for determination:-

“1. Whether the allegation of falsification of results made by the petitioner was proved.

2. whether the 1st Respondent satisfied the requirement of S.54(4) of the Local Government (Basic. Constitutional Transitional provisions) Decree No. 36 of 1998.

I have carefully read the issues formulated by parties as reproduced above and I am of opinion that those formulated by the 1st respondent call for consideration in view of their apparent incoherence with the arguments in support. The said issue, and their attendant arguments are, to say the least, devoid of industry expected to sustain issues formulated either by a party or his counsel. In short, the arguments are clearly off tangent. I am not unmindful of the settled principle that a bad, clumsy inelegant and prolix brief is still a brief and that it should be considered in the interest of justice. See OBIORA V. OSELE (1989) 1 N’.W.L.R. (PART 97) 279 at 300 and AKPAN V. THE STATE (1992) 6 N.W.L.R (PART 248) 439. In view of this principle, I shall consider the arguments proof erred by the 1st respondent and adopted by his counsel. The issues, in point, are as stated above. The two sets of arguments in support overtly deviated from the issues formulated because the first set is an objection to the brief filed by the appellant while the second set deals with the competence of the petition which he alleged did not comply with Section 82 of the Decree No. 36 of 1998 and paragraph 26(2) of schedule 5 to the same Decree. I hold the view that neither the issues formulated by the 1st respondent nor the arguments proof erred in support flowed from the grounds of appeal. The issues are therefore incompetent and I shall ignore them.