Lawan Mohammed Neka & Anor V. Joseph Albasu Kunini & Ors (2015)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

JUMMAI HANNATU SANKEY, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

On 11th April, 2015, elections were held into the State Houses of Assembly in the various States simultaneously with election into the offices of Governors of the various States in Nigeria. In Taraba State, just like in the other States, the story was no different. Residents of the State excitedly and in a generally organized fashion, queued up to cast their votes for their preferred candidates to occupy the many House of Assembly seats in the various constituencies of the State. One of those seats contested for was the Lau State Constituency.

Both the 1st Appellant and the 1st Respondent were candidates in the election and contested for the seat of Member representing Lau Constituency of the House of Assembly of Taraba State. Whereas the 1st Appellant contested on the platform of the All Progressives Congress (2nd Respondent herein), the 1st Respondent contested on the platform of the Peoples Democratic Party (4th Respondent herein). At the close of polls, the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) (3rd Respondent), declared the 1st Respondent as the winner of the election.

?1

Distressed by this declaration, the 1st and 2nd Appellants jointly presented a Petition before the National and State Houses of Assembly Election Tribunal of Taraba State on 18th April, 2015, challenging the return of the 1st Appellant. After hearing the parties and receiving both oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal, on 25th October, 2015, delivered its Judgment dismissing the Petition for being without merit. Still aggrieved by the decision of the Tribunal, the Appellant filed this Appeal on 12th November, 2015 wherein he complained on nine grounds as set out in the Notice and Grounds of Appeal (contained at pages 888-899 of the printed Record of Proceedings).

A precis of the facts of the case relevant to this appeal is that, following the conduct of the election on 11th April, 2015 and the declaration of the 1st Appellant as winner, the 1st and 2nd Respondents filed a Petition wherein they complained on three (3) grounds:

“11. Your petitioners have brought this petition challenging the election on 11th April, 2015 in the Taraba State House of Assembly, Lau Constituency on the following grounds:

(i) The 1st Respondent was not

2 duly elected by majority of lawful votes cast in the election;

(ii) The election that returned the 1st Respondent was invalid by reason of corrupt practices and non-compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act; and

(iii) The election was conducted in substantial non-compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act and the Manual and Guidelines for 2015 Election and the said non-compliance has substantially affected the outcome of the election.”

?Parties before the Tribunal filed their respective pleadings stating their own positions. After the proceedings at the pre-trial conference were concluded, trial commenced in earnest. The Petitioners (now Appellants) called one sole witness, i.e. the Petitioner himself, to prove their Petition, while the 1st Respondent called Seven (7) witnesses and the 2nd Respondent called one witness in the defence of the sanctity of the election. The 3rd Respondent (INEC) did not file a Reply and so did not call any evidence. At the close of hearing, learned Counsel for the different parties filed and adopted their final written addresses wherein they articulated the facts and the law arising from their

3 various perspectives. Subsequently, in its Judgment, the Tribunal found in favour of the Respondents, thus this Appeal.

At the hearing of the Appeal on 15th December, 2015, the learned Counsel representing the individual parties, i.e. the Appellants, 1st Respondent and 2nd Respondent argued the Appeal and adopted their respective Briefs of argument. No Brief was filed by the 3rd Respondent, thus Counsel aligned himself with the submissions of the 1st and 2nd Respondents. The Appeal was thereafter reserved for Judgment.