MR Dapo Akinwunmi Ambode V. MR Kolawole Olujimi Agbaje & Ors (2015)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

SAIDU TANKO HUSSAINI, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

The Independent National Electoral Commission, (INEC), the 3rd Respondent herein is a Body charged with the responsibility, among other things with the conduct, organization and supervision of elections, one of such is the conduct, organization and supervision of the gubernatorial elections in all the States of the Federation, including Lagos State.

On the 11th day of April, 2015, there was governorship election in Lagos State wherein the Appellant, Mr. Dapo Akinwunmi Ambode and the 1st Respondent Mr. Kolawole Olujimi Agbaje were candidates.

The Appellant contested the election on the platform of the All Progressive Congress (APC), the 4th Respondent herein while the 1st Respondent contested the same election on the platform of the Peoples Democratic Party, (PDP), the 2nd Respondent. At the close of proceedings for the election, the 3rd and 5th Respondents declared the Appellant as duly elected and accordingly returned governor of Lagos State having polled a majority of lawful votes cast at the election and having satisfied the constitutional requirements.

?Not happy with the outcome of the election

and the return of the Appellant as the elected governor of Lagos State, the 1st and 2nd Respondents filed a petition dated the 30th April, 2015 before the Tribunal constituted to hear this petition and by it the petitioners raised diverse facts and circumstances which informed the petition being filed. The petition was served on the Appellant who, upon the receipt of same filed his Reply and gave notice that at the hearing of the petition he would urge the Tribunal to strike out or dismiss the petition on account of incompetence. Appellant’s reply to the petition is contained at pages 401-406 of vol. 1 of the record of Appeal. Consequent upon the said Notice to raise objection, the appellant by a Motion on Notice dated 5th June, 2015 and filed on the 13th June, 2015 applied to the Tribunal seeking an order striking out and/or dismissal of the petition on account of:

“A. The grounds stated in paragraphs 13(a) and 13(b) on which the petition was/is based are unknown to and incompatible with the statutorily prescribed grounds in Section 138 of the Electoral Act.

?B. Paragraphs 14 (I), (II), (III), (IV), (V), (VI), 15, 16, 17, 19(1), (2), (3), (4) and (5) of the

petition relate to pre-election issues over which this Honourable Tribunal does not have jurisdiction.

C. Paragraphs 14 (I), (II), (III), (IV), (V), (VI), 15, 16 and 17 of the petition are not based on any of the grounds in respect of which the petition was presented.

D. Reliefs 19 (1), (2), (3) and (4) relate to pre-election and nomination issues in respect of the primary election of the 3rd respondent over which this Court does not have jurisdiction.

E. Further to D supra, only the State High Court and/or the Federal High Court has the jurisdiction to entertain Reliefs 19 (1), (2), (3) and (4).

F. In addition to paragraphs D and E supra, Reliefs 19(1), 19(2), 19(3) and 19(4) are not premised on and also do not relate to any of the grounds on which the petition is presented.

G. Further to (D), (E) and (F) supra, Reliefs 19(6), 19(7), and 19(8) are academic and incompetent.