Mr. Sullivan I. Chime V. Rev. Dr. Oscar Egwuonwu & Ors (2008)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

ABUBAKAR ABDULKADIR JEGA, J.C.A.

This is an appeal against the judgment of the Governorship/Legislative Houses Election Petition Tribunal sitting at Enugu in the Enugu State of Nigeria.

The appellant Barr. Sullivan I. Chime was the 1st Respondent in Petitions No. NAGLIEPT/EN/GOV/35/2007 and NAGL/EPT/EN/GOV/36/2007 and filed by Oscar Egwuonwu the Governorship candidate of Democratic Peoples Party and Peoples Democratic Party respectively. At the trial, the two petitions were consolidated and heard as one.

The facts of this appeal as can be gathered from the totality of the record before the court are that the Petitioner in Petition No.NAGL/EPT/EN/GOV/35/2007 is Rev. Dr. Oscar Egwuonwu while the Petitioner in NAGL/EPT/EN/GOV/36/2007 is the Democratic Peoples Party (DPP). At the close of the gubernatorial elections in Enugu State, the appellant who scored 811,798 votes as against the 1st Respondent’s 5,814 votes was declared the winner of the election while the appellant contested the election under the platform of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP). The 1st Respondent contested under the platform of Democratic Peoples Party (DPP).

Being dissatisfied with the return of the appellant by the Independent National Electoral Commission, both Rev. Dr. Oscar Egwuonwu and his party filed two separate petitions claiming the following reliefs –

(i) “That it may be determined that the 1st respondent was not duly elected or returned and the election be declared a nullity.

(ii) That a fresh Governorship election be conducted in Enugu State”.

The grounds for the petition are that:-

(a) “The election did not hold within the prescribed period of 8am to 3pm.

(b) The 1st respondent was not elected by a majority of lawful votes cast at the elections.

(c) The elections were invalid by reason of corrupt practices and/or non-compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act 2006.

(d) Falsification and inflation of figures allegedly scored by the 1st respondent.

(e) Gross irregularities in the polling booths and that the results were not announced thereat. There was no collation of the result in the Wards as materials including the result sheets were not delivered to the polling centres by the 2nd and 3rd respondents.

(f) There was no voting at all in-most of the polling booths.”