Mrs. Ann Atim Bassey Eyo V. Hon. Alice Ekpenyong & Ors. (2011)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

UZO I. NDUKWE-ANYANWU, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

This is an appeal against the judgment of the Tribunal holden in Uyo Akwa Ibom delivered on 18th August, 2011.

The Petitioner of the Tribunal contested with the 1st Respondent in the Election held on 26th April, 2011 into the Mbo State constituency. The 1st Respondent was returned by the 3rd Respondent as the winner of that election.

Being dissatisfied, the petitioner presented a petition at the Tribunal No.EPT/AKS/HA/17/2011. The tribunal by a motion Exparte filed by the petitioner granted the petitioner his prayer and ordered that the forms TF 007 and TF 008 issued by the Tribunal’s Secretary would be deemed as properly issued by the Tribunal.

Subsequently the Tribunal transferred this petition to panel 2 with many other petitions. Panel 2 in its wisdom issued Hearing notices to the parties and requested the parties to address it on two issues namely:

1. Whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to proceed with hearing of the pre-hearing session and the petition in view of the provisions of paragraph 18 and 47 of the 1st Schedule of the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended).
2. Whether or not the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear and determine the motion exparte filed by the Petitioner’s counsel on 2nd July, 2011 in view of paragraphs 18 & 47 of the 1st Schedule to the electoral Act 2010 (as amended).

Parties agreed to file their written addresses in answer to the issues raised by the Tribunal suo motu. In considered judgment, the Tribunal held inter alia that it had no jurisdiction to hear this petition as it was deemed abandoned.

Being dissatisfied, the Petitioner? Appellant filed his notice and 10 Grounds of Appeal on the 7th September, 2011. The Appellant filed his brief on 23rd September, 2011 and articulated 4 issues for determination as follows:-

1. Whether there was any competent order Election Petition No: EPT/AKS/HA/17/2011, from one Election Tribunal (the original Tribunal) to another (hereinafter described as Tribunal No. 2)? Ground 10)
2. Whether the Honourable Tribunal (No.2) was not in error when it assumed jurisdiction over the Appellant’s petition in view of its enabling laws and available evidence before it?

(Ground 1)

3. Whether it was proper in law for the Honouroble Tribunal (No.2) to question, sit over or review the decisions/rulings of the former Tribunal (No. 1); instead of commencing the petition de novo? (Ground 3, 6 and 8).
4. Whether the Appellant’s application for the issuance of pre-hearing notice filed on 2nd June, 2010 and granted on 6th July, 2011 was competent and in the circumstances of this case and the provisions of the 1st Schedule to the electoral Act 2010 (As Amended). (Grounds 5, 7 and 9).

Also filed on the same 7th October, 2011 is on Appellants Reply Brief to the 1st Respondents brief and another to the 2nd Respondents brief.

The 1st Respondent filed his 1st Respondent’s Brief on 4th October, 2011. In it counsel gave what he captioned notice of preliminary objection and argued some on page 5-7 of his brief. The learned counsel did not articulate different issues but adopted those articulated by the Appellant and argued them seriatim.

I have looked closely at the 10 grounds of appeal and their Particulars filed by the Appellant and I must quickly say that they are to say the least very verbose. It is difficult to decipher from the 10 grounds and particulars what the Appellant’s grouse is all about.

However, I have looked at the reliefs sought by the Appellant, where the Appellant is indeed praying for the following.

(1) An order of this court setting aside the ruling/decision of the Tribunal (No.2) delivered on 18th August, 2011 dismissing the Petition.

(2) An order of this court remitting the Petition back (sic) for Retrial (sic) on the merit before the competent Tribunal.