(Mrs.) Bukola Idayat Adebusuyi V. Hon. Babatunde Oduyoye & Ors (2003)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

VICTOR AIMEPOMO OYELEYE OMAGE, J.C.A.

In the tribunal below, which sat in Ibadan and known as the National Assembly Governorship and Legislative Houses Election Tribunal. Actually, it is the National Assembly Election Tribunal hereinafter, referred to as the tribunal; before the said tribunal the petitioner, now the appellant in the person of Dr. Mrs. B. I. Adebusuyi filed a petition couched as follows:

“whereof your humble petitioner prays that it may be determined that the 1st respondent, Hon. Babatunde Oduyoye was not nominated, sponsored, elected and or returned and that his nomination was void and that Dr. Bukola Idayat Adebusuyi was duly nominated, sponsored and elected or ought to have been returned as the successful candidate for the Ibadan North West/South West federal constituency in the election of 12th April, 2003.”

The said tribunal delivered its judgment on 2nd July, 2003, thus, “In the end result, this petition partially succeeds. Pursuant to section 136(1) and paragraph 27(1) of the 1st Schedule to the Electoral Act, 2002; the return and election of the 1st respondent, Hon. Babatunde Oduyoye for the Ibadan North West/South West Federal Constituency in the election held on 12/4/03 conducted by the 2nd and 3rd respondents was not valid and the said return and election of the 1st respondent, Hon. Babatunde Oduyoye is hereby nullified.”

Both the petitioner and the respondent were dissatisfied with the judgment of the tribunal. Each has filed an appeal. The petitioner filed an appeal initially of four grounds and subsequently ten additional grounds of appeal; and formulated therefrom, the following three issues in the appellant’s brief filed on 21/7/2003.

The following are the issues formulated therein:

“(1) Whether having regard to the facts of this case and all the findings of the lower tribunal in this appeal, the appellant ought not to have been returned as the candidate duly elected in the election in this appeal.

(2) Whether the order of fresh election in this case was not available to the tribunal and whether the order has not led to a miscarriage of justice.”

The 1st respondent filed a respondents’ brief dated 24/7/93. The 1st respondent crossed appeal by the notice of appeal in the record of proceedings dated 10th July, 2003 at page 124 thereof, which contain original and additional grounds of appeal. In his brief dated 21/7/2003, the 1st respondent/cross-appellant formulated the following issues;

“(1) Whether the petitioner had locus standi to present her petition.

(2) Whether the tribunal had jurisdiction to entertain the petition and whether the order nullifying the election of the 1st respondent/appellant can stand in law.

(3) Whether the petitioner proved her case that she was the duly nominated candidate of the Alliance for Democracy.”

The appellant, that is the petitioner appellant filed a cross-respondents’ brief. I shall state its contents anon. I deem it sequential to relate here the issues contained in the brief of the 1st respondent to the appellant’s brief. In it, the 1st respondent challenged the jurisdiction of the court to entertain the appeal filed by the petitioner on the following grounds:

(1) Whether the appellant has locus standi to present a petition and submitted that the petitioner not being a candidate at the election lacked the requisite locus standi to present her petition under petition section 133(1) of the Electoral Act?. Section 133(1) Electoral Act, provides inter alia “An election may be presented by one or more of the following persons;