Mrs Olabisi Ayodele Salis & Anor V. Bareehu Olugbenga Ashafa & Ors (2015)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

MOHAMMED AMBI-USI DANJUMA, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

This is an appeal against the decision of the National and State House of Assembly Election Petitions Tribunal (panel 2) holden at Ikeja, Lagos State, delivered on Monday the 27th day of July 2015, where at it dismissed the petition No. NA/LEGH/EPT/L/15/15 of the petitioners/Appellants’ on the ground that the petitioners’ application for the issuance of a pre-hearing Notice Form TF007 was invalid for non compliance with paragraph 18 (1) of the First schedule to the Electoral Act (2010) as amended.

Precusorily, it needs to be stated that at the conduct of the election to the membership of the senate of the National Assembly of the Federal Republic of Nigeria conducted on the 28th March, 2015, by the 3rd Respondent, the first Appellant was the candidate sponsored by the 2nd appellant (the People’s Democratic Party i.e. (PDP) and contested against other candidates inclusive of the 1st Respondent, the candidate of the ALL Progressive Congress (APC).

At the conclusion thereof the 1st Respondent was declared and returned as the duly elected Senator for the Lagos East Senatorial District and returned as

such.

Dissatisfied with the return as made, the said petition that was dismissed was lodged. It was a petition spanning 46 pages and as contained on pages 1 – 46 of the record of Appeal transmitted on 7 – 8 – 15.

Amongst the processes filed at the trial Tribunal were the 1st Respondent’s Reply and the 2nd Respondent’s reply from and by each of whence points of preliminary objection as contained on pages 53 – 136 and 148 – 163 respectively were taken against the petition.

The narration of the facts and the circumstances of this appeal are clearly stated and comprehensively too, by the Appellants in paragraphs 0.1 to 0.14 of their un paginated Brief of argument.

?The vitriotic combat on the dates of filing the necessary processes and consequently, the conflicting dates given for the making or bringing of the relevant application for the ignition of the issuance of the pre-hearing Notice was the reason that provided this appeal and upon 9 Grounds of appeal. They appear gargantuan and splitting. I need not reproduce them as they are eloquently laced/spread on pages 625 to 634 of the record of appeal.

?The parties, in accordance with the practice of this court filed their

respective Briefs of Argument which they adopted where and when they remained extant and valid, otherwise they were withdrawn and struck out and remain unhelpful and un availing and unworthy of any resort thereto by this court.

I shall get to that later, on their part, the Appellants’ Brief of Argument dated and filed on 14 – 8 – 15 was prepared by Samson Ozah ESQ. The said Appellants also filed the Appellants’ Reply Brief of Argument dated and filed on 26 – 8 – 15 against the 1st and 2nd Respondents’ Brief of Argument and separately.

The 1st Respondent’s Brief of argument which was settled by Kemi Penheiro (SAN) and dated on 21 – 8 – 15 was filed on 24-08-15 and out of time as it was filed well over 5 days limited for the filing thereof as required by paragraph 12 of the Election Tribunal and Court Practice Directions, 2011 which provides as follows:-

“The Respondent shall file in the court his own Brief of Argument within 5 days of service of the Appellant’s Brief paragraphs 11 (a) to (d) above shall apply mutatis mutandis to the Respondent’s Brief of Argument.”