Muyideen Abdul-raheem Tejumade & Anor V. Ogunyemi Michael Olanrewaju & Ors (2015)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

AMINA ADAMU AUGIE, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

This is one of the Appeals against the decision of the National Assembly and State House of Assembly Election Petitions Tribunal, Lagos State. The 1st Appellant challenged the election of the 1st Respondent, who was declared by the 3rd Respondent, as having won the election to the State House of Assembly representing Ojo Local Government Constituency 2.

The results of the election, as declared by the 3rd Respondent, showed that the 1st Respondent, who was sponsored by APC, got a total of 10,121 votes, while the 1st Appellant of PDP got a total of 7,631 votes. The Appellants challenged the outcome of the election on two Grounds –

1. That a person whose election is questioned (i.e. 1st Respondent) was, at the time of the election, not qualified to contest the election. S. 139(1)(a) of the Electoral Act 2010 (As Amended)
2. That the State House of Assembly Election held on 11/4/2015 as affect the Ojo Local Government Constituency 2 was invalid by the reason of corrupt practices or non-compliance with the Provision of this Act. (Section 138(1)(b) of the Electoral Act (As Amended).

The Appellants’ contention

?

1

in respect of Ground one of the Petition is that the party primaries of APC, the 2nd Respondent, was held in less than a period of 21 days required by Section 85(1) of the Electoral Act . They averred that he was not properly nominated at the said primaries, the said primaries having been held in contravention of the law; that he, having not been nominated in a primary recognized by law, is deemed not to have been presented by the 2nd Respondent, and as such was not on the ballot and did not participate in the House of Assembly Election, therefore, all votes purportedly ascribed to him as the candidate of APC, the 2nd Respondent, in the Election held on 11/4/2015?are wasted votes.

As to Ground two, they averred in paragraph 20 of the Petition that that there were many irregularities in respect of the use of card readers at the election, including non-use of card readers even where available, and non-availability of same in some polling units, and in paragraph 21 – that the said irregularities grossly affected the outcome of the said result. In paragraph 28, they prayed the Tribunal for the following reliefs –

A. A DECLARATION that the 2nd Respondent as a

2 registered Political Party has the obligation under the law to give at least 21 days notice to the 2nd Respondent before conducting the primaries that produced 1st Respondent as its candidate in the State House of Assembly Election held on 11/4/2015.

B. A DECLARATION that 2nd Respondent’s letter dated 18/11/2014 with Reference: APC/NHDQ/INEC/19/014/88 served on the 3rd Respondent on the same date is the only subsisting Notice given to the 3rd Respondent.

C. A DECLARATION that the 2nd Respondent’s notice as contained in its letter dated 8/11/2014 with Reference APC/NHDQ/INEC/19/014/88 did not meet up with the requirement for 21 days notice as prescribed by Section 85(1) of Electoral Act 2010 (as amended) having held the primary that produced the 1st Respondent on 1/12/2014.

D. A DECLARATION that 2nd Respondent’s letter dated 16/11/2014 with Ref: APC/NHDQ/INEC/19/014/88 purported to have given notice to the 3rd Respondent as required by Section 85(1) of the Electoral Act – – is void same having been given in contravention of Section 85(1) of the Electoral Act – – .

E. A DECLARATION that the purported notice given