Nathaniel Agunbiade & Anor V. Busayo Oluwole Oke & Ors (2015)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

JAMES SHEHU ABIRIYI, J.C.A. ( Delivering the Leading Judgment)

This appeal is against the ruling delivered on 22nd July 2015 by the National And State Houses of Assembly Election Tribunal holden at Osogbo, Osun State. The 1st Appellant contested the election conducted on 28th March 2015 to the House of Representatives on the platform of the All Progressives Congress (APC) against the 1st Respondent and other candidates and lost.

The 1st Respondent contested under the Platform of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and won. The Appellants were not satisfied with the results of the election and filed a petition at the Tribunal. Each of three sets of Respondents i.e. 1st, 2nd and 3rd 10th Respondents raised a preliminary objection to the competence of the petition. The Tribunal consolidated all three preliminary objections.

After hearing all the parties on the preliminary objections raised by the Respondents, the Tribunal in a considered ruling struck out the petition for being incompetent.

The Appellants therefore approached this Court by a notice of appeal containing seventeen (17) grounds of appeal from which they

1

presented the following issues for determination:

(1) Whether the Tribunal can decline jurisdiction on the ground that the petition was headed “In the Presidential and Assembly Election Tribunal” notwithstanding the fact that other parts of the heading showed that the election was for Oriade/Obokun Federal Constituency of the House of Representative and the fact that the Constitution establishes only one election tribunal for National and State House of Assembly elections in Osun State. (GROUNDS 1, 2 & 10)

(2) Whether the petition does not substantially complied (sic) with the provisions of the relevant law as regards facts or particulars in support of grounds; list of witnesses and parties to be affected by the petition and whether disclosing the identities of witnesses is a requirement of law. (GROUNDS 6, 7, 8, 9, 13, 14, 15 & 17)

(3) Whether the Tribunal, inter alia by repeating its ruling of 17th June, 2015 stating that but for authorities asking it to focus on substance than form the outcome of the petition would have been different, had not made up its mind to dismiss the petition even

2

before pre-hearing [GROUND 4]

(4) Whether a lower Court can legally and without violating the doctrine of stare decisis engage in criticizing the judgment of a Court superior to it and refuse to be bound by it for not being explicit as done by this Tribunal (GROUNDS 3 & 5)

(5) Whether a tribunal can substitute the issue it unilaterally formulated and which is diametrically opposed to what was canvassed by parties before it and rule on same without calling for fresh argument and/or address from parties. (GROUNDS 3 & 5)