Ogunyemi Olumuyiwa Ojo & Anor V. Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) & Ors (2008)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

JAMES SHEHU ABIRIYI, J.C.A.

 This is one of the appeals against the ruling of the National And State Houses of Assembly Election Petition Tribunal sitting at Akure, Ondo State dismissing some election petitions alleged to have been abandoned by the Petitioners. CA/AK/EPT/HA/50/2015 Festus Oladipo Aregbesola & Anor v. Adesanya Kemisola Adenike & 2 Ors and CA/AK/EPT/HA/51/2015 Pastor Akingboye Leke David & Anor v. Prince Abayomi B. Akinruntan & 2 Ors delivered this morning by this Court are on the same issue. I will therefore be very brief.

?1st Appellant was a candidate of the All Progressives Congress (APC) in the April 11th 2015 election to the Ondo State House of Assembly. The 2nd Respondent was the candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) in the said election. The 2nd Respondent was declared the winner of the election and returned as duly elected member representing Akoko North-East Constituency in the Ondo State House of Assembly.

The 1st Appellant was dissatisfied and filed a petition at the Tribunal. The tribunal dismissed the petition on the 10th July, 2015 on the ground that the Appellants did not

comply with the provision of Paragraph 18(1) of the 1st Schedule to the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended).

The Appellants have therefore appealed to this Court against the ruling on a single ground of appeal from which they presented the following issue for determination:
Was the Honourable Tribunal right in its conclusion that the pre-hearing notice filed by the petitioners on May 26th 2015 was premature and incompetent such that it invalidated all proceedings and processes filed as well as the Petition itself?

The 1st Respondent raised a preliminary objection on the following grounds:
(i) The appellants filed a Notice of Appeal dated 16th July, 2015 and relied on same in their Brief of Argument dated 31st July 2015.
(ii) The particulars of the sole ground of appeal are verbose and argumentative.

In the alternative, the 1st Respondent formulated the following issue for determination:
Whether the National and State Houses of Assembly Election Petition Tribunal was not right in dismissing the Appellant’s petition for failure to comply with the mandatory provision of Paragraph 18(1) of the First Schedule to the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended).

?The 2nd Respondent raised

the same preliminary objection.

In the alternative, the 2nd Respondent formulated the same issue for determination with the 1st Respondent. No useful purpose will be served in reproducing both the grounds of objection and the lone issue for determination.

The 3rd and 4th Respondents on their part formulated the following lone issue for determination:
Whether the learned trial Judges of the Tribunal were not right in holding that the application for pre-hearing notice filed by the petitioners in the petition on the 26th May, 2015 was premature and incompetent having been filed before issues were completely joined and exchanged with the concomitant effect of rendering the petition incompetent.

Arguing their preliminary objections, learned counsel for the 1st and 2nd Respondents submitted that the particulars of the sole ground of appeal are verbose and argumentative and therefore incompetent.

It was submitted that particulars of the ground of appeal must be precise, concise and direct to the point. We were referred to: Order 6 Rule 2(3) of the Court of Appeal Rules 2011 and Splinters (Nig) Ltd v. Oasis Finance Ltd (2013) 18 NWLR (Pt 1358) 188.