Olarenwaju Adeyemi Tejuosho V. Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) & Ors (2008)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

M. D. MUHAMMAD, J.C.A.

This is an appeal against the ruling of the National Assembly Election Petitions Tribunal sitting at Abeokuta, Ogun State dated 20th September 2007 in petition No. EPT/OG/NASEN/53/2007. The brief facts of the case which gave birth to the appeal, are briefly recounted immediately.

The Appellant, the 3rd Respondent and others were candidates at the National Assembly election for Ogun Central Senatorial Seat conducted by the 1st, 2nd, 4th – 83rd Respondents on 28th April 2007. Aggrieved by the declaration and return of the 3rd Respondent, the Appellant filed a petition on 25-5-07 at the lower tribunal inter alia challenging same.

By their application dated and filed 7th August 2007, the 1st, 2nd, 4th – 83rd Respondents challenged the competence of the petition and by extension the jurisdiction of the tribunal. Before the application, 1st, 2nd, 4th – 83rd Respondents had filed and served their reply to the petition on 3-07-07. 1st, 2nd, 4th – 83rd Respondents objection was argued on the 12th September 2007 and in the tribunal’s considered ruling dated 20th September 2007 the petition was dismissed on the grounds that the Petitioner had failed to specify his right to present the petition as required by paragraph 4(1)(b) of the first schedule to the Electoral Act 2006. Being dissatisfied with the tribunal’s ruling, the Petitioner has appealed to this court on a Notice containing two grounds of Appeal.

In compliance with the rules of court, parties have filed and exchanged their briefs of argument. The briefs were adopted and relied upon by Counsel at the hearing of the Appeal.

At the hearing of the Appeal, Mr. Clarke Learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant abandoned Appellant’s second issue for determination. The effect of this is that no issue has been distilled from the 2nd ground in the Appellant’s Notice of Appeal. A ground of appeal from which no issue for determination has been distilled is deemed abandoned. We accordingly struck out not only the abandoned issue which Counsel asked us to but the ground, of appeal from which the abandoned issue was distilled as well. Following this development, the two sets of Respondents abandoned their second issues as distilled in their respective briefs. These issues were also struck out. The Appeal was, in the result, argued on a lone issue in the Appellant’s brief which reads:-

“(i) Whether the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the Appellant did not specify his right to bring the petition in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 4(1)(b) of the First Schedule to the Electoral Act, 2006 thereby having no focus standi without properly construing the entirely of the petition. (Ground of Appeal No.1)”.

The surviving issues in the briefs of the two set of Respondents are similar to the foregoing.

Appellant’s main grouse in the appeal is as to the tribunal’s failure to give effect to the plain words of Section 144(1) and paragraph 4(1) (b) to the first schedule of the Electoral Act 2006 in its determination of Appellant’s locus standi to institute his petition. Senior Appellant Counsel submitted that the rule of interpretation applicable in the matter as enunciated inter alia in INAKOJU Vs. ADELEKE (2007) 4 NWLR (Pt.1025) 427, ARAKA Vs. ECBUE (ZOOS)17 NWLR (Pt. 848) 6, AG ONOO STATE Vs. AG EKITI STATE (2001) 50 WRN 11 and ORJI Vs. FRN (2002) 12 NWLR (Pt.1050) 55 At 69, required giving the ordinary words of the statute their literal effect. He contended that when similar task confronted this court in NNAMANI Vs. NNAJI (1999) 7 NWLR (Pt. ) 313 At 329 and 330 and in the unreported Appeal No,CA/I/EPT/10/2007 delivered on 13th March 2008: SENATOR IBIKUNLE AMUSU Vs. INEC & 259 ORS, the court in determining the locus standi of the Petitioner gave effect to the plain words of the relevant statutes. The two decisions which are on similar facts and legislations bind the tribunal rather than the decision in EGOLUM Vs. OBASANJO (2007) 3 EPR 601 the tribunal applied.

Learned Senior Counsel submitted that the Appellant, who had averred being a candidate in the election he was disputing in the petition is presumed in law to have complied with the requirement of Section 65 of the 1999 Constitution. It was argued that the tribunal had erred when it ruled the petition incompetent for its failure to disclose the political party that sponsored the Appellant. Senior Counsel further relied on OBASANJO Vs. YUSUF (2004) 9 NWLR (Pt. 877) 144, GOODHEAD Vs. AMACHREE (2004) 1 NWLR (Pt.854) 352 at 361 and ADEBUSUYI Vs. ODUYOYE & ORS (2004) I NWLR (Pt. 854) 406 at 428, and urged us to allow the appeal and remit the petition to a differently constituted tribunal for trial on the merits.

In arguing the sole issue in the Appeal, Mr Taiwo, Learned Counsel for the 1st, 2nd, 4th – 83rd Respondents submitted that Appellant’s Petition is an election matter, a very special proceeding, whereat strict compliance with the requirement of the law and rules of procedure are enforced for obvious reasons. The tribunal had a duty under Section 147(3) to enforce the mandatory provisions of Section 144(1) and paragraph 4(1)(b) in the first schedule of the Electoral Act side by side with Section 65 of the 1999 Constitution. Learned Counsel contended that the Supreme Courts decision in EGOLUM Vs. OBASANJO (supra) which informed the tribunal’s decision still remains binding as same had been further applied ‘by the apex court in BUHARI Vs. YUSUF (2003) 14 NWLR (Pt.841) 447. Learned Counsel relied further on KALU Vs. UZOR (2004) 12 NWLR (Pt. 886) 1 At 35 and 36 and INAKOJU Vs, ADELEKE (2007) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1025) 423 SC in urging us to uphold the tribunal’s decision and dismiss the Appeal.

Arguments contained in the 3rd Respondent’s brief are a virtual replica of those contained in the 1st, 2nd, 4th – 83rd Respondents’ brief. It is unnecessary to reproduce them again.

A great deal must and has been conceded by Counsel to both sets of Respondents to Learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant because he is on a very firm terrain. The tribunal could not hold differently. They all agreed with Senior Counsel that whenever a Plaintiff’s locus standi becomes an issue, the issue is determined by reference to the Plaintiff’s claim alone. In the instant case, the question whether or not the Appellant has the right to claim the reliefs he seeks in his petition is determinable from the averments in the petition. I also concur. The authorities are legion but see: ALHAJI IDRIS WAZIRI Vs. ALHAJI SALE USMAN DANBOYI (1999) 4 NWLR (Pt. 598) 239 At 246, EZEOBI Vs. NZEOKA (1989) (Pt.98) 478 at 487 and THOMAS vs. OLUFOSOYE (1986) 1 NWLR (Pt.18) 669 At 686 and 690-62.

Again, it is common between the parties and the tribunal also rightly settled on the fact that the right to institute a petition against the return of a successful person in an election is statutorily given. Section 144(1) of the Electoral Act 2006 earlier reproduced in this judgment provides for the right to sue. Counsel also contended that for the Petitioner to enjoy his right of action as donated by Section 144(1) of the Electoral Act he must meet all the conditions stipulated under paragraph 4(1) of the first schedule to the Electoral Act. The tribunal wisely found this much as well. I also concur.