Olawale Ojo James V. Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) & Ors. (2013)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

UCHECHUKWU ONYEMENAM, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

Governorship Election was conducted to elect the Governor for Ondo State on 20th October, 2012 by the 1st Respondent. The 2nd Respondent was the candidate of the 3rd Respondent at the said election. Twelve other political parties also sponsored candidates for the said office at the election.

At the conclusion of the election the 2nd Respondent was returned as elected and declared as such by the 1st Respondent.

The Appellant was not a candidate at the said election and no vote was scored nor recorded for him by the 1st Respondent.

The Appellant, purportedly with the 4th Respondent were dissatisfied with the result as declared and the return of the 1st Respondent as the winner. By a Petition dated and filed on 8th November, 2012 they prayed for the following reliefs before the Tribunal:

(i) That it may be declared that the Governorship Election held on 20th October, 2012 in Ondo State wherein the 2nd Petitioner though validly nominated for the election but unlawfully excluded is invalid and unlawful.

(ii) An order setting aside and/or nullifying the Ondo State Governorship election held on 20th October, 2012 and the return of the 3rd Respondent, Dr, Rahman O. Mimiko as winner of the said election.

(iii) An order directing the 1st Respondent to conduct a fresh Governorship Election in Ondo State forthwith wherein the 2nd Petitioner shall be allowed to participate as the Governorship Candidate of the 1st Petitioner. See pages 6 – 7 of the Records

The case of the Petitioners at the lower court is that the 4th Respondent, a registered political party duly nominated the 2nd Petitioner (i.e the Appellant) for the Governorship Election held in Ondo State on 20th October, 2012 but the 2nd Petitioner was unlawfully excluded from the election by the 1st Respondent.

The 1st, 2nd and 3rd Respondents filed their Replies to the Petition. See pages 70 – 129, 130 – 162 and 164 – 199 of the petition. In their Replies, the three Respondents acting under paragraph 12(5) of the 1st Schedule to the Electoral Act raised Preliminary Objections. The Petitioners filed their Replies to the above and claimed inter alia that Suit No.: FHC/AK/CS/29/2012 had been withdrawn before the filing of the petition.

At the close of pleadings, the Respondents filed applications praying that the Petition be dismissed or struck out for incompetence. See pages 259 – 288 for the one filed by the 3rd Respondent and the petitioners’ written address against same on pages 289 – 298 of the record. The 2nd Respondent’s application to dismiss or strike out the Petition is at pages 299 – 359 of the record, while that of the 1st Respondent could be found at pages 379 – 411 of the record. These were the 1st set of objections against the Petition.

The petitioners on their part also filed an application in which they prayed that the various objections of the Respondents be taken along with the substantive petition. See pages 441 – 473 of the record. The respondents filed their various replies to this.

The 1st Petitioner on record (Accord Party) in its own case filed an application praying that its name be struck out from the petition on the ground that it neither authorized the filing of the petition nor the use of its name as it had resolved not to challenge the return and declaration of the 3rd Respondent by the 1st Respondent. See pages 550 – 562 of the record. The Respondents supported the 1st Petitioner’s application, while the 2nd Petitioner opposed same. See pages 563 – 513 and 594 – 606 of the record respectively.

The 2nd Petitioner filed a counter motion to challenge the 1st Petitioner’s motion asking that its name be struck out. This is at pages 659 – 674, while 1st Petitioner’s counter affidavit against same is at pages 675 – 691 of the record. All the Respondents on record opposed the 2nd Petitioner’s said motion. See pages 692 – 718 of the record.