Onoja Sa’id Emeje V. Ihiabe Abdul Positive & Ors. (2008)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

OYEBISI F. OMOLEYE, J.C.A.

This is an appeal against the ruling of the National Assembly/Governorship and Legislative Houses Election Petition Tribunal sitting at Lokoja delivered on 19/7/07.

The brief facts of this case are that the Appellant a candidate of PDP and the 1st Respondent a candidate of the ANPP both contested for the House of Representative seat for Dekina/Bassa Federal Constituency of Kogi State at the 21/4/2007 general elections. The 1st Respondent was declared as the winner of the said election by the 2nd to 4th Respondents.

By a petition dated and filed on 22/5/2007, the Appellant sought to challenge the election. In the petition, the Appellant prayed the lower Tribunal to nullify the election on the ground that the election was invalid having been allegedly riduled by corrupt practices and consequently I the 1st Respondent was not elected by majority of lawful votes cast at the election. ,

In response to the Appellant’s petition, the 1st Respondent filed a Conditional Memorandum of Appearance and his reply to the petition on 18/6/2007. The 1st Respondent also Filed a Notice of Preliminary Objection challenging the competence of the petition on the grounds that:

(i) The Appellant’s petition was statute barred having been filed outside the statutory period of thirty (30) days.

(ii) The Appellant failed to include the scores of the candidates who participated in the election.

(iii) The Appellant failed to include his address for service.

After hearing counsel for both parties, the lower Tribunal upheld the preliminary objection and accordingly dismissed the Appellant’s petition.

Dissatisfied with the ruling of the lower Tribunal on the preliminary objection, the Appellant filed this Appeal vide the Notice of Appeal dated 9/8/07. The Notice of Appeal containing four (4) Grounds of Appeal is at pages 338 to 340 of the record. The four grounds of appeal with their particulars are verbatim as follows:

“GROUND 1.

The Tribunal erred in law when it ruled that the Petitioner’s action was statute barred when it is evident that the tribunal registry only opened on the 23rd of April 2007.

PARTICULARS OR ERROR.

(a) The tribunal’s registry having formally opened and commenced operations on the 23rd of April 2007, the Appellant’s petition could not be said to be statute barred, a (sic) he could not have been expected to file his petition before the 23rd of April 2007.