People Democratic Party V. Bassey Otu & Ors (2015)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

HAMMA AKAWU BARKA, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

This is an interlocutory appeal against the ruling/decision of the National and State Houses of Assembly Election Tribunal Holden at Calabar, the Cross River State capital in Petition No. EPT/CR/SE/215, between the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and Senator Bassey Edet Otu and 3 others delivered on the 18th of June, 2015.

In the said ruling which is at pages 1496 – 1497, the Tribunal ruled as follows:

“We have considered the argument and submissions of learned counsel on both sides. It is our view that at this stage of the proceedings, it is needless to deter (sic) into the legal distinction between a sworn affidavit within the meaning of S. 107-119 of the Evidence Act and Statement on Oath as prescribed by the First Schedule to the Electoral Act.

This is for the reason that at this stage, the Statement on Oath being challenged by the 2nd Respondent one of that profuse evidence tort (sic) to be adduced by the Petitioners at trial. As such until the deponents of the said statements on oath enter the witness box to adopt them it will be premature and pre-emptive to consider the validity in law of

1

deposed to in the statement on oath.”

The Appellant showed their dissatisfaction to the ruling of the Tribunal when on the 8th of July 2015, filed a Notice of Appeal containing two grounds. The two grounds shorn of their particulars are as follows:-

a) The National and State Houses of Assembly Election Tribunal Holden at Calabar, erred in law when it struck out the Appellant’s motion to strike out the statements on oath filed by the 1st and 2nd Respondents herein in the lower tribunal in its ruling of 18th June, 2015.

b) The Lower Tribunal misapplied the provisions of paragraph 45 of the First Schedule of the Election Act to the settled facts of the case leading to the present appeal in its ruling of 18th June, 2015.

On the 6th of August, 2015, being the scheduled hearing date, E.O.E. Ekong leading O. A. Okon and l.M. Anana adopted Appellant’s brief as settled by him and urged the Court to allow the Appellant’s appeal in terms of the reliefs sought.

Mr. Essien Andrew also adopted the 1st and 2nd Respondents brief also settled by him and urged upon the Court to dismiss the appeal in its entirety as lacking in merit.

The 3rd and

2