Peoples Democratic Party (Pdp) & Anor V. All Peoples Party (App) & Ors (1999)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

RABIU DANLAMI MUHAMMAD, J.C.A.

On the 5th of December, 1998 elections were held nationwide into all the Local Government Councils of Nigeria. The 2nd appellant contested the Chairmanship of Kubau Local Government Council of Kaduna State under the platform of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) while the 2nd respondent was sponsored by the All Peoples Party (APP) to contest the said chairmanship election. After the election, the third respondent i.e. the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) returned the 2nd respondent as duly elected.

The 1st and 2nd appellants were aggrieved with this decision. They filed a petition at the Local Government Council Election Tribunal, Kaduna challenging the election result. It was averred in the petition that the 2nd respondent was not duly elected by a majority of votes cast at the election and that the election was voided by non-compliance with the provisions of the Decree. The appellants also claimed that certain Forms EC 8A stating results of polls at polling stations, show a lot of irregularities and substantial non-compliance with the provisions of the Decree.

The appellants also claimed that such irregular and non-complying Forms EC 8A touched all the wards of the Local Government especially Pambeguwa and Zuntu. It was further claimed that the results stated on such irregular and non-complying Forms EC 8A ought to be excluded from the overall result of the election.

Before the hearing of the petition counsel for the 1st and 2nd respondents raised a preliminary objection on point of law on the ground that the electoral officer was not joined as a respondent. He argued that all the complaints about the conduct of the election and filling of forms were against the electoral officer. His contention was that, he should be joined as a necessary party. He said since the petitioners did not comply with S.83 (2) of the Decree, the petition was incompetent and urged the tribunal to strike out the petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioners opposed the objection. He said there was no need to join the electoral officer. He argued that in order to give the petitioners fair hearing, the petition should not be struck out. He urged the tribunal to discountenance the objection.

In a reserved ruling, the tribunal considered the submissions of all the counsel and came to the conclusion that:

“Again, having critically looked at the petition and the respondents therein, the tribunal observes that it is the truth that there is no electoral presiding or returning officer sued by the petitioners as required by section 83(2) of the Decree.

The facts stated on page 2 of the petition, headed Facts of the Petition’ under its paragraph 4, contains allegations about the way the election was conducted.

Irregularities were averred in the forms filled. It is a well known fact that it is the presiding or returning officers who conducted the elections that filled those forms. Going by the provision of section 83(2) of the Decree, the said officers or officer who filled the various forms EC8A specifically stated in the petition as well as Forms E.C.8B, E.C.8C and E.C.8E should have been made respondents or respondent as the case may be as required by the said provision in the petition. If this was not done, then the said petition is defective.’

The tribunal upheld the objection. It invoked the provisions of S.87 (3) and struck out the petition.

Dissatisfied with this decision, the petitioners appealed to this court. They filed five grounds of appeal. In compliance with the practice direction, briefs of arguments were filed and exchanged. The appellants formulated five issues for determination in their brief of argument. The respondents on the other hand formulated a single issue for determination in their brief.

Before considering the issues formulated. I will comment, albeit briefly, on the briefs of argument filed by the parties especially the appellants’ brief of argument. Counsel should note that the purpose of brief writing is to assist the administration of justice by making the work of both counsel and the court easier once the matter has reached the oral hearing stage. It is to promote justice, so that both counsel and the court may not embark on a wild goose chase, chasing a futile course. See: Ehot v. State (1993) 4 NWLR (Pt.290) 644. The appellant’s brief in this case is so inelegantly written and so unwieldy that instead of making things easier, it tends to confuse and makes things a lot more difficult. The issues formulated by the appellants are no issues at all. It should be remembered that issue for determination is not the same as a ground of appeal. An issue may be contained in one ground of appeal or traverse a number of grounds of appeal. See Bakare v. A.-G. of Federation (1990) 5 NWLR (PL 152) 516; and Akpan v. State (1992) 6 NWLR (Pt.248) 439.

The purpose of formulation of issues for determination in a brief of argument is to accentuate the real issues for determination before the court, i.e. the issues in the ground of appeal relevant to the determination of the appeal hence the issues must be within the purview of the grounds of appeal filed. See: Olowosago v. Adebanjo (1988) 4 NWLR (Pt.88) 275.