Prince Matthew Orusede V. Reginald Dombraye & Ors (2008)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

GEORGE OLADEINDE SHOREMI, J.C.A:

This is an appeal by the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the appellant) against the ruling of the Governorship and the Legislative Houses Election Tribunal sitting at Asaba Delta State delivered on the 19th of July 2007 dismissing the petition of the appellant on the ground that he failed to apply for the issuance of pre-hearing notice as stipulated in paragraph 3(1), (3) & (4) of the Election Tribunal and Court Practice Directions 2007.

All parties filed their respective replies. The reply of the 1st respondent is at pages 34-133 of the record. The reply of the appellant to the 1st respondent reply is at pages 134-152 of the record. The petition of the petitioner is at page 1-21 of the record.

The motion which stemmed the controversy upon which the appellants have been predicated upon is dated 26th of June 2007. In the motion the appellant prayed the tribunal for an extension of time to apply for the setting down of the petition for pre-hearing session and an order setting down the petition for a pre-hearing session. The motion, with its supporting affidavit is at pages 153-156 of the record. The appellant’s written address in support of the motion is at pages 162-164.

The Tribunal heard the motion on the 6th of July 2007 and delivered its ruling on the 19th of July 2007 dismissing the petition as an abandoned petition. It is against this ruling that the appellant has appealed on 3 grounds. The notice of appeal is at page 180-182.

The grounds of appeal as stated at pages 180-182 are stated hereunder without the particulars I quote –

“Grounds of Appeal

(1) The learned Judges of the Tribunal erred in law in holding that they had no power to grant the application for extension of time because of the provisions of the Election Tribunal and Court Practice Direction 2007.

(2) The learned trial judges of the tribunal erred in law in dismissing the petition as abandoned having regard to the application before it to extend time for complying with the provisions of the Practice Direction and

(3) The learned trial judge (sic) acted in breach of the petitioner’s right to fair hearing by refusing to extend time for the petitioner to comply with the guideline.

In line with the Practice in this court the appellant filed an Appellant’s brief dated 3/10/07 and in response the 1st Respondent filed an amended brief dated 10/3/08 filed on 20/3/08 but deemed properly filed and served on 8/4/08 vide an application dated 10/3/08.

The 2nd -5th Respondents also filed 2nd – 5th Respondents brief of argument dated 11/10/07 but properly deemed filed and served on 17/10/07 vide an application dated 15/10/07.

In response to the 1st Respondent’s brief of argument the appellant filed a Reply brief dated 17/6/08 but deemed properly filed and served on 9/10/08.

In the appellant’s brief 3 issues were formulated by the Appellant.