Prince Olusoji Ehinlanwo & Anor V. Dr. Rahman Olusegun Mimiko & Ors. (2013)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

TIJJANI ABDULLAHI, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

This is an appeal against the Ruling of the Governorship Election Tribunal Sitting at Akure, Ondo State (Coram: Hon. Justice Aondover Kaka’an, (Chairman), Hon. Justice Halima Sa’adiya Mohammed (Member) and Kadi Muhammad Mahmud (Member) delivered in the four consolidated petitions to wit: (1) Accord Party and 1 Or. Vs. Independent National Electoral Commission & 2 Ors. Petition No: EPT/OD/GOV./01/2012, (2) Oluwarotimi O. Akeredolu, (SAN) & 1 Or. Vs. Rahman O. Mimiko & 2 Ors. Petition No: EPT/OD/GOV./2/2012, (3) Chief Alex Olusola Oke Petition No: EPT/OD/GOV./04/2012 and (4) Price Olusoji Ehinlanwo & 1 Or. Vs. Dr. Rahman Olusegun Mimiko & 4 Ors. petition No: EPT/GOV./05/2012.

The Appellants’ petition is at pages 1-74, the 1st Respondents reply to the Appellants/Petition is at page 75-144, the 2nd Respondent’s reply to the Appellants’ Petition is at pages 142-199, the 3rd to 5th Respondents, reply to the Appellants’ petition is at pages 200-277, the petitioners reply to 1st Respondents reply is at pages 278-283 of the record. The petitioners’ reply to 2nd Respondent’s reply is at pages 284-287 of the records, the Appellants’ reply to 3rd to 5th Respondents’ reply is at pages 288-292.

The order of the Tribunal consolidating the petition and the various applications filed therein is at page 519 of the records of proceeding, while the ruling appealed against which did not favour the Appellants for various reasons stated therein is at pages 531-617 of the records.

The facts of the case as can be gleaned from the records of the Tribunal are that:

The election into the office of Governor, Ondo state was conducted by the 3rd to 5th Respondents on 20th day of October, 2012, in which the 1st Appellant Price Olusoji Ehinlanwo was sponsored and contested as Governorship candidate for the election by the 2nd Appellant, congress for Progressive Change (CPC).

The 1st Respondent, Dr. Rahman Olusegun Mimiko was sponsored as Governorship candidate by the 2nd Respondent, Labour party in which the Appellants complained that the election was marred and vitiated by corrupt practices, gross manipulation and fundamental non compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act as amended.

The 3rd to 5th Respondents declared and returned the 1st and 2nd Respondents as the winners of the said election, in which the 1st Appellant scored 1,931 votes while the 1st Respondent scored 260,199 votes being the highest votes scored among other contestants from other political parties.

The Appellants thereupon filed their petition dated 10th November, 2012 at the registry of the lower Tribunal Challenging the election and return of the 1st Respondent as the Governor of Ondo State on various grounds articulated in their petition.

All the Respondents filed their respective replies against the petition and included preliminary objections to the hearing of the petition on various points of law raised therein to the effect that the Appellants’ petition be dismissed or struck out. The Appellant equally filed their replies thereto containing grounds for opposing their preliminary objections.

Pleadings were filed, exchanged and closed and parties were ready for full trial before the 1st Respondent, 2nd respondent and 3rd to 5th Respondent thereupon separately filed motion on notice which embodied the same preliminary objection contained in their respective replies.

In the 1st Respondents application dated 21st day of December, 2012 and filed on 24th day of December, 2012, the 1st Respondent contended that: (a) the reliefs 108 (3) and 108(4) contained in the Appellant’s petition were not competent and grantable by the Tribunal, or cannot co-exist together with other reliefs in the petition for determination (b) He further contended that the 1st Appellant did not disclose his locus standi for bringing the petition in compliance with the provisions of paragraphs 4(1) (b) of the First Schedule to the Electoral Act 2010 as amended and section 177 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999. See pages 307 to 330 of the record.

In the Appellants’ counter affidavit and the written address in support contained in pages 331 to 347, the Appellants’ contention were that the relief are competent and the 1st Appellant had clearly shown that he had the locus standi to present the petition.

The 2nd Respondent on its part filed an application for preliminary objection against the Appellants’ petition dated 21st December 2012 and filed on 24th December 2012. It was contended by the 2nd Respondent that certain paragraphs of the petition were vague, general, generic, unspecified and lacking in particulars.