Prince Shaibu Halilu Sani & Anor V. Hon. Attai Usman Aidoko & Ors. (2008)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

RABIU DANLAMI MUHAMMAD, J.C.A.

The 1st appellant herein contested for election under the platform of All Nigeria People Party (ANPP) at the House of Representative election for Ankpa/Omala/Olamaboro Federal Constituency held on the 21st day April, 2007. The second appellant ANPP is a duly registered political party which sponsored the 1st appellant as it; candidate at the said election. The 1st respondent contested the said election under the platform of PDP which is a duly registered political party. At the conclusion of the election, the 1st respondent was declared the winner of the election having scored the majority of lawful votes cast at the election.

The appellants were not happy that the 1st respondent was declared the winner of the election by the 2nd and 3rd respondents hence they presented a petition before the National Assembly Election Tribunal holden at Lokoja, Kogi State on the grounds that the election was marred and void by corrupt practices and non-compliance with the Electoral Act, 2006 and that the 1st respondent was not elected by majority of lawful votes cast at the said election in compliance with the Electoral Act, 2006 and consequently his return is null. After completing all the pre-trial formalities, the petition was adjourned to 23rd July, 2007 for hearing. On the adjourned date counsel for the petitioner asked for adjournment because some vital documents they subpoened were not produced by INEC. Counsel for all the respondents opposed the application for adjournment. However, the Tribunal reluctantly granted the adjournment and said it would be the last adjournment at the instance of the petitioner.

Hearing of the petition started on 6th September, 2007. Five witnesses testified on behalf of the petitioner on that day because one of the counsel had an appointment with his doctor. The matter was adjourned to 13th September, 2007 for continuation of hearing. On the 13th September, 2007 the petitioners counsel was not in Court. However, he sent a letter to the Tribunal asking for adjournment because of counsel’s engagement at the F.C.T. Area Council Election Tribunal. All the respondents counsel opposed the application for adjournment. The petitioners themselves were not in court. The Tribunal refused the adjournment and accordingly dismissed the petition. This is what the Tribunal said in its ruling:-

“We have seriously looked at the conduct of Counsel to the petitioner who has sent the letter urging us to adjourn the matter to 15th day of September, 2007 on the ground that he has another engagement at the Local Council Tribunal in the FCT. We believe it is most discourteous and indomitable for the counsel to say as he did, that we imposed this date on him. Hearing into election petitions is from day to day as per the provision of paragraph 24 (1) of the First Schedule of the Electoral Act, 2006.

Election petitions are not ordinary civil matters, are Sui Generis and we cannot afford to be adjourning matters on flimsy reasons even when parties decide to stay away.

By provision of paragraph 5(3) of the Election Tribunal and Court Practice Directions 2007

“When a petition comes up for hearing, if the respondent appears and the petitioner does not appear, the respondent shall be entitled to final judgment dismissing the petition.”

We note that this is not the first time the learned counsel is asking for adjournment and thereby truncating the proceedings. He made a similar application on the 23rd July, 2007 when the matter came up for hearing on the ground that he had not secured a certain document he wanted to use in the prosecution of the Petition from INEC.

We are consequently of the view that the absence of the learned counsel to the petitioners and the petitioners themselves is a clear demonstration of lack of sufficient interest in the matter. We would have differently had the petitioners themselves been present this morning. But as it were, none of them is in court. Their absence has also not been accounted for.

We are therefore invoking the provision of Paragraph 5(3) of the Practice Directions, 2007 (as amended) to enter judgment in favour of the respondents.

The petition is hereby dismissed.”

Aggrieved by this decision, the petitioners appealed to this Court. The Notice of Appeal contains three grounds of appeal, shorn of their particulars, the grounds of appeal read:-

“GROUND ONE