Prince Shegun Samuel Saiki V. Oloruntoba Bamidele Simon & Ors. (2011)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

CHIOMA EGONDU NWOSU-IHEME (Ph.D), J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

This appeal emanates from the Judgment of the Edo State Governorship National Assembly and Legislative Houses Election Tribunal delivered on the 1 4/4/08.

The Appellant had contested the election into the Edo state House of Assembly for Akoko-Edo II constituency held on 14/4/O7 under the platform of the Peoples Democratic Party against the 1st Respondent who contested under the Action congress and other candidates. At the end of the election, the Appellant was said to have been declared winner by the 4th – 6th Respondents. Aggrieved by the said declaration, the 1st Respondent filed a petition at the lower tribunal challenging the declaration on grounds which included that the 3rd and 4th Respondents having initially cancelled the election in that constituency, had no power to later announce a result declaring the Appellant winner.

The petition went to trial at the conclusion of which the lower tribunal upheld the petition on this aforesaid ground and ordered a fresh election. Dissatisfied with the judgment the Appellant had brought this appeal on Thirteen Ground of Appeal from which he formulated four issues for determination as follows:

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION

The Appellant, most respectfully urges- that the issues for determination distilled from the Thirteen (13) Grounds of Appeal are as follows:

1) 1ST ISSUE FOR DETERMINATION

WHETHER THE LOWER TRIBUNAL, HAD JURISDICTION TO HEAR AND DETERMINE THE PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER.

2) 2ND ISSUE FOR DETERMINATION (GROUNDS, 1, 2 AND 12)

WHETHER THE LOWER TRIBUNAL WAS RIGHT WHEN IT REJECTED FORMS EC8A(i); EC8B(i); ECBD(i); EC8E(i) AND APPELLANT’S CERTIFICATE OF RETURN TENDERED IN EVIDENCE BY THE APPELLANT ON THE GROUND THAT THE SAID DOCUMENTS WERE NOT FILED ALONG WITH THE IST AND 2ND RESPONDENT’S REPLY TO THE PETITION.

3) 3RD ISSUE FOR DETERMINATION (GROUNDS, 3, 4, 5 AND 6)

WHETHER THE LOWER TRIBUNAL WAS RIGHT IN NULLIFYING THE APPELLANT’S ELECTION ON THE GROUND THAT THE RESIDENT ELECTORAL COMMISSIONER HAD LEGALLY CANCELLED ELECTION RESULTS FOR THE AKOKO EDO II CONSTITUENCY.

4) 4TH ISSUE FOR DETERMINATION

(GROUNDS, 7, 8, 9 AND 10)