Princewill Chilaka Onuoha V. Solomon Akpulonu & Ors (2008)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

MOHAMMED LAWAL GARBA, J.C.A.

In the rescheduled election held on 28th April, 2007 into the Abia State House of Assembly for the Obingwa East State constituency, the Appellant, sponsored by Progressive Peoples’ Alliance (PPA) and the 1st Respondent on the platform of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), were candidates among others. At the end of the election, the 3rd Respondent, through the 4th – 7th Respondents declared and returned the 1st Respondent as the winner. Dissatisfied with the return, the Appellant presented an election petition against same before the Governorship and Legislative Houses Election Tribunal Abia State (hereinafter lower tribunal) on three (3) grounds as follows:

1. The election of the 1st Respondent was invalid by reason of corrupt practices, violence and or noncompliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act.
2. The 1st Respondent was not elected by a majority of the lawful votes cast at the election
3. Petitioner avers that 1st Respondent was not elected by majority of the lawful votes cast at the election, and that the election in Obingwa Local Government Area Ward 10 was invalid by reason of corrupt practices, violence and or non-compliance with the provisions of the electoral Act.”

At the end of the trial of the petition, the Tribunal in a decision delivered on the 23rd of February, 2008, dismissed it and affirmed the declaration and return of the 1st Respondent as the winner of the election. Once again, the Appellant was dissatisfied with that decision and so an appeal against it was filed on the 6th of March, 2008. The appeal was predicated on five (5) grounds, which stripped of their particulars, are as follows:-

“GROUND 1

ERROR IN LAW

The Tribunal erred in law when it held that the presiding and collation officers for units and wards against whom there were no complaints were necessary parties and ought to have been joined.

GROUND 2

ERROR IN LAW

The Tribunal erred in law when it dismissed the entire petition on ground that presiding officers and ward collation officers were not joined in the petition.

GROUND 3

ERROR IN LAW

The Tribunal erred in law when it failed to consider the issue of substantial non compliance in the declaration of result as specifically pleaded by petitioner thereby denying petitioner a fair hearing and thus occasioning a miscarriage of justice.

GROUND 4

ERROR IN LAW