Zeribe Ezeanua V. Chukwuka Onyema & Ors (2010)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

AMIRU SANUSI, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

This is an appeal against the judgment of the National Assembly/Governorship and Legislative Houses Election Tribunal, Anambra State sitting at Awka, (hereinafter referred to as “the tribunal”) delivered on 10th May 2008 on Petition No. EPT/AN/NAE/HR/26/2007 filed by the appellant against the Respondents. In the said judgment the tribunal dismissed the Petitioner’s (now Appellant’s) Petition. Aggrieved by the decision of the tribunal dismissing the petition, the appellant appealed to this court vide a Notice of Appeal dated 30th May 2008 containing five grounds of appeal which are reproduced hereunder for ease of reference:-

The Learned Trial Tribunal erred in law in the application of the decisions of the Court of Appeal in Nweke v Ejims (1999) 11 NWLR (Pt 625)39; Nnaji V. Agbo 2 EPR 867 and Supreme Court decision in Buhari V. Obasanjo (2005) 13 NWLR (PT. 941) Page 1.

PARTICULARS OF ERROR

a. The trial Tribunal purportedly relying on the above decision held that the petitioner ought to have issued a subpoena on INEC when it failed to produce the register of voters upon the service of notice to produce.

b. It also held that the petitioner must produce register of voters in order to prove that there was no voting.

c. The Court of Appeal and Supreme Court in the above cases did not make such pronouncement.

GROUND TWO MISDIRECTION

The Learned Trial Tribunal misdirected itself and came to a wrong decision when it held that “we found it incredible and unbelievable that the DPO escorted the materials to Okpoko only to get there and said it was too late to distribute the materials and that he could not guarantee the security of the materials and then heeded back to Atani”.

PARTICULARS OF MISDIRECTION

a. The petitioner’s evidence that the DPO had to return back to Atani when he found it was too late for election was not controverted

b. The respondent did not call the DPO to discredit this piece of evidence,

c. There is nothing incredible in the line of evidence given by the petitioner involving the DPO.

GROUND THREE MISDIRECTION