J. A. ADEKOYE VS NIGERIAN SECURITY PRINITING MINTING COMPANY LIMITED
May 28, 2025DAMULAK DASHI V. STEPHEN DATLONG
May 28, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (2009) Legalpedia (CA) 09813
In the Court of Appeal
Mon Feb 2, 2009
Suit Number: CA/I/EPT/GOV/26/2008
CORAM
UMARU ABDULLAHI
TANKO MOHAMMED JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL.
UMARU ABDULLAHI
KUDIRAT M. O. KEKERE-EKUN
MUSA DATTIJO MUHAMMAD JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL.
TANKO MOHAMMED JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL.
PARTIES
ADEGBEBGA SEFIU KAKA APPELLANTS
OTUNBA GBENGA DANIEL & 23 OTHERS RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The Petitioner appealed against the decision of the Ogun State Governorship and Legislative Houses Election Tribunal which sat in Abeokuta Ogun State. In the petition the petitioner sought that the election be determined on the grounds that the election was marked with intimidation of voters, stuffing of ballot boxes, diversion of election materials and outright fraud and that the 1st Respondent was not duly elected by majority of lawful votes cast, and that at the election genuine voters were harassed, intimidated and violently chased away to give room for thumb printing of ballot papers. The Respondent challenged the petition on the grounds that the petitioner failed to include the necessary facts to support his allegation, that the petition discloses no cause of action and that hence the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to hear same for being defective and incompetent. The petitioner sought to amend his petition and his application was granted in part. However the petition was eventually struck out as the Tribunal held that it lack jurisdiction to hear the petition as the petitioner violated the provision of paragraphs 4(1) (c) and (d) of the 1st schedule to the Electoral Act 2008, hence this appeal.
HELD
Appeal Dismissed
ISSUES
Whether the Election Tribunal was right to have refused the amendment proposed by the appellant to his petition dated 14th May, 2007.The 1st respondent was not duly elected by a majority of lawful votes.”
RATIONES DECIDENDI
AMENDMENTS IN PETITION – NATURE OF AMENDMENTS ALLOWED IN A PETITION
“No amendment shall be made or allowed if it seeks to introduce any of the statutory requirement as to the contents of a petition to make a substantial alteration to the Acts relied upon on the prayer contained in the petition. Therefore failure of the petitioner to comply with the prescribed rules for content of the petition as contained in Section 147(3), and 4(1) of the Electoral Act. This renders the petition defective and denies jurisdiction to the Tribunal to preside over the petition. See Emeka v Emordi 2004 14 NWLR (Part 90) at 433, Abimbola v. Aderoju (1999) 5 NWLR (Part 601)”. PER V. A. O. OMAGE OFR, J.C.A
ELECTION PETITION – EFFECT OF AN ALLEGATION THAT A CANDIDATE DID NOT SCORE MAJORITY OF LAWFUL VOTES IN AN ELECTION
“In Emozie v. Obekere (2006) 8 NWLR (Part 981); and I am in total agreement with the view that the complaint that a candidate did not score the majority of lawful votes in an election is an invitation to compare and contrast the figure scored in the election. There is no alternative to saying a calculation of the registered voters’, the total number of votes cast and the votes recorded by each candidate is a prerequisite to establishing the petition”. PER V. A. O. OMAGE OFR, J.C.A:
CASES CITED
STATUTES REFERRED TO
Electoral Act, 2006Electoral Act 2008
