IVIENAGBOR V BAZUAYE
June 27, 2025K. KOIKI & ORS VS B.V. MAGNUSSON
June 27, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (1999) Legalpedia (CA) 66235
In the Court of Appeal
Wed Jun 2, 1999
Suit Number: CA/B/140/99
CORAM
SUNDAY AKINOLA AKINTAN JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL.
VICTOR AIMEPOMO OYELEYE OMAGE
BABA ALKALI BA’ABA JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL.
SAKA ADEYEMI IBIYEYE JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL.
FRANCIS FEDODE TABAI JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL.
PARTIES
1. DR. ALEX IDEH2. DR. DANIEL DOWOVIJI WHAWORETURNING OFFICER (Warri Federal Constituency)3. INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION, DELTA STATE4. MR. E. O. EFFANGAADMINISTRATIVE SECRETARY INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION, DELTA STATE5. RESIDENT ELECTORAL COMMISSIONER INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION, DELTA STATE6. INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION APPELLANTS
1. HON. EMMANUEL ORISETIMEYIN ORUGBOH2. INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION3. INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION DELTA STATE4. DR. DANIEL DOWOVIJI WHAWOTHE RETURNING OFFICER, WARRI FEDERAL CONSTITUENCY5. MR. TONY ABAMAHFORMER RESIDENT ELECTORAL COMMISSIONER, DELTA STATE6. ALHAJI MOHAMMED ABUBAKARRESIDENT ELECTORAL COMMISSIONER, DELTA STATE7. MR. E. O. EFFANGAADMINISTRATIVE SECRETARY INDEPENDENT8.NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION, DELTA STATE9.THE ELECTORAL OFFICER, WARRI SOUTH LOCAL GOVERNMENT AREA10. THE ELECTORAL OFFICER WARRI NORTH LOCAL GOVERNMENT AREA11. THE ELECTORAL OFFICER, WARRI SOUTH WEST LOCAL GOVERNMENT AREA RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The Appellant, Miss Temi Harriman had contested the election into the Warri Federal Constituency seat with the Petitioners, Dr. Alex Ideh and Mr. Orugboh. The Appellant contested under the umbrella of the All Peoples Party, why the Petitioners contested on the platform of the Peoples Democratic Party and Alliance for Democracy respectively. On the date fixed for the election which was scheduled to begin by 8am, a news item was issued by INEC’S Administrative Secretary for Delta State on behalf of INEC that the Senatorial and House of Representative election scheduled to hold in some constituencies including that into the Warri Federal Constituency had been postponed by INEC. Despite the announcement, the official of INEC went ahead with the election, at the conclusion of which the Appellant was declared winner. Each of her two opponents then filed a separate petition. But following an application made to the tribunal, the two petitions were consolidated and heard together by the tribunal. The Petitioners had prayed amongst others, for an ORDER declaring the purported election null and void pursuant to the postponement and or cancellation of the election by the 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th Respondents. At the end of the trial, the tribunal entered judgment in favour of the Petitioners. Dissatisfied with the judgment of the tribunal the Appellant has appealed to this Court.
HELD
Appeal allowed
ISSUES
Whether the tribunal was right in nullifying the election on mere proof by the petitioners, in the instant case, of the radio announcements made on the day of the election without proving that the said announcement in fact affected the turn out and the conduct of the said election
RATIONES DECIDENDI
PROOF OF FACTS IN SETTING ASIDE THE RESULT OF AN ELECTION – FACTS THAT MUST BE PROVED BY A PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESULT OF AN ELECTION CAN BE SET ASIDE
“A petitioner needs to prove more facts before he can successfully set aside the result of such election. Among the facts he needs to prove before he can succeed are that:-
(1) the INEC staff charged with the conduct of the election were duly informed of the postponement and yet they went ahead on their own choice to conduct the election and then announced the result: and
(2) he needs to prove that the announcement reached the electorate who actually acted on it by staying away from voting if in fact the election was held. This can only be proved by showing that the turn out in the election held after the said announcement was so low when compared with other elections held in the area in question around the same time that the only inference one could draw is that the low turn-out was as a result of the said announcement”. PER S. A. AKINTAN, J.C.A
NULLIFYING AN ELECTION – DUTY OF A TRIBUNAL IN NULLIFYING AN ELECTION
“Before any tribunal could nullify any election duly conducted by the authority saddled with that assignment, all the necessary factors must be meticulously taken into consideration with the aim of ensuring that there are compelling factors to warrant or justify such a serious decision”. PER S. A. AKINTAN, J.C.A
NULLIFICATION OF AN ELECTION – EFFECT OF NULLIFICATION OF AN ELECTION ON A DULY ELECTED CANDIDATE AND THE ELECTORAL BODY
“Nullification or invalidation of an election is the gravest punishment that a candidate duly declared elected and the authority charged with conducting such election can experience. This is because such a decision would mean going through the expenses, trauma and other hazards of having to go over another election. See Na-Gambo v. NEC (1993) 1 NWLR (Pt.267) 94 at 106”. PER S. A. AKINTAN, J.C.A
ELECTION – PURPOSE OF AN ELECTION
“The purpose of holding an election in a democratic set up is to determine the wishes of the people as to who should represent them in their legislative and executive set up. It is therefore necessary to ensure that any election conducted is done in a way that would substantially ensure that that main objective is substantially met.” PER S. A. AKINTAN, J.C.A
CASES CITED
STATUTES REFERRED TO
Court of Appeal Rules
