CORAM

---

MICHAEL EYARUOMA AKPIROROH JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL

ABOYI JOHN IKONGBEH JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL

DAVID ADEDOYIN ADENIJI JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL

---

PARTIES

---

CHARLES ELODI (ALIAS CHARLES A. ELODU) PETITIONER(S) / APPELLANT(S)

---

RESPONDENTS

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The facts of this case are that the Petitioner/Appellant and others contested election in Abia State House of Assembly on the 3rd of May 2003. The Petitioner/Appellant was a candidate on the platform of All Progressive Grand Alliance (APGA) Party, while the 1st Respondent contested on the platform of the People’s Democratic Party (PDP). At the end of the election, the 1st Respondent was returned elected. The Petitioner/Appellant contended at the tribunal that the result of the election were inflated and concocted at the final constituency centre and prayed the tribunal to declare him the winner of the said elections. The tribunal dismissed the Petitioner/Applicant’s petition. Dissatisfied with the trial Court’s decision, the Petitioner/Appellant has appealed to this Court.

---

HELD

---

Appeal Dismissed

---

ISSUES

---

Whether the tribunal below was not in a fundamental error when it failed and or refused to nullify the entire set of results tendered by the respondents when the total number of votes cast or total figures allocated by them exceeded the accredited voters. Whether the tribunal below was right in its decision and findings that falsification, inflation, juggling of figures and doctoring of results were not proved in the petition in the place of monumental and overwhelming testimonies and exhibits tendered establishing the same at the hearing. Whether the tribunal below did not commit an error by failing and or refusing to nullify the respondents set of results vitiated and stigmatised by fundamental irregularity, falsifications, doctorings and using the petitioner’s set of results tendered in evidence to declare him the winner of the election. Whether the tribunal below was right in raising the issue of arithmetical error suo motu without any evidence led by any witness to that effect and using same to determine the winner and final result of the election without hearing the parties or giving their counsel opportunity to address on same.

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

ELECTION PETITION-PRESUMPTION OF REGULARITY OF AN ELECTION-DUTY ON A PETITIONER IN REBUTTING SAME

---

“The law presumes that the returns produced by Returning Officers are accurate and that presumption can only be rebutted by strong and precise evidence to the contrary. Failure on the part of the petitioner to do so renders the result rendered by defence witnesses reliable”. PER ADENIJI, JCA

---

CASES CITED

---

Egolum v. Obasanjo & ors (1999) 7 N.W.L.R. (Pt 611) 335 at 413;Jim Nwobodo v. Onoh (1984) 1 SCNLR 1

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

Evidence Act, 1990Electoral Act 2002

---

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT