EMMANUEL ABARSHI VS COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
June 10, 2025HON. OKOTO FOSTER BRUCE V MR. EBIKEME FRANK ERE & ORS
June 10, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (2004) Legalpedia (CA) 14851
In the Court of Appeal
HOLDEN AT PORT HARCOURT
Wed Dec 8, 2004
Suit Number: CA/PH/EPT/130/2004
CORAM
JOHN AFOLABI FABIYI, JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL
VICTOR AIMEPOMO OYELEYE OMAGE, JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL
PARTIES
CHIBUZOR N. ZIGGY AZIKE, KSC APPELLANTS
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The Appellant as Petitioner under the umbrella of United Nigeria Peoples Party U.N.P.P. filed an election petition at the National Assembly/Governorship and Legislative Houses Election Tribunal challenging the victory of the 1st Respondent who contested for the senatorial seat in the Imo Senatorial District under the umbrella of the Peoples Democratic Party P.D.P along with seven other parties who fielded their candidates. The 1st Respondent was returned as the winner of the election. The Petitioner filed a petition challenging the validity of the election for non-compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act 2002, malpractice, rigging and neglect by Independent National Election Commission (I.N.E.C ) as the 2nd Respondent for failing to put officers and workers of the commission who assisted and conducted the election on oath as required by section 18 of the Act. Argument of parties was heard by the tribunal; at the end of the argument the tribunal dismissed the petition. Dissatisfied the Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeal.
HELD
Appeal Dismissed
ISSUES
Whether the Tribunal was right in law when it held that the election officials took the prescribed oaths and that the election materials were certified and whether the complaint of non-taking of oath as it affects the Presiding Officers is not vitiated by non-joinder.Whether the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the election was not marred by corrupt practices.
RATIONES DECIDENDI
ELECTION PETITION – BURDEN OF PROOF IN ELECTION PETITION
“It has now become settled that the onus is on the person who denies the correctness or authenticity of an election result to prove same. And where such denial is based on allegation relating to crime, the proof or the rebuttal of presumption of the correctness of the election result is one beyond reasonable doubt.” PER FABIYI, J.C.A
CASES CITED
Adun V. Osunde (2003) 16 NWLR (Pt.847) 643 AT P.664.
STATUTES REFERRED TO
Electoral Act, 2002.Evidence Act, 1990Oaths Act 1990
