CORAM
ISA AYO SALAMI
PARTIES
DANLADI ISA KADEMI APPELLANTS
1. JAZULI USMAN2. RETURNING OFFICER-GAYA LOCAL GOVERNMENT3. ELECTORAL OFFICER-GAYA LOCAL GOVERNMENT 4. INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
This is the second coming of this appeal to the Court of Appeal of the matter in controversy over the seat of the Chairmanship of the Gaya Local Government in Kano State. The first appeal ended in the affirmation of the decision of the lower court that a Bye Election should be conducted in three polling units at Malmakawa ward of Gaya Local Government. In doing so, the Court of Appeal set aside the return of the 1st Respondent as the Chairman of Gaya Local Government. Following the decision of the Court of Appeal, a bye-election was held, and the 1st Respondent was again declared the winner. The Petitioner as at the court below, was dissatisfied with the verdict of the election, he filed a petition before the Local Government Election Tribunal Kano state, challenging the return of the 1st Respondent. The 1st Respondent entered a conditional appearance, and filed a motion against the petition, for an order of the lower Tribunal to strike out the petition. The lower court considered the objection by the 1st Respondent in his motion on notice and held that the Petitioner/Appellant’s petition was incompetent and struck out same. It is against the ruling of the lower court that the Petitioner has filed this appeal.
HELD
Appeal Dismissed
ISSUES
Whether the petition of the appellant contained at its foot the name of the occupant of the place of service for the petitioners as required in paragraphs 5 (4) and 5, Scheduled 5 to Decree No 36 of 1998. Whether there were only two candidates at the bye election on 20th March, 1999 for 3 units for the office of Chairman of Gaya Local Government Council.
RATIONES DECIDENDI
ELECTION PETITION
ELECTION PETITION- FORMAT OF AN ELECTION PETITION UNDER THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BASIC CONSTITUTIONAL AND TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS) DECREE 1998
“The issue will be recorded in relation to the objection raised as above. (1) That the name of parties and scores of 3rd contestant was not stated in paragraph 5 (1) (a) and (c) of Schedule 5, to Decree NO 36 Local Government Basic constitutional and Transitional provisions) Decree 1998, under the provision of a general heading titled “Procedure for election petition,” the following is prescribed under paragraph 5-1 a, b, c. “An election petition under this Decree shall (a) specify the parties interested in the election petition (b) … (c) state the holding of the election, the scores of the candidates and the person returned as the winner of the election etc. The above also relate to complaint No. 3 in the motion of the 1st Respondent on whether or not all the parties in the election were named. In paragraph 4 of the said Schedule 5, to Decree No 36, it is prescribed as follows:-
(4) At the foot of the election petition there shall also be stated an address of the petitioner for service within five Kilometers of a post office in the Judicial Division and the name of the occupier at which address documents intended for the petitioner maybe left.”
(5) If an address for service and its occupier are not stated as specified in sub paragraph 4 of this paragraph the petitioner shall be deemed not to have been filed unless the election Tribunal otherwise orders.”
(6) An election petition which does not complain with sub paragraph 1 of this paragraph or any provision of that sub paragraph is defective and maybe struck out by the election tribunal.”
(7) The form TF002 set out in Schedule 6 to this Decree or one substantially like it shall be sufficient for the purposes of this paragraph.”
–
ELECTION PETITION
ELECTION PETITION- STATUS OF AN ELECTION PETITION THAT FAILS TO CONFORM TO THE PRESCRIBED FORM
“The provision is that “any petition which does not conform is defective and a defective petition shall be struck out.” This is what the lower court did.”It is now an accepted interpretation of the law, that “Where a statute provides for a particular method to perform an act no other must be adopted.” Vide cooperative Commerce Bank Nigeria Plc. v Attorney General of Anambra State and anr. 1992 10 S.C.N.J. 137 at page 163 per Nnaemeka Agu JSC.”
STATUTE
PROVISION OF A SCHEDULE- WHETHER THE PROVISION IN ONE SCHEDULE IN A STATUTE CANNOT CONTRADICT THE EXPRESSED PROVISION OF THE LAW IN ANOTHER SCHEDULE IN THE SAME DECREE
“The appellant has argued that the form TF002 in Schedule 6 does not provide for the name of the occupier of the premises, and that any form which is substantially the same would have been adequate as provided in schedule 5, paragraph 5, and sub paragraph 7 of the Decree No 36. I have held in a previous decision on this issue that the provision in one schedule in a statute cannot contradict the expressed provision of the law in another schedule in the same Decree.”
STATUTE
SCHEDULE – PURPOSE OF A SCHEDULE
“The purpose of a schedule is to construe the provisions in the body of the act, in the light of what is enacted in the body of the act. See Maxwell on Interpretation of statutes 12th Edition, on page 12. par 2 on schedules.”
CASES CITED
Not Available
STATUTES REFERRED TO
Local Government Basic constitutional and Transitional provisions) Decree 1998|