LIASU ADEPOJU VS RAJI OKE
June 27, 2025WILSON ALATAHA & ANOR v. BENSON ASIN & ORS
June 27, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (1999) Legalpedia (CA) 17171
In the Court of Appeal
Thu Mar 4, 1999
Suit Number: CA/IL/EPA/2/99
CORAM
CLARA BATA OGUNBIYI JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL.
VICTOR AIMEPOMO OYELEYE OMAGE
MUHAMMAD SAIFULAHI MUNTAKA-COOMASSIE JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL.
PARTIES
ENGINEER P. O. FAPOHUNDA APPELLANTS
ABEL OLADIPUPO OLUWASOLA AND OTHERS RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The Petitioner/Appellant and the 1st Respondent were both candidates at the Chairmanship Election for the Ekiti South-West Local Government. The Petitioner/Appellant was sponsored by the Alliance for Democracy (AD) while the 1st Respondent was sponsored by the All Peoples Party (APP), at the conclusion of which the 1st Respondent was declared the winner of the election. Dissatisfied, the Petitioner/Appellant filed a petition before the Tribunal 16 days after the declaration of the election results. After the 1st Respondent had filed their Reply, the Petitioner/Appellant then filed an application seeking to amend the petition by adding the name of the occupier at which documents intended for the petitioner may be left. The Petitioner/Appellant’s application was refused and the entire petition was struck out. Displeased with the Tribunal’s decision, the Petitioner/Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal seeking to overturn the decision of the Tribunal and that the petition be remitted for hearing by another Tribunal.
HELD
Appeal dismissed.
ISSUES
Whether or not the tribunal was right in rejecting the motion for amendment.Whether there was any petition at all having regards to the provision of section 82 of Decree No.36 of 1998 cited by the counsel to the parties regarding the 14 day rule.The effect of the address of the petitioner not being put at the foot of the petition, a fact necessitating the said amendment. Whether the tribunal in exercising its discretion refusing the motion for amendment did so judiciously and judicially?
RATIONES DECIDENDI
AMENDMENT OF A PETITION – AN AMENDMENT WHICH WOULD REVIVE A DEAD PETITION WILL AMOUNT TO INTRODUCING A FRESH PETITION.
“To bring an amendment which would revive a dead petition will go beyond an alteration to the petition but will amount to introducing a fresh petition after the expiry of time which Decree No.36 of 1998 frowns upon”. PER M. A. OKUNOLA, J.C.A
AMENDMENT OF A PETITION – AN AMENDMENT INTRODUCING A FRESH PRAYER OR ALTERING THE SUBSTANCE OF THE PRAYER SHALL NOT BE ALLOWED AFTER THE EXPIRATION OF TIME IN PRESENTING A PETITION.
“No amendment introducing a fresh prayer of the petition or effecting an alteration in the substance of the prayer shall be or will be allowed to be made after the expiry of the time limited for presenting the petition. Opia v. Ibru (1992) 3 NWLR (Pt.231) 658.” PER M. A. OKUNOLA, J.C.A
CASES CITED
STATUTES REFERRED TO
Local Government (Basic Constitutional and Transitional Provisions) Decree No. 36 of 1998
