JOHN FAKUNLE V. MRS. GRACE OKE
May 28, 2025DR. N.E. OKOYE & ANOR V CENTRE POINT MERCHANT BANK LTD
May 28, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (2008) Legalpedia (CA) 13901
In the Court of Appeal
Mon Jul 14, 2008
Suit Number: CA/K/EP/NA/34/2007
CORAM
ALEXANDER, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT
ALEXANDER, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT
ALEXANDER, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT
ALEXANDER, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
HAMISU SALISU KOREALL NIGERIA PEOPLES PARTY APPELLANTS
INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION A.A. RAJI, KANO STATE RESIDENTALHASSAN ADO GARBA RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The 1st Petitioner/Appellant under the ageis of the All Nigeria Peoples’ Party (ANPP) together with the 3rd Respondent a candidate for the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) participated in an election to represent Doguwa/Tudun Wada Federal Constituency in the Kano State House of Representatives. At the conclusion of the election, the 3rd Respondent was declared the winner of the election. Dissatisfied with the declaration and return of the 3rd Respondent, the Petitioners/Appellants filed a petition on the ground that the 3rd Respondent was not duly elected by a majority of lawful votes cast at the election. Before the hearing of the petition, the 3rd Respondent filed a motion on notice praying for an order to strike out the petition for being defective, invalid and incompetent. The tribunal dismissed the petition stating that the Petitioners/Appellants failed to state the scores of the candidates at the election and the person returned as the winner of the election in the petition. Aggrieved with the decision of the tribunal, the Petitioners/Appellants have appealed to the Court of Appeal.
HELD
Appeal dismissed
ISSUES
Whether or not the Lower Court was right in striking out the Appellants’ petition for non-compliance with the Provisions of Paragraph 4(1)(c) of the 1st Schedule to the Electoral Act, 2006 for failure of the Appellants to state the scores of the candidates that contested the election and the person returned as the winner of the said election? This covers Grounds 1, 2 and 3 of the Grounds of Appeal.
RATIONES DECIDENDI
PARAGRAPH 4(1)(C) OF THE 1ST SCHEDULE TO THE ELECTORAL ACT, 2006-NON- COMPLIANCE WITH THE PROVISION OF PARAGRAPH 4(1)(C) OF THE 1ST SCHEDULE TO THE ELECTORAL ACT, 2006 IS FATAL AND INCURABLE.
‘‘The provisions of paragraph 4(1)(c) is mandatory and non- compliance with the said provisions is fatal to the petition as the defect is incurable and has rendered the petition incompetent. See Engineer Boniface Obibi Nwoko Offomah Vs. Chief Mike Ajaegbo(2000) 1 NWLR (Pt. 641) 498 at 504.’’ PER. BABA ALKALI BA’ABA, JCA
CONTENT OF AN ELECTION PETITION -THE PETITIONER IS BOUND TO STATE THE OFFICIAL SCORES AND THE SCORES WHICH HE BELIEVES ARE CORRECT.
‘‘It appears from the provision of paragraph 4(1)(c) of the 1st Schedule to the Electoral Act, 2006, that even where a petitioner has scores different from the ones officially declared by the Electoral body which led to the declaration of the winner, the petitioner is bound to state the official scores and thereafter state the scores which he believes are correct. This has always been the interpretation given to paragraph 4(1)(c) of the 1st Schedule to the Electoral Act, 2006.’’PER. BABA ALKALI BA’ABA, JCA
CONTENT OF AN ELECTION PETITION- THE PETITIONER IS UNDER A LEGAL DUTY TO INDICATE THE OFFICIAL SCORES OF INEC AND NOT WHAT HE THINKS OR THOUGHT TO BE THE SCORES.
‘‘In Eriobuna V. Obiorah(1999) 8 NWLR (Pt.616) 622 at 638, Tobi, JCA (as he then was) stated as follows:-
“As it is, the sub-paragraph provides three requirements:
(a) that the election was held in this respect, the petitioner is expected to depose to the fact that the election was held and the date on which it was held.
(b) The scores of the candidates who contested the election. Here, the petitioner is under a legal duty to indicate the official scores of INEC and not what he thinks or thought to be the scores. He can reserve what he thinks or thought should be the scores to any subsequent paragraph or paragraphs in the petition. All that paragraph 5(1)(c) requires is the raw official scores of INEC.” Paragraph 5(1)(c) of Decree 5 of 1999 is in pari materia with paragraph 4(1)(c) of the 1st Schedule to the Electoral Act, 2006. The person returned as the winner of the election.’’ PER. BABA ALKALI BA’ABA, JCA
CONTENT OF AN ELECTION PETITION – REQUIREMENTS A PETITIONER MUST STATE IN A PETITION
“There are three distinct and major requirements that a petitioner in this case the appellants must state in a petition viz;
(i) That the election was held,
(ii) the scores of the candidates that contested the election and
(iii) the person returned as the winner of the election”. ’’PER. BABA ALKALI BA’ABA, JCA
CASES CITED
STATUTES REFERRED TO
Electoral Act, 2006Decree 5 of 1999
