CORAM
COKER, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT
JESOPH JEREMIAH UMOREN, JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL
PARTIES
HON. ABDULLAHI K. KAMBA PEOPLES DEMOCRATIC PARTY APPELLANTS
ALH. IBRAHIM BAWA ALL NIGERIA PEOPLES PARTY (ANPP) RETURNING OFFICER, AREWA & DANDI FEDERAL CONSTITUENCY, KEBBI STATE THE ELECTORAL OFFICER, AREWA & DANDI FEDERAL CONSTITUENCY, KEBBI STATE INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION (INEC) RESPONDENTS RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
This is an appeal to the Court of Appeal against the decision of the National Assembly Governorship and Legislative House Election Tribunal sitting at Birnin Kebbi, Kebbi State, where the Petitioner/Appellant is challenging the conduct of the house of representative election by the 3rd 4th and 5th Respondents and the declaration of the 1st Respondent as the winner of the election by the 3rd, 4th and 5th Respondents. The Petitioner/Appellant also had other five (5) Petitions before the same Tribunal and it was therefore agreed that the decision of the tribunal in this petition will be binding on other petitions. The Respondents replied the petition and gave a notice of preliminary objection challenging the competence of the petition. The tribunal upheld the objection and dismissed the Petition. Aggrieved, the Petitioner/Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal.
HELD
Appeal Dismissed
ISSUES
Whether or not from the facts and circumstances of the petition, it is legally proper for the trial tribunal to conclude that the decision in this petition No. NAS/EPT/KBS/06/03 should be binding on the five (5) other petition, this petition No. NAS/EPT/KBS/-7/03 inclusive.Whether or not having regard to the circumstances of this case, the petition was filed Within the mandatory period of thirty days as required by section 32; (sic) of the Electoral Act, 2002.Whether or not on proper construction of paragraph 3 of the First Schedule to the Electoral Act, 2002, it is legally correct to conclude as did the trial tribunal that the only recognizable way of determining when an election petition is presented is the date when Form TF 002 issued by the secretary of the tribunal is dated.”
RATIONES DECIDENDI
PRELIMINARY OBJECTION – PRIMARY OBJECTIVE OF A PRELIMINARY OBJECTION
‘‘The primary objective of a preliminary objection is to terminate the proceedings at the stage the objection is raised – Okoi & Oths. v. Ibiang & Oth. (2002) 10 NWLR (Pt.776) 455 at 468. The court has a duty to decide on the objection before proceeding to consider the substantive issue.’’ PER OBADINA J.C.A
APPEAL AGAINST THE DECISION OF THE HIGH COURT – CONDITION PRECEDENT FOR A LITIGANT TO APPEAL AGAINST A DECISION OF THE HIGH COURT
‘‘For a litigant to appeal against a decision of the High Court, be it Federal or State made with the consent of the parties, leave of that court or that of the Court of Appeal is a mandatory condition precedent. I think, the same principle applies to a decision of election tribunal.’’ PER OBADINA, J.C.A
“MAY”- HOW IS THE WORD “MAY” CONSTRUED WHEN USED IN A STATUTE
“The law is that where a statute imposes a duty on a public officer to be carried out in a particular form for the benefit of a private citizen, the word “may” used in the section must be construed as mandatory and/or meaning “shall” or must”. PER OBADINA, J.C.A
GROUND OF APPEAL – A GROUND OF APPEAL THAT IS VAGUE IS INCOMPETENT.
‘‘It is the law that a ground of appeal that is vague or argumentative or containing prolix narrative particulars is contrary to Order 3 rule 2(2) and (3) of the Court of Appeal Rules and therefore incompetent’’ – PER OBADINA, J.C.A.
CASES CITED
Ahaneku & Ors. v. Ekeruo & Oths. (2002) 1 NWLR (Pt.748) 301 at 308. Alhaji Ado v. Amiru Yazid (2001) 17 NWLR (Pt.742) 431. See also Adah v. Adah (2001) 5 NWLR (Pt. 705) 1.Okoi & Oths. v. Ibiang & Oth. (2002) 10 NWLR (Pt.776) 455 at 468.
STATUTES REFERRED TO
The Electoral Act, 2002.