HON. EMIBRA EFIRIANDI AGBEOTU v. MR. TAMARATE BRISIBE & ORS. - Legalpedia | The Complete Lawyer - Research | Productivity | Health

HON. EMIBRA EFIRIANDI AGBEOTU v. MR. TAMARATE BRISIBE & ORS.

CHIEF MAXWELL DAKIPIRI ODI & ORS V CHIEF HARRISON IYALLA
June 12, 2025
HON. ABDULLAHI K. KAMBA & ANOR V ALH. IBRAHIM BAWA
June 12, 2025
CHIEF MAXWELL DAKIPIRI ODI & ORS V CHIEF HARRISON IYALLA
June 12, 2025
HON. ABDULLAHI K. KAMBA & ANOR V ALH. IBRAHIM BAWA
June 12, 2025
Show all

HON. EMIBRA EFIRIANDI AGBEOTU v. MR. TAMARATE BRISIBE & ORS.

Legalpedia Citation: (2004) Legalpedia (CA) 81811

In the Court of Appeal

Fri Mar 26, 2004

Suit Number: CA/B/174/2003

CORAM


IGNATIUS IGWE AGUBE  – JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL


PARTIES


HON. EMIBRA EFIRIANDI AGBEOTU APPELLANTS


2. THE INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION (INEC)3. THE RETURNING OFFICE BURUTU FEDERAL CONSTITUENCY4. THE ELECTORAL OFFICE BURUTU LOCALGOVERNMENT AREA? RESPONDENTS


AREA(S) OF LAW



SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Appellant and the 1st Respondent contested elections into the Federal House of Representatives for Burutu Federal Constituency of Delta State under the banners of All Nigeria Peoples Party (ANPP) and Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) respectively. The 2nd Respondent, the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) declared the 1st Respondent as duly elected. Dissatisfied with the result of the election, the Appellant filed a petition before the National Assembly Election Tribunal, Asaba, against the 1st Respondent and INEC and its functionaries as 2nd, 3rd and 4th Respondents on the grounds of unlawful votes. The Tribunal dismissed the petition. Aggrieved with this decision, the Appellant has appealed to this Court contending that not all the members of the Tribunal were present to hear the parties.?


HELD


Appeal Dismissed


ISSUES


• Whether the judgment of the Election Tribunal which consisted of five members and formed a ‘quorum under the Chairman throughout the trial can be vitiated merely because one of the members, not the Chairman, was said to have been absent when the 1st respondent presented his defence.• Whether or not the defence to the petition was properly upheld when it was based on matters expressly required by Law (paragraphs 12 and 15 of Electoral Act 2002) to be pleaded and adduced in Evidence, but which were clearly not pleaded and given in evidence.• Whether from the totality of the evidence on record and adduced before the tribunal during the trial, the petitioner has proved his case in order to entitle him succeed on his claim.?


RATIONES DECIDENDI


CASES CITED



STATUTES REFERRED TO


Electoral Act


CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT

Comments are closed.