CORAM

CHUKWUDIFU AKUNNE OPUTA, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

PARTIES

HONOURABLE GOZIE AGBAKOBA APPELLANTS

INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION (INEC)PEOPLES DEMOCRATIC PARTYHON. LYNDA CHUBA-IKPEAZU RESPONDENTS

AREA(S) OF LAW

SUMMARY OF FACTS

SUMMARY OF FACTS
The appellant challenged his substitution under section 34 of the Electoral Act but while the appeal was pending the election was held on the basis of which the court of appeal held that the appeal has enured to the Election petition tribunal and has become academic.

HELD

The court held that the action is a pre-election matter and cannot enure to the election petition tribunal which does not have jurisdiction in such matters and invoked section 22 of the Act to declare the appellant returned having been wrongly substituted.

ISSUES

1. Whether the Court of Appeal was right to hold that the conduct by the 1st Respondent of election into the Onitsha North/Onitsha South House of Representatives Seat while Appellant’s appeal was pending at the Court of Appeal rendered the appeal a mere academic exercise 2. Whether the appellant is (not) entitled to judgment on the merits of his claim, and if it is whether this appeal presents an appropriate occasion for the exercise of the general powers of the Supreme Court under Section 22 of the Supreme Court Act to deal with Appellant’s claim without remitting same to the Court of Appeal.

RATIONES DECIDENDI

CASES CITED

INEC v. Ray (2004) 14 NWLR (Pt.892) 97|Nwobodo v. Onoh (1984) 1 SCNJ 21|Ugwu v. Araraume (2007) 6 SC (Pt.l) 88;|Odebo v. Inec & Ors. (2000) 7 SC (Pt.7) 24;|Amaechi v. INEC & Ors. (2008) 1SC (Pt.l) 36;|Pam v. Mohammed JSMAN (2008)5-6 SC 53. (2008) 9 SCM, 114

STATUTES REFERRED TO

The Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999|The Electoral Act 2002|The Evidence Act|

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT