HITECH CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LTD VS JUDE UDE
April 25, 2025HON. RANTI AJOSE VS INSPECTOR – GENERAL OF POLICE
April 25, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (2016) Legalpedia (CA) 24121
In the Court of Appeal
HOLDEN AT ABUJA
Thu Mar 3, 2016
Suit Number: CA/A/EPT/487/2015
CORAM
MUHAMMADU LAWAL UWAIS, CHIEF JUSTICE, NIGERIA
SUNDAY AKINTOLA AKINTAN, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
IBRAHIM ABDULMUMINI ALHAJI APPELLANTS
AHMED MOHAMMED RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
In an election conducted by the 3rd Respondent on the 11th of April, 2015, for the Kogi State House of Assembly (Ankpa 1 State Constituency), the 1st Appellant contested under the platform of the 2nd Appellant while the 1st Respondent contested under the platform of the 2nd Respondent. At the conclusion of the election, the 3rd Respondent returned the 1st Appellant as the winner of the election. Aggrieved by this, the 1st and 2nd Respondent filed a petition at the tribunal challenging the qualification of the 1st Appellant. In response, both the 3rd Respondent and the Appellants filed their reply to the petition. A pre hearing was set down on the application of the 1st and 2nd Respondents to which the Appellants filed their answers to the pre hearing sheet. The Appellants later filed an application seeking an order of the Tribunal setting aside the application for pre -hearing notice same having been filed after the mandatory period prescribed by law, an order dismissing the petition for want of competence and lack of jurisdiction of the Tribunal to entertain same among others. The Tribunal dismissed the application on the grounds that the 1st and 2nd Respondent’s application for pre-hearing was filed within time. Aggrieved by that decision, the Appellants have appealed to this Court.
HELD
Appeal Dismissed.
ISSUES
Whether the lower tribunal was right when it held that the petitioners’ application for pre hearing session was filed within the 7 days contemplated by paragraph 18(1 of the first Schedule to the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended). Whether having regards to the reliefs and grounds of the appellants’ application before the lower tribunal, the validity or otherwise of the petitioners’ reply within the purview of the application to warrant a consideration of same by the lower tribunal.
RATIONES DECIDENDI
PRE HEARING NOTICE – TIME WITHIN WHICH TO APPLY FOR THE ISSUANCE OF PRE-HEARING NOTICE
“This court cannot help but agree with learned counsel to the 1st and 2nd respondents in the circumstances of this case, especially when account is taken of the fact that paragraph 18 (1) of the first Schedule to the Electoral Act clearly provides as rightly pointed out that the petitioners shall within 7 days after the “filing and service” of the petitioners reply on the respondent or 7 days after filing and service of the respondent’s reply, as the case maybe, apply for the issuance of pre hearing notice…”; the operative words here are “filing and service”, and the argument of the appellants that the petitioners’ 7 days to apply to set the petition down for pre hearing’ commences on the 25th of May 2015, when the appellants were served with the petitioners’ reply was filed, and not 27th of May, 2015 when the appellants were served makes little or no sense, as the law is very clear in its intent. Reply and service, conjunctively, for this purpose indicate the close of pleadings, which initiates the commencement of pre hearing sessions, see Abubakar V Nasamu (2011) LPELR -1831-SC1.”
ISSUES – A TRIBUNAL IS NOT BOUND TO PRONOUNCE ON ISSUES NOT VALIDLY RAISED BEFORE IT
“It is the considered view of this court therefore, that the appellants could not have validly raised the question of the validity of the petitioners’ reply through a reply on points of law; consequently the tribunal was right when it restricted itself to issues validly raised by the appellants, it never was a question of the tribunal just refusing to address issues or points raised as contended for appellants. This decision of the tribunal is well informed in our opinion, because it is not bound to pronounce on issues not validly raised before it, and on which parties have not joined issues; African Bank Ltd V IDS Ltd (2013) All FWLR part 656 page 413.”
CASES CITED
Not available.
STATUTES REFERRED TO
Court of Appeal ActElectoral Act (as amended)Federal High Court Rules|
CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT
