MRS OLABISI AYODELE SALIS & ANOR VS BAREEHU OLUGBENGA ASHAFA & ORS
April 28, 2025HON. KUFREABASI BASSEY ETUK & ANOR V. ANIEKAN ETIM BASSEY & ORS
April 28, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (2015) Legalpedia (CA) 98151
In the Court of Appeal
Thu Sep 17, 2015
Suit Number: CA/A/EPT/487/2015
CORAM
OFR
OFR
TANI YUSUF HASSAN JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL
MOHAMMED MUSTAPHA JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL
OFR
TANI YUSUF HASSAN JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL
MOHAMMED MUSTAPHA JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL
PARTIES
IBRAHIM ABDULMUMINI ALHAJIALL PROGRESSIVE CONGRESS (APC) APPELLANTS
AHMED MOHAMMEDPEOPLES DEMOCRATIC PARTY (PDP)INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION (INEC) RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
NIL
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
CASES CITED
STATUTES REFERRED TO
Court of Appeal ActElectoral Act (as amended)Federal High Court Rules
