R. TAIWO OLORUNTOBA-OJU & ORS V PROFESSOR P. A. DOPAMU & ORS
May 30, 2025SABURI ADEBAYO V ATTORNEY GENERAL OF OGUN STATE
May 30, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (2008) Legalpedia (CA) 11552
In the Court of Appeal
Thu Feb 21, 2008
Suit Number: CA/K/EP/SHA/10/2008
CORAM
THERESA NGOLIKA ORJI-ABADUA
PARTIES
1. ISYAKU MAGAJI2. PEOPLES DEMOCRATIC PARTY APPELLANTS
1. HABIBU SALEH2. ALL NIGERIA PEOPLES PARTY (ANPP)3. INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION 4. INEC ELECTORAL OFFICER, MINJIBIR CONSTITUENCY & 29 OTHERS RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The 1st Petitioner/Appellant was a candidate of the 2nd Petitioner/Appellant who contested in the House of Assembly election for the Minjibir Constituency, Kano State, while the 1st Respondent/Respondent contested the same election on the platform of the 2nd Respondent/Respondent. At the end of the election, the 1st Respondent/Respondent was returned as the winner of the election by the 3rd Respondent. The declaration of the results grossly displeased the Petitioners/Appellants who then filed a petition at the Election Petition Tribunal challenging the return of the 1st Respondent as the winner of the election. The 1st – 2nd Respondents/Respondents filed an objection to the petition on the grounds that the petition was filed out of time, this was however dismissed by the Tribunal after which it proceeded to hear the petition. In the course of the pre-hearing session, it was observed by the Tribunal that there was no receipt in respect of the Petitioners/Appellants petition. The petition was consequently dismissed for being incompetent for lack of evidence of payment of filing fees. The decision of the Tribunal has led to the instant appeal by the Petitioners/Appellants.
HELD
Appeal dismissed.
ISSUES
Whether or not in the circumstances of this case, the learned trial Tribunal did not misunderstand the position of the petitioners on the issue of receipt, and was therefore wrong to have struck out the petition on the grounds of non production of same. Grounds three and four of the Notice of Appeal are covered by this issue.
RATIONES DECIDENDI
PRESENTATION OF AN ELECTION PETITION – CONDITION PRECEDENT FOR A VALID PRESENTATION OF AN ELECTION PETITION
“Payment of the requisite fees by the petitioners or their solicitor and the issuance of receipt by the secretary of the Tribunal are conditions precedent for an election to be properly and validly presented.” PER B. A. BA’ABA, J.C.A.
RECORDS OF COURT – DUTY OF THE COURT AS REGARDS ITS RECORDS AND PROCEEDINGS
“It is trite that a court is entitled to look at its own record and proceedings of any matter and take notice of their contents although they may not be formally brought before the court by the parties. See Onwuka Vs. Owolewa (2001) 7 NWLR (Pt.713) 695 at 714.” PER B. A. BA’ABA, J.C.A.
PRESENTATION OF AN ELECTION PETITION – MERELY GIVING THE ELECTION PETITION TO THE SECRETARY OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR ASSESSMENT DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A VALID PRESENTATION OF AN ELECTION PETITION.
“In Okpoido Vs. Udoikpong (1999) 5 NWLR (Pt.604) 59 at 609, this court held that merely giving the election petition to the secretary or registrar of the Tribunal for assessment will not constitute a valid presentation of an election petition.” PER B. A. BA’ABA, J.C.A.
FILING FEES – NON- PAYMENT OF THE REQUISITE FILING FEES HAS THE EFFECT OF OUSTING THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT
“The failure of a party to pay or prove payment of filing fees, has the effect of ousting the jurisdiction of the Court or Tribunal to entertain the petition.” PER B. A. BA’ABA, J.C.A.
SETTING ASIDE OF JUDGMENT – THE COURT HAS INHERENT JURISDICTION TO SET ASIDE ITS OWN JUDGMENT DELIVERED WITHOUT JURISDICTION.
“There is an inherent jurisdiction in the court to set aside its judgment which it has given without jurisdiction.” PER B. A. BA’ABA, J.C.A.
INTERFERENCE WITH THE EXERCISE OF DISCRETIONARY POWERS OF A TRIBUNAL – FOR AN APPELLATE COURT TO INTERFERE IN THE EXERCISE OF DISCRETIONARY POWERS OF A TRIBUNAL, SUCH POWERS MUST BE SHOWN TO HAVE BEEN WRONGLY EXERCISED.
“The true principle is that, for an appellate court to interfere with the discretionary power vested in the court below (Tribunal), it must be shown how that power was wrongly exercised to justify the intervention of the appellate court. See Alsthon S.A. Vs. Sarki (2005) 3 NWLR (Pt.911) 208 at 224 – 225, Ceekay Traders Ltd Vs. Gen. Motors Co. Ltd (1992) 2 NWLR (Pt.222) 132 and Rasaki A. Salu Vs. Madam Towro Egeibon (1994) 6 NWLR (Pt.348) 23.” PER B. A. BA’ABA, J.C.A.
CASES CITED
STATUTES REFERRED TO
Electoral Act, 2006
