CORAM

---

SIR. BIOBELE A. GEORGEWILL JCA

BALKISU BELLO ALIYU JCA

FOLASADE AYODEJI OJO JCA

---

PARTIES

---

LABOUR PARTY

APPELLANTS 

---

1. UCHECHUKWU ONYEAGOCHA

2. PEOPLES DEMOCRATIC PARTY

3. EZENWA FRANCIS ONYEWUCHI

4. INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION (INEC)

RESPONDENTS 

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

APPEAL, ELECTION, EVIDENCE, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

 

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The petition was filed by the 1 st and 2 nd Respondents against the Appellant who was the 2 nd Respondent and two others. In their petition the 1 st and 2 nd Respondents stated that on the 25 th February, 2023, the 4 th Respondent (INEC) conducted election in Imo East Senatorial District of Imo State for a seat in the Senate of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. The Appellant sponsored the 3 rd Respondent for the election while the 1 st Respondent was the candidate of the 2 nd Respondent and both candidates contested alongside others sponsored by their respective parties.

At the conclusion of the election, the 4 th Respondent announced the results and declared the 3 rd Respondent (candidate of the Appellant) as the winner of the election and returned him elected as the Senator representing Imo East senatorial District having scored the highest votes in the election.

The 1 st and 2 nd Respondents disagreed with the return of the 3 rd Respondent as winner of the election, and they filed the Petition claiming that the election of the 3 rd Respondent is invalid by reason of corrupt practices or non-compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act, 2022 (as amended) and that the 3 rd Respondent was not duly elected by majority of lawful votes cast at the election.

On the main petition, the Tribunal dismissed the petition. It affirmed the election and return of the 3rd Respondent that was sponsored by the Appellant as the validly elected candidate for the Imo East Senatorial District in the Senate of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

The Appellant however was dissatisfied by the decisions reached on certain points in the course of the judgment and filed the instant appeal.

 

---

HELD

---

Appeal dismissed

 

---

ISSUES

---

1 Whether the Tribunal was right when it held that the Petitioners’ Reply to the 2nd Respondent’s Reply was in line with the provisions of Paragraph 16(1) of the First Schedule to the Electoral Act 2022, when the said Petitioners’ Reply clearly introduced new issues that tended to amend the Petition and admission of the deposition of the PW28?

2 Whether the Tribunal was right when it accorded probative value to Exhibits AO11, AO23, AO24, AO25, AO26, AO27, AO28, AO34, AO35, AO37, AO38, AO39, AO40, AO41, AO42, AO43, AO45, AO46, AO47, AO49 and AO47A which were tendered from the Bar by the 1st and 2nd Respondents’ counsel?

3 Whether the Tribunal was right by holding that the 1st and 2nd Respondents votes for Owerri Municipal Local Government Area was reduced by 1203?

 

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

ACADEMIC POINT – WHERE AN ACTITON IS DEEMED TO RAISE MERE ACADEMIC POINT

---

See SULE VS. ISI (2023) LPELR-60366 (CA) Per SHUAIBU, J.C.A Pg. 7-8 paras. F holding:

In ARDO VS INEC (2017) LPELR – 41919 (SC), the Supreme Court has held that an action become hypothetical or raises mere academic point when there is no live matter in it to be adjudicated upon or when its determination holds no practical or tangible value for making a pronouncement upon it, it is otherwise an exercise in futility. – Per B. B. Aliyu, JCA

 

---

CASES CITED

---

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

1. Electoral Act, 2022

 

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGEMENT