CORAM

---

SIR. BIOBELE A. GEORGEWILL JCA

BALKISU BELLO ALIYU JCA

FOLASHADE AYODEJI OJO JCA

---

PARTIES

---

1. OGBE LAZARUS NWERU

2. PEOPLES DEMOCRATIC PARTY

APPELLANTS 

---

1. INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION (INEC)

2. EZE KENNETH EMEKA

3. ALL PROGRESSIVES CONGRESS (APC)

4. BARR. ERIC KELECHI IGWE

5. BARR. SUNDAY NWANKWO

6. MRS. EUPHEMIA NWALI

RESPONDENTS 

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

APPEAL, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, ELECTION, EVIDENCE, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

 

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The 1st Appellant was the candidate in the election for Senator representing Ebonyi Central Senatorial District of Ebonyi State in the House of Assembly of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

The 1st Respondent conducted the said election on the 25th February, 2023. The 1st Appellant was sponsored for the election by the 2nd Appellant. He contested along with the 2nd Respondent who was also sponsored for the election by the 3rd Respondent.

At the end of the election, the 1st Respondent declared and returned the 2nd Respondent as the winner of the election. The Appellants were not satisfied with the return of the 2nd Respondent as the winner of the election, and they filed the Petition before the Tribunal claiming that the election is invalid by reason of non-compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act, 2022 and by reason of corrupt practices.

In a reserved, but considered judgment, the learned Judges of the Tribunal found and held that the Appellants failed to prove their case and the Petition was dismissed. Aggrieved by the decision, the Appellants filed the instant appeal.

 

---

HELD

---

Appeal dismissed

 

---

ISSUES

---

1.  Whether the learned Judges of trial Tribunal were right when they dismissed the petition on the ground that it did not comply with the Form TF001 being that it did not contain the attestation clause and that it was not attested to by the Secretary of the Tribunal?

2.  Whether the learned Judges of trial Tribunal were right when they held that the Appellants are obliged to join all the candidates of the respective parties who contested in the election as parties to the Petition?

3.  Whether the learned Judges of the trial Tribunal were right when they countenanced the evidence of RW2 and Exhibits R10(a) and (b) but failed to countenance Exhibit P6 and held that the Appellants did not prove the cancellation of the election in Oriuzor Ward?

4.  Whether the learned Judges of the trial Tribunal were right when they held that the witnesses of the Appellants are not credible, and the documents tendered by the Appellants are in dormant state, on the basis of which they held that the Appellants failed to prove their allegation of over-voting?

 

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

FORM TF001 – THE NATURE OF FORM TF001

---

I firstly, examined Form TF001 contained in the First Schedule to the Electoral Act, 2022, which is the form that the Act directs petitioners to follow in filing their petitions. It specifically made provisions for the Secretary of the Tribunal to attest that the petition was “signed before me this —day of —– 20—” and for him to sign thereafter. – Per B. B. Aliyu, JCA

 

---

SCHEDULE – WHETHER THE SCHEDULE TO AN ENACTMENT HAS THE SAME FORCE AS ANY PROVISION OF THE ACT

---

I will first of point out that a schedule to an enactment such as the Electoral Act has the same force as any provisions of the Act and it is binding on all the parties. See NPF & ORS. VS. POLICE SERVICE COMMISSION & ANOR. (2023) LPELR-60782 (CA) and SARAKI VS. FRN (2016) LPELR- 40013 (SC). – Per B. B. Aliyu, JCA

 

---

FORM TF001 – WHETHER A PETITIONER MUST COMPLY WITH THE FORMAT IN FORM TF001

---

It is mandatory that the petition must be in the Form TF001 for it to validly activate the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to adjudicate on it. My lords, we have been screaming on top of our voices on the sui generis nature of election petition, nay, election jurisprudence in its entirety.

There is no room for choice for a petitioner than to follow strictly the format in form TF001 provided in the First Schedule to the Electoral Act, 2022 in presenting his or her petition for it to conform to due process of the electoral laws. – Per B. B. Aliyu, JCA

 

---

FINAL COURT – WHETHER A FINAL COURT IS OBLIGATED TO PRONOUNCE ON THE MERIT OF AN APPEAL AFTER DECIDING THAT IT LACKS JURISDICTION TO DETERMINE THE SUIT

---

Being the final court and having decided that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to determine this Petition and by extension, we also lack the jurisdiction to determine it, I should stop here for that is the end of the appeal. It is the law that only where the Court is not a final court that it is required to pronounce on the merit of the appeal after it found that it lacks jurisdiction to determine the suit as in this case, so that in the event that it is faulted, then the appellate court can have a view of its opinion on the merits. – Per B. B. Aliyu, JCA

 

---

GROUD OF APPEAL – WHERE GROUNDS OF APPEAL SHOULD RISE FROM

---

It is trite law that grounds of appeal and issues raised from them must relate to the ratio decidendi and not a mere obiter or an observation expressed by the judex. See SARAKI VS. FRN (2016) LPELR-40013 (SC) and TRANSCORP (NIG.) PLC & ORS. VS. U.B.A. PLC VS. MABOGUNJE (2020) LPELR-49762 (CA). – Per B. B. Aliyu, JCA

 

---

COURTS – WHETHER A COURT WILL ALLOW A PARTY BENEFIT FROM HIS OR HER WRONG

---

The law and this Court will never allow a party to benefit from a wrong which he helped perpetrate. – Per B. B. Aliyu, JCA

 

---

CASES CITED

---

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

1. Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended)

2. Electoral Act, 2022

3. INEC’s Regulations and Guidelines for conduct of Elections, 2022

 

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGEMENT