CORAM

---

Cordelia Ifeoma Jombo-Ofo Justice of the Court of Appeal

Usman Alhaji Musale Justice of the Court of Appeal

Okon Efreti Abang Justice of the Court of Appeal

---

PARTIES

---

TAFIDA SADIQ ABBAS

APPELLANTS 

---

1. UMAR INNOCENT PATRICK

2. SOCIAL DEMOCRATIC PARTY

3. INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION

4. PEOPLES DEMOCRATIC PARTY

RESPONDENTS 

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

This cross-appeal arose from a ruling of the National and State Houses of Assembly Election Tribunal sitting in Jalingo, Taraba State, delivered on July 10, 2024. After the Bye and Supplementary Elections held on February 3rd and 14th, 2024, the Cross-Appellant was declared winner by INEC (3rd Cross-Respondent). The 1st and 2nd Cross-Respondents challenged the election through a petition. The Cross-Appellant filed a preliminary objection dated April 6, 2024, seeking to dismiss the petition on grounds that the grounds of petition were mutually exclusive and inconsistent with the reliefs sought. The tribunal overruled the objection in its ruling. Though the main judgment was in favor of the Cross-Appellant, he was dissatisfied with the tribunal’s decision overruling his preliminary objection, leading to this cross-appeal.

 

---

HELD

---

1. The cross-appeal was allowed.

2. The ruling of the tribunal delivered on July 10, 2024, was set aside.

3. The court granted the cross-appellant’s motion filed on April 6, 2024.

4. The 1st and 2nd Cross-Respondents’ petition was dismissed.

5. Costs of N200,000.00 were awarded in favor of the cross-appellant, payable by the 1st and 2nd cross-respondents.

 

---

ISSUES

---

1. Whether the tribunal was right in overruling the cross-appellant’s preliminary objection that the grounds of the petition are inconsistent with one another, rendering the petition speculative and therefore incompetent.?

2. Whether the tribunal was right when it admitted and relied on the statement on oath of PW18 when the witness admitted not to have deposed to the said statement before the secretary of the tribunal.?

 

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

INCONSISTENT GROUNDS IN ELECTION PETITION-EFFECT ON COMPETENCE OF PETITION

---

“The 1st and 2nd cross-respondents having pleaded in one breath that the election was valid and in another breath that it was marred by non-compliance, the petition filed by the 1st and 2nd cross-respondents was speculative and the tribunal lacked jurisdiction to entertain a petition that is speculative.” – Per Okon Efreti Abang, JCA

 

---

INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 134(1) OF ELECTORAL ACT – DISJUNCTIVE NATURE OF GROUNDS

---

“The use of the disjunctive word ‘or’ makes it clear that a petitioner can rely on any of the grounds in Section 134(1)(a), (b) or (c). Even if they rely on two grounds, the two grounds must not be inconsistent with one another as in the instant petition.” – Per Okon Efreti Abang, JCA

 

---

ALTERNATIVE RELIEFS – REQUIREMENT FOR SEPARATE PLEADINGS

---

“Where a petitioner filed his petition on both grounds, like the instant petition leading to the cross-appeal, he must of necessity plead two conflicting set of facts.” – Per Okon Efreti Abang, JCA

 

---

WITNESS STATEMENT ON OATH – COMPLIANCE WITH OATHS ACT

---

“By Section 13 of the Oaths Act 2010, PW18 was required to sign and depose to her written statement on oath before the secretary of the tribunal or notary public and not otherwise.” – Per Okon Efreti Abang, JCA

 

---

ADMISSIBILITY OF DEFECTIVE WITNESS STATEMENT – TIMING OF OBJECTION

---

“Time does not run against the cross appellant in raising the objection in a situation where the written statement on oath of PW18 is incurably, fundamentally defective and inadmissible in evidence in any event.” – Per Okon Efreti Abang, JCA

 

---

INCOMPATIBLE RELIEFS IN ELECTION PETITION – EFFECT

---

 “An election cannot be invalid for the purpose of nullifying the return of the cross-appellant and also valid for the purpose of declaring the petitioner winner of the election.” – Per Okon Efreti Abang, JCA

 

---

PRELIMINARY OBJECTION – NATURE OF RULING

---

“The decision of this tribunal dismissing the cross appellant’s objection is not an interlocutory decision of the tribunal. It is a final decision of the tribunal made in an interlocutory application.” – Per Okon Efreti Abang, JCA

 

---

SPECULATIVE PETITIONS – JURISDICTION OF TRIBUNAL

---

“The petition as it stands is speculative and the tribunal should have struck it out at the stage the objection was raised because the 1st and 2nd cross-respondents were not sure of their claim in Court.” – Per Okon Efreti Abang, JCA

 

---

FALSE TESTIMONY – EFFECT ON EVIDENCE

---

“Having lied on oath, PW18’s written statement on oath and the fact that her deposition on oath was not signed before the commissioner for oath authorized to administer the said oath PW18’s evidence is inadmissible in evidence in any event.” – Per Okon Efreti Abang, JCA

 

---

ALTERNATIVE RELIEFS – REQUIREMENT FOR SEPARATE FACTS

---

“The alternative reliefs cannot be based on the same set of facts. The facts in support of the alternative reliefs should have been stated separately and not mixed up as in this case.” – Per Okon Efreti Abang, JCA

 

---

GROUNDS OF PETITION – PROHIBITION AGAINST ALTERNATIVE PLEADING

---

“Grounds in support of a petition cannot be pleaded in the alternative… In the same manner, relief in support of a petition cannot be pleaded in the alternative.” – Per Okon Efreti Abang, JCA

 

---

INCONSISTENT CLAIMS – EFFECT ON PETITION

---

“The 1st cross-respondent was not sure of himself. He cannot seek to command the impossible. The 1st cross-respondent should have been certain on his claim before the tribunal.” – Per Okon Efreti Abang, JCA

 

---

DEFECTIVE DEPOSITION – EFFECT ON ADMISSIBILITY

---

“The vice that afflicted the depositions of PW18 was only brought to the knowledge of the cross-appellant after the depositions on oath was admitted in evidence… It was wrong for the tribunal to have overruled the cross-appellant’s objection and acted on the said process.” – Per Okon Efreti Abang, JCA

 

---

CASES CITED

---

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

1. Electoral Act 2022

2. Interpretation Act

3. Oaths Act 2010

4. Court of Appeal Rules 2021

5. Election Judicial Proceedings Practice Direction 2023

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGEMENT