ALHAJI MUHAMADU MAIGARI DINGYADI & ANOR VS INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION & 2ORS

CORAM

PARTIES

ALHAJI MUHAMADU MAIGARI DINGYADIDEMOCRATIC PEOPLES PARTY APPELLANTS

INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSIONALIYU MAGATAKARDA WAMAKKOPEOPLES DEMOCRATIC PARTY RESPONDENTS

AREA(S) OF LAW

SUMMARY OF FACTS

Following upon the declaration of the 2nd respondent by the 1st respondent as the winner of the Governorship election, the appellants instituted an election petition before the Governorship and Legislative Houses Election Tribunal, challenging the return of the 2nd respondent as the lawful winner of the said election. The petition was dismissed; the appellants appealed to the Court of Appeal which in allowing the appeal nullified the said election and ordered a re-run of the election for the candidates and the parties. A re-run election as ordered by the Court of Appeal was conducted and it was still won by the 2nd respondent. The appellants being dissatisfied with the result of the re-run election again challenged the result before the Election Tribunal which dismissed the petition for lack of Jurisdiction to interpret the judgment of the Court of Appeal. The appellants aggrieved by the decision appealed the decision to the Court of Appeal in which the appeal was still pending. Meanwhile, the appellants commenced another action at the Federal High Court against the respondents praying for the interpretation of the judgment of the Court of Appeal. The Federal High Court dismissed the suit for want of jurisdiction to do so. Again, dissatisfied with the decision the appellants appealed the same to the Court of Appeal, asking the court to declare per the decision of the Court of Appeal, that the respondent was disqualified from contesting the Governorship re-run election. In the course of the proceeding in the said appeal the appellants applied for an order to raise fresh issues. On the application being refused they appealed the matter to the Supreme Court by the instant interlocutory appeal.

HELD

The appeal including the pending appeal was dismissed. It was held to be an abuse of court process.

ISSUES

1. That there are issues otherwise remaining outstanding between the 1st respondent and the appellants to be resolved. 2. That the notice of withdrawal of appeal has been made in bad faith as the appellants are precluded from relitigating the issue in view of the Ruling of 4/6/2010 which has determined the same and so that the notice of withdrawal should be dismissed as it constitutes an abuse of process.

RATIONES DECIDENDI

CASES CITED

Madukolum v. Nkemdilim (supra)) Uti v. Onoyiwe (1991) 1 SCNJ 25 at 49|Agu v. Odofin (1992) 3 SCNJ 161 at 172-173)|Agbi v. Ogbe (2006) 11 N\VLR (Pt.990) 65at 120|Yaro v. Arewa Construction Ltd. (2008) 13 NWLR (Pt.1105) 486|Oduze v. Nwosu (2007) 3 N WLR (Pt.1050)

STATUTES REFERRED TO

Not Available.|

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT