Election Petitions (568)
HELD:
'The cogent and verifiable reasons contemplated under section 34(2) of the Electoral Act, 2006, are cogent and verifiable reasons given by the political party applicant wishing to effect any change of candidate in its application to INEC, specified in that section of the Act.
HELD:
"One begins to wonder whether the Applicants were truly honest with their intention in that submission lf the matter falls within election matters of which 60 days apply within which appeals or ancillary issues could be heard and determined, how then can Order 20 Rule 5(1) of the Rules of this court be expected to upstage and supersede the express provisions of the Constitution, which has been repeatedly interpreted by the Supreme Court to mean that the stipulated time allowed by the Constitution is like the rock of Gibraltar or Mount Zion and cannot moved or be moved?
HELD:
"I agree with the 2nd respondent/applicant that close of pleadings in election matters can only import and/or mean the time all the parties in the petition are by the provisions of the First Schedule (which provides for the filing and exchange of petitions and replies in paragraphs 12 and 16 thereof) are expected to have filed the necessary pleadings in the petition vide Chukwu v. Ude-Okoye (2017) All FWLR (pt.982) 1025 cited by the 2nd respondent read with the decision of this Court in the case of Hon. (Mrs.) Rita Ada Ibemere Okoroafor and Anor. v. INEC and Ors. in Appeal No. CA/OW/EPT/SEN/31/2015 per the lead judgment prepared and delivered by Ige, J.C.A., on 12.10.15 in pages 23 - 34 thereof following the earlier judgments of the Court in Nwadike and Anor. v. Onyereri and Ors. CA/OW/EPT/1/2015 delivered on 19.08.15 and Ikoro v. Izunaso and Ors. (2010) All FWLR 1550 at 1569 - 1570 per the lead judgment prepared by his lordship, Garba, J.C.A.
HELD:
"...Section 182(1)(e) of the constitution is very much applicable to this case and has specified clearly the criteria which will disqualify a person from contesting election to the office of Governor of a State. The section states thus:- "182(1) No person shall be qualified for election to the office of Governor of a state if.... (a) .............. (e) Within a period of less than ten years before the date of election to the office of Governor of a State he has been convicted and sentenced for an offence involving dishonesty or he has been found guilty of the contravention of the Code of Conduct; .............." (emphasis supplied)." ALL PROGRESSIVES CONGRESS v. PEOPLES DEMOCRATIC PARTY & ORS(2015) LPELR-24587(SC)Per OGUNBIYI, J.S.C. (Pp. 126-127, paras. G-C)
FACTS:
HELD:
"If a governor is removed from office but is not taken before the Code of Conduct Tribunal, such a removal will not bar him from contesting election either immediately or before the expiration of ten years from the date of the impeachment. So it is very important for post impeachment proceedings to be taken out against the impeached Governor before the code of Conduct Tribunal or before a court of law because it is only a court or tribunal established by law and is impartial that is constitutionally empowered to convict for an offence or find a person guilty of the breach of the Code of Conduct. See Garba v. University of Maiduguri supra; Laoye v. F.CS.C. supra; Action Congress v. INEC (2007) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1048) 222." ALL PROGRESSIVES CONGRESS v. PEOPLES DEMOCRATIC PARTY & ORS(2015) LPELR-24587(SC)Per AKA'AHS, J.S.C. (P. 146, paras. A-D)
FACTS
HELD:
"The court below was right when it found as follows:- "It is trite that the petitioner cannot introduce new fact not contained in the petition in his reply as in the instant case because as at the time of filing his petition, that fact is within his knowledge and if he did not adequately include it in his petition, the proper thing to do will be to amend his petition." ALL PROGRESSIVES CONGRESS v. PEOPLES DEMOCRATIC PARTY & ORS(2015) LPELR-24587(SC)Per FABIYI, J.S.C. (P. 82, paras. D-F)
FACTS:
HELD:
"...proceedings in Election petitions are sui generis. They are in a class of their own. They are made to fast-track the hearing of petitions. They are, however, not designed to spring surprise on parties. ALL PROGRESSIVES CONGRESS v. PEOPLES DEMOCRATIC PARTY & ORS(2015) LPELR-24587(SC)"Per FABIYI, J.S.C. (Pp. 81-82, para. G-A)
FACTS:
HELD:
"...paragraphs 16 (1) (a) of the First Schedule to the Electoral Act regulates the content of the Reply that may be filed by a petitioner in answer to the Reply of a respondent to the petition. It provides as follows:- "16 (1) If a person in his reply to the Election Petition raises new issues of facts in defense of his case which petition has not dealt with, the petitioner shall be entitled to file in the registry, within five days from the receipt of the respondent's reply, a petitioner's reply in answer to the new issues of fact, so however that:- (a) The petitioner shall not at this stage be entitled to bring in new facts, grounds or prayers tending to amend or add to the contents of the petition filed by him, and" ALL PROGRESSIVES CONGRESS v. PEOPLES DEMOCRATIC PARTY & ORS(2015) LPELR-24587(SC) Per FABIYI, J.S.C. (P. 81, paras. C-G)
FACTS:
HELD:
"The court below in its judgment found that the Tribunal reasoned correctly in its analysis of the provisions of section 137(2) and (3) of the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended). lt held that: "...The Electoral Act 2010 (as amended) provides for two classes of statutory respondents that is the winner of the election and the Independent National Electoral Commission, the body with the responsibility of conducting the election..." The law expressly specified and legislated on who can be a respondent in an election petition. Whosoever is contemplated to be a respondent to defend an election petition must fall into any of the two categories named in said section 137 (2) and (3) of the Electoral Act (Supra). ALL PROGRESSIVES CONGRESS v. PEOPLES DEMOCRATIC PARTY & ORS(2015) LPELR-24587(SC)"Per GALADIMA, J.S.C. (P. 94, paras. D-G)
FACTS:
HELD:
"I would have ended this judgment here but for the issue raised by the 2nd respondent that the appellants did not take part in the primaries which has given birth to this suit/appeal. I have carefully perused the originating summons and the affidavit in support and I can deduce that the 1st appellant is a member of APGA and a registered voter in Anambra East and West Federal Constituency. That is all. There is nothing on record to show that he was an aspirant in the subject primary election. At best, he has not said so. Now Section 87(9) of the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended) provides:- "87(9) Notwithstanding the provisions of this Act or rules of a Political Party, an aspirant who complains that any of the provisions of this Act and the guidelines of a political party has not been complied with in the selection or nomination of a candidate of a political party for election, may apply to the Federal High Court or the High Court of a State or FCT, for redress." The law is trite that where a political party conducts its primary and a dissatisfied contestant or aspirant at the primary complains about the conduct of the primaries, the Courts have jurisdiction by virtue of Section 87 (9) of the Electoral Act reproduced above to examine if the conduct of the primary elections was in accordance with the parties constitution and guidelines. This is so because in the conduct of primaries, the Courts will not allow a political party to act arbitrarily or as it likes. A person who did not take part in the primary as a candidate or aspirant cannot invoke Section 87(9) of the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended) to institute a case in Court.