Election Petitions (568)
"The Courts have never laid it as a rule that once there is no voting in a number of polling units, or errors were detected, a fresh or a bye-election should be automatically held. The question always boils down to who had the majority of valid votes cast at the election."Per TUR, J.C.A.(P.69, paras. A-B) LABARAN ABDUL V. HON. ISA GARBA & ORS.(2010) LPELR-9132(CA)
"The titles, rights, and interests of the parties before the Tribunal should be the paramount factors to be taken into consideration when hearing or determining an election petition. Arase vs Arase (1981) 5 SC 33 at 35: Anukanti vs Ekwonyeoso (1980) 1 LRN 346 at 351; Okpala vs Ibeme (1989) 3 SCNJ 152"Per TUR, J.C.A.(P. 75, paras. F-G) LABARAN ABDUL V. HON. ISA GARBA & ORS.(2010) LPELR-9132(CA)
"At common law the voter that was wrongly disenfranchised could sue for damages. See Asby vs White (1704) 1 Bro. Parl Cas 62 cited in Morgan vs Simpson (1974) 3 All E.R. 722 at 725.,paragraph "H-J" and p.726 paragraph "a-b" per Lord Denning M.R. There is no provision in the Electoral Act 2006 that forbids disenfranchised voters from suing those that caused the irregularities or violence which prevented them from voting.
"The Tribunals are authorized to determine the outcome of petitions under the Electoral Act 2006 as follows: "146(1) An election shall not be liable to be invalidated by reason of non-compliance with the provisions of this Act if it appears to the Election Tribunal or Court that the election was conducted substantially in accordance with the principles of this Act and that non-compliance did not affect substantially the result of the election:
"From the claims what the appellant really is seeking is the invocation of Section 87 (4) (c) (ii) of the Electoral Act 2010 as amended and using the Court to compel a political party and in this case the PDP or 1st respondent to impose him as its candidate.
"Where a claimant seeks declaratory reliefs, the burden is on him to prove his entitlement to those reliefs on the strength of his own case. A declaratory relief will not be granted, even on admission. The claimant is also not entitled to rely on the weakness of the defence, if any.
"The resolution of this issue, in my humble view, depends on whether the termination of employment of an aspirant, for whatever reason, is one of the grounds for disqualifying a candidate from contesting for a particular office. This is because it is the appellant's contention that his complaint falls squarely within Section 31 (5) & (6) of the Electoral Act 2010, as amended.
"It is settled law that the selection and nomination of candidates for elective office is the sole preserve of the political parties and the Courts would not usually interfere in their domestic affairs. See: P.D.P. Vs. Sylva (2012) 13 NWLR (Pt.1315) 85 @ 146 A - E; Gwede Vs. INEC (2014) 18 NWLR (Pt.1438) 56 @ 148 - 149 H: Onuoha Vs Okafor (1983) 2 SCNLR 244.
"Pursuant, purportedly, to Section 31(5) & (6) of the Electoral Act the Appellant complains that the 1st Respondent did not fully disclose the reasons for the termination of his appointment with the Benue State Judicial Service Commission as a Magistrate.
"While I agree with learned counsel for the appellant that learned counsel for the 3rd respondent did not address the submissions in respect of Issue 1, it is trite that INEC, being the electoral umpire is generally expected to be a neutral party in an electoral contest. Therefore, its failure to address some of the issues canvassed in the appellant's brief cannot, without more, translate into victory for the appellant." Per KEKERE-EKUN, J.S.C. (P. 29, Paras. B-D) ENGR. GEORGE T.A. NDUUL v. BARR. BENJAMIN WAYO & ORS(2018) LPELR-45151(SC)