- A.N.P.P. vs. I.N.E.C.
- ₦ 200
A.N.P.P. vs. I.N.E.C.
ALL NIGERIA PEOPLES PARTY
INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION
COURT OF APPEAL
( ENUGU DIVISION )
M. MOHAMMED JCA (Presided and Read the Lead Judgment)
SULE AREMU OLAGUNJU JCA
JOHN AFOLABI FABIYI JCA
CLARA BATA OGUNBIYI JCA
MONICA BOLANAâ€™AN DONGBAN-MENSEM
13TH NOVEMBER, 2003
- Miscarriage of justice - What constitutes
COURT - National Assembly Election Tribunal - Jurisdiction of to hear
and determine election petition - Factor
ELECTORAL MATTERS - Election petition - Constituent of - Whether
includes complaint against INEC and its officers
ELECTORAL MATTERS - Election petition - Jurisdiction of National
Assembly Election Tribunal to hear and determine - Factor determining
ELECTORAL MATTERS - Misjoinder of parties and causes of action in
election petition - Where a political party/petitioner joined several causes of
action against several candidates declared as winners in an election and sought
one prayer in respect of the several causes of action brought together in an
election petition - Impropriety of
ELECTORAL MATTERS - Political party which participated at an election -
Right of to present election petition
ELECTORAL MATTERS - Successful candidate at an election - Failure to join
as necessary party in an election petition seeking to nullify his victory -
FAIR HEARING - Denial of - Effect - Nullity of proceedings even if the
same conclusion would have been reached had there been no denial of fair
HEARING - Meaning of
HEARING - True test of
AND ORDERS - Perverse decision -
- Miscarriage of justice - What constitutes
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Objection - Matters more than mere
irregularity - When can be raised by way of objection at any stage of
AND PROCEDURE - Objection - On what must be based
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Preliminary objection - Affidavit in support
of - Needlessness of where sufficient grounds of objection is placed before the
AND PHRASES - â€˜Fair hearingâ€™ - Meaning of WORDS AND PHRASES - â€˜Perverse
decisionâ€™ - Features of
Whether the ruling of the Election Tribunal was null
and void for its obvious failure to consider the counter affidavit evidence of
Whether the Tribunal was right in finding that the
appellantâ€™s petition was filed out of time when that objection was withdrawn by
the 1st - 291st respondent and in fact the petition was not filed out of time.
Whether the Tribunal was right in faulting the petition
on grounds of duplicity and misjoinder of parties and/or causes of action.
Whether the non-joinder of one Uchenna S. A. Igwesi who
contested in Nkanu East Federal Constituency and against whom the petitioner
fielded no candidate was fatal to the petition.
At the National
Assembly general election conducted throughout Nigeria on Saturday 12th April
2003, the appellant, All Nigeria Peoples Party (ANPP) was one of the political
parties that fielded candidates who contested for the 3 seats for the House of
Representatives in Enugu State. At the end of the exercise, none of the
candidates fielded by the ANPP emerged a winner in any of the 3 Senatorial
Districts of Enugu State or any of the House of Representatives constituencies
in the State. Consequently, in exercise of its right under section 133(1)(b) of
the Electoral Act 2002, the appellant filed an election petition before the
Enugu National Assembly Election Tribunal on 14th May, 2003 claiming mainly
that there was no election as prescribed by law and prayed that the result of
the election of the 12th day of April, 2003, and any subsequent date into the
National Assembly for Enugu State be declared null and void.
respondents to the petition included 10 candidates sponsored by the Peoples
Democratic Party (PDP), whose candidates were returned as duly elected from the
3 Senatorial Districts and 7 House of Representatives Federal Constituencies of
Enugu State. However, one of the successful candidates at the election, Hon.
Uchenna S. A. Igwesi from Nkanu East Federal Constituency was not made a
respondent in the petition because, according to the petitioner, no candidate
was fielded by it in that constituency.
of the petition on all the 301 respondents, 1st - 291st respondents through
their counsel entered a conditional appearance and filed a joint reply. They
raised objection to the competence of the petition in pursuit of which they
filed a motion on notice dated 9th June, 2003 on 10th June, 2003 and sought for
an order of the trial Tribunal to strike out the petition for being incompetent
on the grounds inter alia of non
compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Law and for being bad for
duplicity for misjoinder of parties and causes of action.
heard on the application by the Tribunal. In its ruling delivered on 18th June,
2003, the Tribunal upheld the objection on some of the grounds and struck out
the appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal.