Required Number of Pages for Brief of Argument in Election Petition Appeal

CASE TITLE: EWA & ANOR v. WILLIAMS & ORS (2023) LPELR-61299(CA)

JUDGMENT DATE: 4TH NOVEMBER, 2023

PRACTICE AREA: ELECTION PETITION

LEAD JUDGMENT: MUSLIM SULE HASSAN, J.C.A.

SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT:

INTRODUCTION:

This appeal borders on Election Petition.

FACTS:

This is an appeal against the decision of the National and State House of Assembly Election Petition Tribunal sitting at Calabar delivered in Petition No. EPT/CR/SEN/01/2023, on the 8th day of September, 2023.

The Appellants were the Petitioners, while the 1st Respondent was the 1st Respondent, and the 2nd to 3rd Respondents were the 2nd and 3rd Respondents at the tribunal, respectively.

This appeal was commenced by way of a petition presented at the National and State Houses of Assembly Election Petition Tribunal, sitting at Calabar, by the Appellants who were petitioners at the tribunal, vide the petition dated March 15, 2023, and filed on March 17, 2023, challenging the return of the 1st Respondent by the 3rd Respondent as the winner and representative of the people of the Central Senatorial District of Cross River State in the Senate of the National Assembly of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

The case of the Appellants who were petitioners against the return of the 1st Respondent by the 3rd Respondent as the elected Senator representing Central Senatorial District of Cross River State during the election held on Saturday, February 25, 2023, is that the Guidelines and Regulations for the conduct of elections only allow those with permanent voter cards who have been accredited by the Bimodal Accreditation System (BVAS) to vote; however, the 1st and 2nd Respondents connived with the 3rd Respondent to circumvent the process by allowing voters to vote in excess so as to ensure that the 1st Respondent scores more votes than the 1st Appellant at the elections.

The Appellants itemized that Cross Rivers Central Senatorial District is made up of 6 Local Government areas with a total of 66 wards and 1,050 polling units, and in all the 66 wards spread across the local government, there was massive non-compliance by the 3rd respondent aiding the 1st and 2nd Respondent to score more votes.

The Appellants at the tribunal relied on the results sheets from the polling units and described the overvoting done polling unit by polling unit with tabular expression. By the end of the election being complained of by the petition leading to this appeal, the 1st Appellant scored 53,453 votes, while the 1st Respondent who was returned by the 3rd Respondent as the winner of the election, scored 57,344 votes. These votes ascribed to the 1st Respondent and his declaration as winner are what the Appellants challenged at the tribunal leading to this appeal.

At the hearing of the petition, the 1st Appellant testified for himself, called 3 more witnesses and tendered Exhibits P1–P297, the results of polling units showing their complaint of overvoting. The 1st Respondent testified for himself also and called 8 other witnesses and tendered exhibits R1–R11, while the 2nd and 3rd Respondents did not call any witnesses but rested their cases on that of the 1st Respondent.

While delivering its judgment, the trial tribunal on September 8, 2023, agreed with the Appellants that there was over-voting in 49 polling units out of the 96 polling units complained of in the petition, thereby bringing the valid votes scored by the 1st Appellant to 51,387, while the valid votes scored by the 1st Respondent are 53,375. The tribunal then held that the petition cannot be sustained since the 1st respondent’s valid votes after the cancelled polling units are greater than those of the 1st Appellant.

The Tribunal then dismissed the case of the petitioners, now Appellants for failure to call sufficient evidence to establish non-compliance with the Electoral Act and affirmed the return of the 1st Respondent by the 3rd respondent as the elected senator for Central District Area, Cross River State.

Dissatisfied, the Appellants filed this appeal.

In response, the 3rd Respondent raised a preliminary objection challenging grounds one of the Notice of Appeal and the competence of the Appellants’ brief for not complying with the provision of the practice directions.

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION:

The Court considered the merits of the preliminary objection.

DECISION/HELD:

In the final analysis, having found the Appellant’s brief of argument invalid, the appeal was dismissed. Consequently, the judgment of the National and State Houses of Assembly Election Petition Tribunal was affirmed.

RATIOS:

• PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – ABUSE OF COURT/JUDICIAL PROCESS(ES) – Meaning and nature of the concept of “abuse of Court/judicial process”
• PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – PRACTICE DIRECTION – Importance of practice directions; whether same must be strictly complied with
• ELECTION PETITION – APPEAL ARISING FROM ELECTION PETITION – Required number of pages for brief of argument in election petition appeal; effect of brief exceeding same

To read the full judgment or similar judgments, subscribe to Prime or Primsol