Hon. Ossy T. Chinwuba V. Joseph Isiagu & Ors. (2009)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

STANLEY SHENKO ALAGOA, J.C.A,

This is an appeal against the judgment of the National Assembly/Governorship and. Legislative Houses Election Petition Tribunal Anambra State holden at Awka in Petition No. EPT/AN/SAE/28/2007 between Hon. Ossy T. Chinwuba as Petitioner and Joseph Isiagu and Ors as Respondents delivered on the 2nd June 2008 – Coram Hon. Joseph J.S. Abiriyi (Chairman), Hon. Justice A.G. Kwajafa (Member); Hon. Justice D.T. Okuwobi (Member); Hon. Justice B.A. Georgewill (Member) and Hon. Justice A.M. Lamido (Member). The election complained of in the Petition was into the Anambra East Constituency of the Anambra State House of Assembly held on the 14th day of April 2007 between Hon. Theophilus C. Chinwuba of the PPA, Mr. Joseph Isiagu of the PDP and other candidates of ‘APGA, ANPP, AC, ADC, SPN and NDP. At the end of the election, the 1st Respondent Joseph Isiagu was declared winner having scored the highest number of votes. Dissatisfied with that result, the Petitioner filed a Petition on the following grounds –

(1) The return of the 1st Respondent as the winner of the election for the Anambra State House of Assembly held on the 14th April 2007 was invalid by reason of non compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act 2006.

(2) The election was marred by irregularities and corrupt practices.

(3) The 1st Respondent was not duly elected by a majority of lawful votes cast at the election as no lawful vote was cast in the entire Anambra East Constituency on Saturday 14th April 2007.

The Petitioner stated as facts in support of the Petition thus –

i. Your Petitioner states that election did not take place in any polling station within Anambra East constituency on Saturday April 14 2007. The 1st Respondent deliberately gave out some of the election materials particularly the result sheet to agents of the Peoples Democratic Party (thereinafter referred to as PDP) hours before the election who used the said result sheets to enter the figures manufactured outside the polling units in the most reckless manner.

ii. The 4th Respondent is a body given empowered (sic) by the 1999 Constitution and the Electoral Act 2006 to conduct the questioned election on 14th day of April 2007 and pursuant to the exercise of its said function, it sent its polling clerks to all the 200 polling booths in the Constituency but without electoral materials which were expected to be supplied from the INEC Local Government Office at Otuocha by the 2nd – 4th Respondents. The 2nd – 4th Respondents did not supply the following electoral materials –

(a) Voters Register for the use in the 200 polling booths in Anambra East Constituency.

(b) Result sheets otherwise called form EC8A1 for the respective polling units.

(c) The election was scheduled to take place between 8.00 and 3.00 pm but until the close of the election these election materials did not reach any of the polling booths in Anambra East Constituency.

(d) The 2nd – 4th Respondents did not provide voters register to conduct the election in any of the 200 polling units in the Constituency.

(e) No result sheet (for all the polling units) station i.e. Form EC8A1) for the State House of Assembly election was provided by the 2nd – 4th Respondents

The total absence of these materials precipitated the following reaction

(i) The electoral (sic) became restive insisting that the form EC8A1 must be provided and since these materials were not there no election took place at any of the 200 polling units.

(ii) Consequently there was no collation at the collation centres of the Constituency

(iii) In none of the 200 polling units was any result entered in form EC8A1 for the State House of Assembly on the date of the purported election

(iv) Despite all these irregularities and non compliance with the Electoral Act 2006, the 2nd Respondent purportedly returned and declared the 1st Respondent as the winner of the election that never took place.

(v) The said return and declaration of the 1st Respondent as the winner of the election is not a product of lawful votes cast in any of the 200 units or collation of results as any of the 15 wards in Form EC8B1 nor a calculation of the votes collated a t the Constituency Collation Centre in Form ECBCv).

(vi) The purported return and declaration of the 1st Respondent is a fabrication of the 2nd – 4th Respondents.

(f) The 2nd – 4th Respondents lack the competence to fabricate figures and allocate same to the 1st Respondent or indeed to any other candidate at the election

(g) The fact of the irregularities, resulting to non voting during the purported election in the whole of Anambra State is so notorious that it was reflected in Caritas (Anambra State) in their report of the election dated 16/4/07, European Union report on the election in Nigeria, paid advertorial in the Sun Newspapers of Thursday 27th April 2007 by prominent citizens of Anambra State and the public statement made by His Grace Most Rev. Dr. Hilary Odli Okeke regarding the said election published in the Christian Outlook vol. 5 No.9 of May 2007. All these reports and publication are hereby pleaded. Above all the Anambra State House of Assembly on 24th April in House Resolution No. ANHA/RES/2001/21 described the election as unheld in the Anambra East Constituency and urged INEC to cancel the purported result of the unheld election of 14/4/07 as it affected that Constituency. This said resolution of the House is hereby pleaded. A report by the presiding officers in Nando Ward II to Electoral Office Anambra East on the non availability of election materials on 14/4/07 is hereby pleaded.

(h) In the ward collation/distribution centres, the party officials/agents representing all the parties that fielded candidates (except PDP) and other stakeholder). Less the PDP in the election refuse the election materials to be distributed to the various polling stations unless they were accompanied by the result sheets. Some of the electoral materials were then returned to the Local Government INEC office at Otuocha some to Nigeria police and others dumped or thrown away hours after they were issued out.

(i) The Respondents also used intimidation, thuggery and police/army terrorism to prevent other candidates especially the Petitioner from contesting the said election.

(j) When the Petitioner noticed that results were being written in a private house at Udabor Umuleri, he came back to the INEC office at Otuocha where he pleaded with the 2nd respondent to accompany him to the house and witness the fact that results were being written there but he bluntly refused. He also pleaded with the DPO Otuocha to detail his men to accompany him to the house, he also refused, saying that it was the responsibility of the INEC and not the police to accompany him. He then took a press photographer and video camera to the place. While they were recording the writing of the result, comrade Tony Nwoye the Anambra State chairman of PDP arrived with 2 bus loads of policemen, soldiers and PDP thugs. They gave the Petitioner a beating of his life. Pushed him into one of the buses and took him to Central Police Station Onitsha where he was detained till the following morning 15/4/07 when he was transferred to the State cm Awka. It was here that he regained his freedom later in the evening of Monday 16/4/07 after the declaration of the 1st Respondent as the winner of the election.

The Petitioner therefore prayed the lower election tribunal as follows –

(1) That it may be determined that Joseph Isiagu (1st Respondent) was not duly elected and returned as the winner of the House of Assembly election held on the 14th April 2007 for Anambra East Constituency and that the election was void for the reasons of non compliance with the Electoral Act 2006 and that the election was marred by corrupt practices.

(2) To declare the said election into the Anambra State House of Assembly of 14th April 2007 in Anambra East Constituency as null and void and cancel the return of the 1st Respondentas the winner of the said election.

(3) To order a bye election into the Anambra State House of Assembly for Anambra East Constituency on a date to be fixed by the 4th Respondent (INEC).

The Respondents denied all the averments in the Petition and the matter went on to be heard by the lower tribunal upon two issues:

1. Whether the State Assembly election held in Anambra East Constituency was characterized with wide spread irregularities, fraud and malpractices.
2. Whether the 1st Respondent Joseph Isiagu was validly returned as the winner of the election by the 2nd – 5th Respondents. At the trial before the lower tribunal the Petitioner called a total of fourteen witnesses. The 1st Respondent testified in his own behalf. Learned Counsel for the parties submitted written addresses.

The Tribunal below considered the issues for determination as formulated at the pre trial and which are as follows –

(1) Whether the election held into Anambra East Constituency complied substantially with the electoral Act 2006.

(2) Whether the 1st Respondent was validly returned as elected by majority of lawful votes cast at the questioned election.

The tribunal sought to determine these issues by answering the following questions –

1. Did voting actually take place on the 14th April 2007 in Anambra East Constituency of Anambra State?
2. Was any election conducted using ballot papers, voters register and result sheets on the 14th April 2007 in the constituency?
3. Were the figures reflected in forms EC8A, B1, C1 and E1 products of valid votes cast on the 14th April 2007 in the Constituency
4. Was a valid and proper return of the 1st Respondent as the winner of the election purportedly held on the 14th April 2007 made by the 2nd – 4th Respondents?

The trial Tribunal then held as follows, “We have calmly considered the case for both the Petitioner and the Respondent. We have carefully examined and evaluated the evidence of both parties and the authorities cited and we find as a fact that the Petitioners have failed to prove their case on the balance of probabilities warranting the grant of the reliefs sought. The only order to make in the circumstances is that of dismissal. Consequently Petition No. EPT/AN/SAE/28/07 be and is hereby dismissed as lacking in merit.” Dissatisfied with the above stated judgment of the Tribunal below, the Petitioner has appealed to the Court of Appeal by his Notice of Appeal dated the 20th June 2008 and filed on the 21st June 2008 which is contained at pages 1079 – 1091 of the Record of Appeal. It consists of 11 grounds of Appeal which are reproduced below shorn of particulars –

GROUND ONE

The Learned Trial Tribunal erred in law when it held, purporting to apply Onoyom vs Egri Awuse Vs Odili, Yar’Adua & others that: When the petitioner claims there was no voting at each of the polling units, he is by law required to lead evidence in each of the polling units to establish that voting did not take place, he is also required to tender an unmarked voters’ register used or meant to be used for the conduct of the election. This the petitioner have failed to do so.

GROUND TWO

The Learned Trial Tribunal misdirected itself and thereby came to wrong decision that occasioned substantial miscarriage of justice when it held: A CTC of extract of INEC register of voter was admitted in evidence and marked as exhibit R149, 54 copies of CTC form EC8A1 admitted and marked as exhibit R15-R204 and one CTC of a ballot paper was admitted in evidence and marked as exhibit R205 after the close of the case of the petitioner through the petitioner’s counsel. These documents were not related to any part of the petitioner’s case in respect of which they were tendered.

GROUND THREE

The Learned Trial Tribunal misdirected itself and thereby came to a wrong decision that occasioned a substantial miscarriage of justice when purporting to rely on Terab vs Lawan (1992) 3 NWLR para. 237 it held: “On the above authority exhibits R149 which is the summary or data of voters register of Anambra State candidates to Federal House of Representative as it affects Anambra East exhibits R15-R205 CTC of a ballot paper and exhibit R159 copy of EC8A1 which are not tied to any specific part of the petitioners case in our view do not help the case of the petitioner.”

GROUND FOUR

The Learned Trial Tribunal erred in law when it, relying on Nwobodo v. Onoh, (1994) 1 SCNRLR 4, Woluchem v. Gudi (1981) 5 SC 29 held:

“We therefore hold that the petitioner have not discharged the burden of prove on them.”

GROUND FIVE

The Learned Trial Tribunal erred in law when it held: Even though the petitioner called 13 witnesses and tendered 4 exhibits as against the evidence of the 1st respondent and his exhibit we prefer the evidence of the respondents against the petitioners.

GROUND SIX

The Learned Trial Tribunal erred in law when it held: We have calmly considered the case for both the petitioner and the respondent, we have carefully examined and evaluate the evidence of both parties and the authorities cited and we find as a fact that the petitioners have failed to prove their case on the balance of probabilities warranting the grant of the reliefs sought.

GROUND SEVEN

The Learned Trial Tribunal erred in law when it held that the petitioner did not establish a prima facie case and said: It is submitted on behalf of the respondent that it is trite law that a defendant does not need to prove anything if the plaintiff has not succeeded in establishing at least a prima facie case in order that the necessity of the defendant to confront the case so made may arise.

See Jolayemi Vs Aloye, Nnaji Vs Agbo. We are prepared to go along with his argument.

GROUND EIGHT

The learned Trial Tribunal misdirected itself and thereby came to a wrong decision which occasioned substantial miscarriage of justice with it held that the evidence of PW2, PW10, PW11, PW12 and PW13 go to no issue because they did not visit other polling booths.

GROUND NINE

The Learned Tribunal erred in law when it failed to look at the documents tendered by all the parties, and the processes in its file.

GROUND TEN

The Learned Trial Tribunal misdirected itself and thereby came to a wrong decision that occasioned substantial miscarriage of justice when it held that; “PW9 was the local government deputy chairman of the transition committee. He testified that the monitored the election in Umuleri Ward I & II, Udeabor and Otuocha ward II said election did not hold in his wards due to lack of materials on cross examination he admitted that he started monitoring the elections after 3pm, after close of polls, he was therefore not in a position to say what happened during the official hours designated for the election.

During Cross examination it was discovered that he was nursing ambition of chairmanship of the local government, his evidence in our view is of a person who has interest to protect we will attach no weight to it.”

GROUND ELEVEN

The judgment of the Tribunal was against the weight of evidence.

The Appellant sought the following relief from the Court of Appeal-

To allow the appeal, set aside the judgment of the Governorship and Legislative Houses Election Tribunal Anambra State CORAM Hon. Justice J.S. Abiriyi (Chairman), Hon. Justice A.G. Kwajafa (Member), Hon. Justice D.T. Okuwobi (Member), Hon. Justice B.A. Georgewill (Member), and Hon. Justice A.M. Lamido (Member) delivered on the 2nd June 2008 in Petition No. EPT/AN/SAE/28/2007 between Hon. Ossy T. Chinwuba V. Joseph Isiagu and 3 Ors., and nullify the purported election into the Anambra State House of Assembly seat of Anambra East Constituency held on the 14th April 2007 and in its place order a bye-election into Anambra State House of Assembly for Anambra East Constituency on a date to be fixed by the 4th Respondent.

Reference is made at this stage to the Briefs of Argument filed by the parties. The Appellants’ Brief of Argument is dated the 29th August 2008. The Appellants also filed a Reply Brief to the 1st Respondent’s preliminary objection and brief dated the 19th September 2008 and filed same day. The 1st Respondent’s Brief of Argument is dated the 10th September 2008 and filed same day. The 2nd – 4th Respondents’ Brief of Argument is dated the 9th September 2008 and filed same day. The 1st Respondent apart from his Brief of Argument already referred to, also filed a Notice of Preliminary Objection dated 10th September 2008 and filed same day brought pursuant to order 10 Rule 1 of the Court of Appeal Rules 2007 and under the inherent jurisdiction of this Court praying that Grounds 2, 3, 8, 9 and 10 of the Notice and Grounds of Appeal dated the 20th June 2008 and filed on the 21st June 2008 and the appeal itself copied at pages 1079 – 1091 of the Record of Appeal be struck out for being incompetent. More specifically the Notice of Objection states the grounds of objection as follows –

(1) Grounds 2, 3, 8, 9 and 10 of the Notice of Appeal are vague, incompetent and liable to be struck out and

(2) The Appeal as constituted is incompetent having not challenged the ratio of the judgment ‘of the Tribunal of June 2, 2008.

When this appeal came up for hearing on the 27th April 2007,

Mr. Mike Okoye Counsel for the 1st Respondent after drawing the attention of this court to the preliminary objection dated/filed on the 10th September 2008 sought to argue same first. He adopted the preliminary objection and sought to rely on the argument of same as contained at pages 3 – 8 of the 1st Respondent’s Brief of Argument. He urged the Court to strike out the entire grounds in the Notice of Appeal. Mr. F.J. Oniekoro Counsel for the Appellant also drew the attention of this Court to the Reply Brief of the Appellant dated the 19th September 2008 and filed same day in response to the preliminary objection and which response is contained at pages 2 – 16 of the Appellants Reply Brief. He objected to the submissions and relied on the arguments contained in the Reply Brief and urged this Court to hear the appeal. Counsel for the 2 – 4th Respondents did not react to the preliminary objection.

After arguments on the preliminary objection, Counsel on all sides went on to argue the appeal proper. Mr. Oniekoro for the Appellants referred to the Appellant’s Brief of Argument dated the 29th August 2008 and filed on the 1st September 2008. He adopted the said Brief of Argument and relied on same. He went on to say that in replying to the 1st Respondent’s Brief of Argument, the Appellants also filed a Reply Brief dated the 19th September 2008 and filed same day. He adopted the Reply Brief. He went on to say that in the Appellant’s Brief of Argument four issues were raised and emphasized on issues 2 and 3. He urged the court to allow the appeal, set aside the judgment of the tribunal and order a fresh election. Mr. Mike Okoye, Counsel for the 1st Respondent referred to the 1st Respondent’s Brief of Argument dated the 10th September 2008 and filed same day. He adopted and relied on the said Brief of Argument. The 1st Respondent he said, formulated four issues for determination by the Court of Appeal. He submitted that the forensic report brought by the Appellant was disallowed and he did not appeal against that. He urged this Court to dismiss the appeal.

Mr. S.O. Ibrahim, Assistarlt Chief Legal Officer (INEC) adopted and relied on the Brief of Argument of the 2nd – 4th Respondents dated the 19th September 2008 and filed same day. He said the 2nd – 4th Respondents formulated four issues for determination. He urged this Court to dismiss the appeal as lacking in merit.

It is appropriate to deal first with the preliminary objection just in case it has some merit capable of determining the appeal at this stage. Arguments with respect to same are dealt with at pages 3 – 11 (not 3 – 10) of the 1st Respondent’s Brief of Argument. Mr. Okoye has submitted in support of his objection that an appeal is determined by the contents of the Notice of Appeal and the grounds contained therein and that for an appeal to be valid it must contain valid grounds of appeal. Reliance was placed on BEREYIN V. GBOBO (1989) 1 NWLR (PART 97) 372, 379 – 380. MOMOH INTERNATIONAL LTD V. ROMAIN & SONS LTD (1993) 8 NWLR (PART 314) 746 at 754 paras D – E. Counsel submitted that Grounds 2, 3, 8 and 10 of the Notice of Appeal complain of misdirection and since it was not stated whether the misdirection was one in law or in fact those grounds are vague and liable to be struck out as being incompetent. He referred to GLOBE FISHING INDUSTRIES LTD. COKER (1990) 7 NWLR (PART 162) 265, 300; F.G. BALAV. BANKOLE (1986) 3 NWLR (PART 27) 141. Counsel went further to say that Grounds 2 and 8 of the Notice of Appeal complain of misdirection whereas the passage of the judgment where the error or misdirection occurred was not quoted and those two grounds do not qualify as proper grounds of appeal. Counsel placed reliance on the following authorities – RINCO CONSTRUCTION CO LTD V. VEEPEE IND LTD. (1995) 5 NWLR 1 (PART 240) page 248 at page 255 paragraph A; IGWE V AICE (1994) 8 NWLR (PART 363) 459 at 473 paragraph H; BEREYIN V. GBOBO (supra) page 379 para C – E. 1st Respondent’s Counsel Mr. Okoye went further to say that it is the law that a ground of appeal must be borne out of the judgment of the Court and that grounds 8 and 9 of the Notice of Appeal are not borne out of the judgment of the tribunal dated 2nd June 2008 and are therefore liable to be struck out. Reliance was placed on – AWOLESI MOTORS (NIG) LTD V. DINA (1994) 2 NWLR (PART 326) page 369; LAMBERT V. NIGERIA NAVY (2006) 7 NWLR (PART 980) 514 at 519 ratio 1; OKOLIE V. MARINHO (2006) 15 NWLR (PART 1002) 316 at 324 ratio 24; ABIOLA V. OLAWOYE (2006) 13 NWLR (PART 996) 1 at 7 ratio 6; INTERNATIONAL OFFSHORE CONSTRUCTION LTD. V. SHORELINE LIFEBOATS (NIG) LTD (2003) 16 NWLR (PART 845) 157. Mr. Okoye for the 1st Respondent went on to further submit that having submitted that grounds 2, 3, 8, 9 and 10 of the Notice of Appeal are incompetent any issues arising from the said grounds will also be incompetent. In the circumstance issue 2 which was formulated by the Appellant which arose out of grounds 2, 3 and 9 and issue 4 which arose from grounds 8 and 10 are incompetent and should be struck out. Counsel relied on BALA V. BANKOLE (1986) 3 NWLR (PART 27) 141; SEHINDEMI V. GOVERNOR OF LAGOS STATE (2006) ALL FWLR (PART 311) 1958 at 1862 ratio 4. 1st Respondent went on to say that the ratio decidendi of the tribunals judgment after considering all the issues for determination with special reference to page 1077 paragraph 2 of the Record of Appeal are as follows-

(1) Based on the polling booth results and the declaration of results tendered, the petitioner cannot be heard to argue that there was no election in t he Constituency,

(2) That the Petitioner has not rebutted the presumption of authenticity and genuineness of the results produced by INEC Respondent submitted that none of the 11 grounds of Appeal challenged any of the two ratios of the judgment of the tribunal and this being so, it will amount to an academic exercise for this Court to consider any issue or issues formulated on those grounds as the resolution of those issues will not upturn the judgment of the tribunal. Reference was made to ADEYEMI V. OLAKUNRI (1999) 14 NWLR (PART 638); BHOJWANI V. BHOJWANI (1996) 6 NWLR (PART 457) 661. NWABOSI V. ACB LTD (1995) 6 NWLR (PART 404) 658 at 681. Counsel submitted that the Court of Appeal cannot dabble into issues not placed before it and cannot pronounce on issues not appealed against by the parties, Counsel relied on BHOJSONS V. DANIEL – KALIO (2006) ALL FWLR (PART 312) 2038 at 2042 – 2043 ratio 6; OSHODI V. EYIFUNMI (2000) 13 NWLR (PART 684) 298; AGBAJE V. FASHOLA (2008) 6 NWLR (PART 1082) 90 at 109 ratio 23. 1st Respondent therefore submitted that there is no competent ground of appeal upon which the appellant can maintain his action and urged this Court to strike out the appeal for being incompetent.

Appellant had made reference earlier to having filed a reply to the preliminary objection raised by t he 1st Respondent. Argument in respect thereof is contained at pages 2 – 16 of the said Reply Brief of the Appellant. Therein the Appellant submitted that for the determination of the preliminary objection the following issues should be considered –

(1) Can grounds 2, 3, 8 and 10 be rightly described as vague and general in terms as to be liable for striking out by this Honourable Court?

(2) Are grounds 8 and 9 not borne out of the judgment of the tribunal?

(3) Can the appeal be rightly described as not challenging the ratio decidendi of the trial tribunal.

Counsel took arguments on these issues seriatim. On issue 1 which reads, “Can grounds 2, 3, 8 and 10 be rightly described as being vague and general in terms as to be liable for striking out by this Honourable Court? In answer Counsel referred to order 6 Rules 2(2) – (3) and 3 of the Court of Appeal rules 2007 and submitted that all the grounds complained about by the 1st Respondent in the preliminary objection viz grounds 2, 3, 8 and 10 clearly state that there was a misdirection by the trial Tribunal and this is in compliance with t he rules of this Honourable Court. Counsel went further to say that the particulars and nature of the misdirection are all stated in each of the grounds complained of. Reliance was placed on IMONIYAME HOLDINGS V. SONEB ENT. LTD (2004) 4 NWLR (PART 758) 618 at 649 – 650; ADEROUNMU V. OLOWU (2000) 4 NWLR (PART 652); HAMBE V. HUEZE (2001) 4 NWLR (PART 703) 372. Appellant submitted that the 1st Respondent cannot claim to have been left in any doubt as to what the Appellant complained about in the said grounds 2, 3, 8 and 10 of the Notice of Appeal. Counsel went on to say that a ground of appeal that clearly states that the trial Court misdirected itself with particulars and nature of the misdirection concisely stated in distinct grounds has never been held to be vague or general in terms and the current position of the law is for a court not to limit itself to the couching of the grounds of appeal but to determine whether the Respondent and the court are misled by the ground or not. Reliance was placed on THOR LTD V. CITY MERCHANT BANK (1997) 1 NWLR (PART 479) 35; ODUSOTE V. , MIL GOVERNOR OGUN STATE (2002) 10 NWLR (PART 776) 566; NTEGWUIJU V. IKURU (1998) 10 NWLR, (PART 569) 267; CHIDIAK V. LAGUDA (1964) 1 ALL NLR 160. Counsel therefore submitted that grounds 2, 3, 8 and 10 of the Notice and grounds of appeal are not vague or general in terms and the objection of the 1st Respondents to those grounds are misplaced and should be discountenanced by the court.

On Issue 2 of the preliminary objection as set out by the Appellant which reads as follows – Are grounds 8 and 9 not borne out of the judgment of the trial tribunal, the 1st Respondent had submitted that the said grounds did not quote the portion of the judgment where the misdirection or error occurred. The Appellant has submitted that this is not totally correct as ground 2 contains a quotation of the passage where the misdirection occurred. With respect to ground 8 Appellant submitted that although there is no direct quotation of the passage from the judgment in the sense that there are no quotation marks used therein, it is still a direct reference to the statement of the trial Tribunal at page 1075 paragraph 2 of the Records. Appellant went on to submit that the rules of court on grounds of appeal did not stipulate that a portion of the judgment must be quoted with the use of quotation marks, contending that a ground of appeal should not leave anyone, the Court and the Respondent in doubt as to what is complained about. It is the Appellant’s contention that the part of the judgment of the tribunal complained of under ground 8 is undoubtedly clear even in the absence of quotation marks.

Appellant conceded that though the practice which the court has encouraged is for the Appellant to quote the passage of the judgment where the error in law or misdirection occurred, the Courts have never really insisted on such quotation. He relied on the following cases to submit that non quotation of the specific passage of the judgment complained of would not render the ground invalid or defective to warrant striking out – OJELADE V. SOROYE (1998) 5 NWLR (PART 549) 284 at 299 para F – G; HAMBE V. HUEZE (2001) 4 NWLR (part 703) 372 at 385 paragraph H; 386 paragraph A; ETALUKU V. NBC LTD (2004) 15 NWLR (PART 896) 370 at 390; ADEROUNMU V. OLOWU (2000) 4 NWLR (PART 652) 253; OSASONA V. AJAYI (2004) 14 NWLR (PART 894) 527 at 545 paragraph E- H.

On the issue in the preliminary objection as to whether grounds 8 and 9 are not borne out of the judgment of the trial tribunal, Appellant described as preposterous the 1st Respondents contention that grounds 8 and 9 are not borne out of the judgment of the tribunal below. Appellant went on to say that ground 8 complained against the failure of the trial tribunal to accord the evidence of PW2, PW10, PW11, PW12 and PW 13 who were all collation agents during the election some weight. According to the Appellant the reason adduced by the trial tribunal was that these witnesses admitted not being polling agents and that they did not visit other polling booths or units. The trial tribunal concluded that they could not have known what happened in other polling booths. The particulars of the misdirection, according to the Appellant, clearly stated how this is considered by the Appellant to be wrong or a misdirection and how this occasioned miscarriage of justice. Appellant therefore submitted that it is misleading and mischievous for the 1st Respondent to contend that ground 8 is not borne out of the judgment of the trial tribunal. According to the Appellant ground 9 of the Notice of Appeal complained of the failure of the trial tribunal to look into documents tendered by all the parties and these are stated in the particulars to that, ground where the Appellant alleged that two sets of results allegedly emanating from the same election were tendered by both 2nd – 4th Respondent s and the petitioner which two sets of results were materially inconsistent and whilst the trial tribunal considered the results tendered by the 2nd – 4th Respondents holding that they were authentic or genuine it did not consider the other results that were shown to be materially inconsistent with the results tendered by the 2nd – 4th Respondents during cross examination holding that the results presented by the petitioner/Appellant were not related to any part of the petitioner’s case. Appellant therefore submitted that the , objection on this ground (that grounds 8 and 9 are not borne out of the judgment of the trial tribunal) should be discountenanced.

As to whether the appeal can be rightly described as challenging the ratio decidendi of the trial Tribunal, Appellants Counsel relying on ONI V. FAYEMI (2008) NWLR (PART 1089) 400 at 427 – 428; SARAKI,V. KOTOYE (1992) 11/12 SCNJ 26 at 42; COKER V. UBA (1997) 4 SCNJ 130; YUSUFU V. KUPPER INTERNATIONAL (1996) 4 SCNJ 40 at 48 submitted that it is not everything a Judge says in the course of arriving at a decision that is binding. It is only the quintessence of the reasons for a Judge’s decision that is best described as the ratio decidendi. Counsel went on to say that in the instant case the ratio decidendi of the judgment was the declaration by the trial tribunal that the petitioner did not discharge the burden to prove allegations in the petition and not being satisfied with the decision of the trial tribunal on the burden of proof, the Petitioner/Appellant filed his notice of appeal with grounds 4, 6, 7 and 10 challenging the decision of the trial tribunal on the burden of proof while the other grounds challenged the evaluation of evidence presented by both parties by the trial tribunal. Appellant therefore submitted that it is not correct to say that the Appellant did not appeal against the ratio decidendi of the decision of the trial tribunal. With these submissions the Appellant urged this court to dismiss the preliminary objection and hear and determine the appeal on its merit.

The issues formulated by the Appellants on page 3 of their Reply Brief to the 1st Respondents’ preliminary objection and Reply Brief appear to me to adequately cover all the arguments of the 1st Respondent and I deem it appropriate to adopt them in the determination of the preliminary objection.

Issue NO.1 is whether grounds 2, 3, 8 and 10 of the Notice and grounds of appeal can be rightly described as vague and general in terms as to be liable for striking out by this Honourable Court. In arguing this issue on the preliminary objection the Appellants had made references in their Reply Brief not only to grounds 2, 3, 8 and 10 but to the particulars attendant to those grounds and for a fuller and more meaningful discourse it is necessary to spell out the particulars attendant to those grounds. GROUND 2

PARTICULARS OF MISDIRECTION –

1. It was the case of the petitioner that there was no voting, yet results were fabricated; the election was marred with corrupt practices; and that there was non-compliance with the Electoral Act, 2006
2. It was shown that the result purportedly declared were not obtained from the use of voters register and ballot papers having contained for more number of voters than the number in the voters register.
3. The result declared and the voters’ register showed that the voters’ register was not used in the election.
4. The above exhibits tendered were to show how the results were fabricated.
5. The exhibits manifestly showed that the results relied upon to during the election
6. It was also shown that the number of political parties on the ballot papers meant for Anambra East constituency for the said Election was far (exactly 6) less than the number of political parties reflected in the result, Exhibits R1 and R150. 7.  The result (form EC8E1) relied upon by the 2nd – 4th respondents (Exhibit R1) were drastically different from the purported duplicate result (form EC8E1) relied upon by the 1st respondent (Exhibit R150).
7. These exhibits were clearly related or connected to the case of the petitioner.
8. It is erroneous to hold that these exhibits were not related to the case of the petitioner.

GROUND THREE

PARTICULARS OF MISDIRECTION

1. It was the case of the petitioner that there was no voting, yet results were fabricated, the election was marred with corrupt practices;
2. It was shown that the result purportedly declared were not obtained from the use of voters register and ballot papers having contained far more number of voters than the number in the voters register.
3. The above exhibits tendered were to show how the results were fabricated.
4. The exhibits manifestly showed that the results relied upon to declare the 1st respondent winners were not written during the election.
5. It was also shown that the number of political parties on the ballot paper meant for Anambra East constituency for the said Election was far (exactly 6) less than the number of political parties reflected in the result, Exhibits R1 and R150.
6. The result (Form EC8E1) relied upon by the 2nd – 4th respondents (Exhibit R1) were drastically different from the purported duplicate result (form EC8EI) relied upon by the 1st respondent (Exhibit R150).
7. It is erroneous to hold that these exhibits were not related to the case of the petitioner.
8. The exhibits are connected to paragraph 4 ii (a-e); e (i-v) of the petition.

GROUND EIGHT

PARTICULARS OF MISDIRECTION

1. The witnesses who were collation agents were expected to participate in the collation of results expected from various polling booths.
2. No results were collated as there was no election due to the absence of vital election materials.
3. The collation centres were also polling booths and the agents were registered voters who said they neither voted nor collated any results.
4. If no results were collated, it presupposed that there were no results from all the polling booths that were to be collated in these collation centres.

GROUND TEN

PARTICULARS OF MISDIRECTION

1. PW9 did not tell the tribunal that he was nursing ambition of chairmanship.
2. PW9 clearly told the Tribunal “I am not an aspirant of chairmanship of Anambra East Local government”.
3. The Tribunal did not make a finding on how ambition of chairmanship affected the testimony of PW9.
4. PW9clearly showed that before 3pm he was at INEC office and that up till 3pm there was no election material in INEC office.
5. Election cannot hold and close by 3.30pm when there were no election materials.

It is necessary to examine the provisions of order 6 Rules2 (2), 3 and 3 of the Court of Appeal Rules 2007. They provide as follows –

“2(2) – Where a ground of appeal alleges misdirection or error in law, the particulars and nature of the misdirection or error shall be clearly stated.

2(3) – The Notice of Appeal shall set forth concisely and under distinct heads the grounds upon which the appellant intends to rely at the hearing of the appeal without any argument or narrative and shall be numbered consecutively.

3 – Any ground which is vague or general in terms or which discloses no reasonable ground of appeal shall not be permitted save the general ground that the judgment is against the weight of evidence and ground of appeal or any part thereof which is not permitted under this rule may be struck out by the Court of its own motion or on application by the Respondent.”

As has been seen above others are particulars of misdirection attached or attendant to each of grounds 2, 3, 8 and 10 complained about.

1st Respondent’s grouse appears to be that as the grounds did not state whether the misdirection was in law or in fact, the Appellant has failed to give particulars of the nature of the misdirection and therefore the said grounds are vague or general in terms and liable to be struck out. The grounds and their attendant particulars do not leave anyone in doubt as to what is being complained about by the Appellant and there is nothing sacrosanct as to whether the misdirection is labeled or captioned misdirection in law or in fact. The authorities relied upon by the Appellant and which need no repetition are to the point but see especially THOR LTD V. FCMB LTD (1997) 1 NWLR (PART 479) 1 at 43; CHIDIAK V. LAGUDA (1964) 1 All NLR 160 AT 162 – 163.

As part of the argument on issue 1 in the preliminary objection is the contention by the 1st’ Respondents Brief of Argument that although grounds 2 and 8 ‘of the Notice of Appeal complain of misdirection, the passage of the judgment where the error or misdirection occurred was not quoted, and therefore the two grounds can hardly qualify as grounds of appeal. Appellant has submitted at page 8 of his Reply Brief that ground 2 contains a quotation of the passage where the misdirection occurred, and that even ground 8 that may not be described’ as a direct quotation as no quotation marks are used therein is still a direct reference to the statement of the trial tribunal at page 1075 paragraph 2 of the records. The impression created by the Appellant is that quotation marks were used in ground 2 but not in ground 8. That position taken by the Appellant is not correct as there are no quotation marks used in both grounds 2 and 8. That being the case the Appellant cannot claim to have quoted the passage in those grounds where the misdirection occurred. What is the position of the law on this? In CHIEF T.G. BEREYIN & 5 ORS V. CHIEF PRAYER BROWN GBOGBO (1989) 1 NWLR (PART 97) page 372 at 379 the Court of Appeal Enugu Division expressed concern that Counsel for the Respondent did not raise any objection to grounds,1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the Notice of Appeal which though alleging misdirections of facts and error in law did not quote the passage where the misdirections or errors were alleged to have occurred. The Court struck out the grounds as being incompetent. That Court noted at paragraphs C – E at page 379 as follows. “There is a long line of authorities that a ground of appeal which alleges misdirection or an error in law must in addition to quoting the passage where the misdirection or an error in law occurred specify the nature of the error and give full and substantial particulars of the alleged error or misdirection.” (Underlining mine for emphasis)

See also the following cases – ATUYEYE V. ASHAMU (1987) 1 NWLR (PART 49) 267 270; RINCO CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD V. VEEPEE IND LTD (1995) 5 NWLR (PART 240) page 248 at 255; IGWE V. AICE (1994) 8 NWLR (PART 363 page 459 at 473. In the circumstance grounds 2 and 8 of the Notice and Grounds of Appeal cannot stand being incompetent and are accordingly struck out. What that means is that the said grounds 2 and 8 cannot be argued as in the Appellants Brief of Argument. Some times it could spell more doom and do more damage to other existing grounds which though otherwise competent have become tainted by the incompetent grounds where it is sought to argue the incompetent with the competent grounds of appeal under the same issue. In CHIEF T.G. BEREYIN & 5 ORS V. CHIEF PRAYER BROWN GBOGBO (supra) at page 380 where ground 4 of the Notice and Grounds of Appeal which was an incompetent ground of appeal was sought to be argued with grounds 5 and 6, the Court of Appeal held that it was “a futile exercise to take the grounds which are incompetent and sift that which is competent therefrom because the three grounds were argued as one ground. It is not possible when two competent grounds of appeal are argued in the Brief of Argument with an incompetent ground of appeal for the court to be able to examine in the light of the grounds of appeal whether the judgment appealed from is wrong or right.”

That Court went further to observe as follows, “I think the time has now come when learned counsel who draft grounds of appeal on behalf of Appellants must adhere strictly to the requirements of order 3 rule 2(2) of the Court of Appeal Rules 1981 (similar in provisions to order 6 Rules 2 and 3 of the Court of Appeal Rules 2007). The requirements of Order 3 rule 2(2) relating to grounds of appeal as interpreted by decided cases are-

(1) Allegations of misdirection or error in law

(2) Quotation of the passage where the misdirection or error is alleged to have occurred.

(3) The nature of the misdirection or error must be specified

(4) Full and substantial particulars of the alleged error or misdirection.”

In OKEKE AMADI V. OKEKE OKOLI (1977) 7 S.C. 57 the Supreme Court per Idigbe J.S.C stated thus-

“Some Counsel hardly take sufficient pains in drawing up the grounds of appeal set down in the Notice of Appeal from the decision of the lower court. The notice of appeal is a very important document because , it is the foundation of the appeal and if it is defective the Court of Appeal, has inherent power to strike it out on the ground that it is incompetent and in appropriate cases will not hesitate to do so.”

See also UDZA VOR & 2 OR5 V. PAUL LOKO (1988) 2 NWLR (PART 77) 430 at 441. As will be seen at page 9 of the Appellant’s Brief of Argument, ‘grounds 2, 3 and 9 have been argued together under issue 2 while grounds 8 and 10 have been argued together under issue 4. What that portends is that grounds 2, 3, 8, 9 and 10 are liable to be struck out and are hereby struck out along with issues 2 and 4 distilled from those grounds. The preliminary objection of the 1st Respondent therefore succeeds only in relation to the struck out grounds 2, 3, 8, 9 and 10 and issues 2 and 4 formulated from t hose grounds.

I shall now proceed to deal with and determine this appeal on grounds 1, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 11 of the Notice and Grounds of Appeal and issues 1 and 3 distilled therefrom which issues I think can conveniently be treated together. I say so because issue 1 just like issue 3 deals with the evaluation of evidence by the lower tribunal.

Issues 1 and 3 were earlier reproduced and need no further reproduction. Appellant had submitted that the trial Tribunal was wrong in relying on the earlier decided cases of ONOYON V. EGARI; AWUSE V. ODILI; YAR ADUA V. BUHARI in reaching a decision in the present case that when a petitioner claims there was no voting at each of the polling units, he is by law required to lead evidence in each of the polling units to establish that voting did not take place; he is also required to tender an unmarked voters’ register used or meant to be used for the conduct of the election which the present Appellant failed to do when the situation in the present case is different from those in the earlier cited cases. It is Appellant’s contention that both evidence Act and the Electoral Act do not impose a particular way by which a party to an election petition must prove his allegation and that once evidence is led which prima facie establishes any allegation of facts, the burden to show to the contrary lies on the party who wants the tribunal to believe the contrary. Appellant went on to further submit that the evidence adduced by the thirteen (13) witnesses called by the Appellant was to the effect that there was no election for a variety of reasons ranging from non availability of voters register, result sheets, ballot papers and exhibits R149; R151 – 204 and that the burden to establish that there was election or there was substantial compliance with the Electoral Act rested with the Respondents and this the Respondent failed to do as no such evidence in rebuttal was given by the Respondents. Appellant submitted that as there was no election whatever results with which the 1st Respondent was declared winner did not emanate from the election as this was a case of non compliance with the Electoral Act which substantially affected the result of the election and the said election ought to have been invalidated by the Tribunal. Reliance was placed on ONUIGWE V. EMELUMBA (2008) 9 NWLR (PART 1092) 371. Appellant submitted that this Court had held that an act which may be regarded as sufficient to substantially affect the result of an election need not necessarily be widespread non compliance. It is the effect of the non compliance on the overall result of the constituency involved that calls to question; BIYU V. IBRAHIM (2006) 8 NWLR (PART 981) 1; OPUTE V. ISHIDA (1993) NWLR (PART 279) 34 and ONUIGWE V. EMELUMBA (supra) were relied upon. It is the Appellant’s contention that Exhibit R 149 clearly showed that the total number of voters registered in Anambra East was 65,856 while the total number of votes allegedly recorded for the election was 89,842 while the 1st Respondent allegedly scored a total of 80,871 votes. Citing HARUNA V. MODIBBO & ORS. (2004) 16 NWLR (PART 900) 489 at 552; DEBA V. ALI ZAGI & ORS (1999) 5 NWLR (PART 601) 114 at 118; KALLAMUV. GURIN (2003) 16 NWLR (PART 847) 493 at 52- AGOMUO V. OGWUEGBU (1999) 4 NWLR (PART 599) 405 at 413. Appellant submitted, that where votes cast at an election in any constituency exceeds the number of registered voters in that constituency or polling station the election should be declared null and void.

The grouse of the Appellant and which is the crux of this appeal is that elections did not hold or take place in any polling station within Anambra East Constituency into the Anambra State House of Assembly on Saturday 14th April 2007 and that whatever results that were attributed to the 1st Respondent which gave him victory at the polls was unearned and unmerited for a variety of reasons which have already been stated herein. On whom does the burden lie to establish that there were no elections in Anambra East Constituency on the 14th April? Appellant from the tenor of his Brief of Argument is unequivocal that such a burden lies on the Respondents who have failed to discharge that burden. The 1st Respondent and the 2nd – 4th Respondents in their respective Briefs of Argument argue that the burden lies on the Appellant. The lower tribunal at page 1077 of the Record of Appeal noted thus –

“When a petitioner claims there was no voting at each of the polling units, he is by law required to lead evidence in each of the polling units to establish that voting did not take place…..”

The Tribunal’s position therefore which represents the position of the law is that the Appellant who is asserting that there was no voting and therefore no election has the burden of such proof. The burden may however shift in appropriate circumstances. The tribunal had said thus-

“There is a presumption that the results produced by INEC are authentic and genuine. We are not unmindful that this presumption is rebuttable …..”

In an attempt to discharge that burden the Appellant called quite an assemblage of witnesses – 14 in all and tendered 4 exhibits, as against the 1st Respondent’s evidence. The tribunal’s duty at that stage was to evaluate the evidence adduced by the parties. What does such evaluation entail? See BASSIL V. FAJEBE (2001) NWLR (PART 725) 592. In MOGAJI V. ODOFIN (1978) 4 SC 91 at 94 – 95, the Supreme Court held that good evaluation of evidence adduced should take the following issues into consideration

(a) Whether the evidence is admissible

(b) Whether it is relevant

(c) Whether it is credible

(d) Whether it is conclusive

(e) Whether it is more probable than that given by the other party.

Having done so the evidence adduced by both parties are put on an imaginary scale to determine on which side the evidence tilts. This is proof on a balance of probabilities in consonance with sections 135 and 137 of the Evidence Act Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 1990. How well did the tribunal below discharge this responsibility placed on its shoulders? Before I proceed further I want to deal with the issue of over voting which the Appellant has made heavy weather of. Does it not amount to blowing hot and cold at the same time by contending that there was no election in each of the 200 polling units in Anambra East Constituency and again to talk of over voting which in itself signifies that there was an election?

In SALAWU AJIDE V KADIRI KELANI (1985) 3 NWLR (PART 12) 248 at 269 paragraph C – E, Oputa JSC said as follows –

“A party should be consistent in stating his case and consistent in proving it. He will not be allowed take one stance in his pleadings; then turn somersault during the trial; then assume non-challant attitude in the Court of Appeal, only to revert to his case as pleaded in the Supreme Court. Justice is much more than a game of hide and seek”

And now back to the evaluation of evidence of witnesses. On PW4 and PW5 the tribunal at page 1072 of the Record of Appeal observed as follows-

“PW4 and PW5 were staff of ABS who were detailed to cover the election on that day. According to PW 4, the reporter, she interviewed so many people in the Constituency and who said that there was no election. That she went round most of the wards in the Constituency and that as at 2pm no materials nor INEC staff were seen.

PW5 was the Cameraman who recorded the event. The video clips admitted marked exhibits P5 and the news bulletin admitted marked exhibit P4. On cross examination both witnesses said they visited only 2 polling units in the Constituency and that they left the Constituency around 12 noon to go (sic) another local government. That the news bulletin was made from their observation in the two polling units.

When the video clips were shown it showed where the E.O. said they have distributed materials to units and that election would soon start and that was around 10 a.m. We find clearly that the evidence of PW4 and S as well as exhibits P1 and P2 go to support the Respondent’s case.”

In line with the laid down criteria or guideline on evaluation of evidence of witnesses earlier enunciated it is hard to fault the evaluation of the evidence of PW4 and PW5 who are Appellant’s witnesses.

On PW9 the tribunal noted as follows-

“PW 9 was the local government deputy Chairman of the transition Committee. He testified that he monitored the election in Umuleri ward 1 and 2, Udeabor and Otuocha Ward 11 said election was not held in this (sic) wards due (sic) lack of materials. On cross-examination he admitted that he started monitoring the elections after 3 pm after the close of polls. He was therefore not in a position to say what happened during the official hours designated for the election….. ”

The tribunal could not have been wrong not to attach any weight to this piece of evidence of someone who started to monitor the elections after 3pm when polls had closed. Here again the evaluation of PW9’s evidence by the tribunal below was faultless. On the other hand PW6, PW7 and PW8 who were INEC presiding officers who were posted to polling booths at Huono, Nsugbe Ward 1 and a booth at Aguleri gave evidence that there was no election in these polling booths because of lack of materials. What is of interest in this case is that these witnesses admitted under cross examination that they did not obtain the consent of the Attorney General before coming to testify at the tribunal as required by paragraph 47 of the 1st Schedule of the Electoral Act but the tribunal accepting the fact that they had been subpoened to come and testify and were therefore competent witnesses acted upon and accepted their evidence that there was no. election in the three polling units covered by the witnesses. It was never in contention that there are 200 polling units in the Constituency and the tribunal reasoned and rightly in my view that because there was no election in only 3 polling units out of 200 polling ,units could not substantially affect the result of the election. The tribunal evaluated the evidence of PW2, PW 10, PW 11, PW 12 and PW 13 at page 1075 of the Records. They were Ward Collation agents at St. Augustine Primary School Igbariam, Eziagulu Olu, Igwebuike GrammarSchool and Aguleri Ward 1 Wards and admitted under cross examination that they did not work as polling agents and did not visit other polling units and so did not know what happened at other polling units. The tribunal chose to treat their evidence as evidence that go to no issue. The tribunal considered the evidence of the Respondent. Having reviewed the totality of the evidence the tribunal placing the evidence of the Appellants side by side with the evidence of the Respondent on an imaginary scale observed at page 1077 of the Records as follows-

“Even though the Petitioner called 13 witnesses and tendered 4 exhibits as against the evidence of the 1st Respondent and his exhibit we prefer the evidence of the Respondents against the Petitioners.”

The tribunal then went on to make this finding,

“In the light of the polling booth results and the declaration of the results tendered along with our finding above we think that the Petitioner cannot be heard to argue that there was no election in the Constituency. There is a presumption in law that the results produced by INEC are authentic and genuine. We are not unmindful that this presumption is rebuttable but we are of the firm view that the Petitioner has not made out a prima facie case to rebut the presumption of authenticity and genuineness capable of shifting the burden to the Respondent. In so doing we place reliance on the case of ABIBO V TAMUNO, ATIKPEKPE V. JOE (supra).”

The tribunal finally gave this admonition:-

“When a Petitioner claims there was no voting at each of the polling units, he is by law required to lead evidence in each of the polling units to establish that voting did not take place. He is also required to tender an unmarked voters register used or meant to be used for the conduct of the election. This the Petitioner have failed to do.” I cannot agree more. A Plaintiff or Petitioner can only succeed on the strength of his case and should not rely on the weakness of the other party. Where there is no credible evidence brought forward by the Petitioner he cannot succeed. See BUHARI V. OBASANJO (2005) 2 NWLR (PART 910) at 416.

An appellate court will not interfere with findings of fact of a trial court or tribunal that had the singular or unique opportunity of seeing and hearing witnesses and observing their demeanor in the witness box. An appellate court interferes with such findings of fact of such a trial court or tribunal where they are perverse or run contrary to the evidence adduced. The tribunal in its conclusion had said,

“We have calmly considered the case for the Petitioner and the Respondent. We have carefully examined and evaluated the evidence of both parties and the authorities cited and we find as a fact that the Petitioner has failed to prove his case on the balance of probabilities warranting the grant of the reliefs sought.

The only order to make in the circumstance is that of dismissal. Consequently Petition No. EPT/AN/SAE/28/07 be and is hereby dismissed as lacking in merit.”

I do not see the findings of fact by the trial tribunal as being perverse neither do I see the findings as being contrary to the evidence adduced. Accordingly Issues 1, 3 and even issue 4 of the Appellants Brief of Argument which ordinarily should not have been considered having been earlier struck out along with ground 8 of the Notice of Appeal from which Issue 4 was distilled are resolved in favour of the Respondents. The Appeal lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed and the judgment of the National Assembly/Governorship and Legislative Houses Election Petition Tribunal Anambra State in Petition No. EPT/ AN/SAE/28/2007 delivered on the 2nd June 2008 is hereby accordingly affirmed.

There shall be N30,000.00 costs in favour of the Respondents against the Appellant.

---

Other Citations: (2009)LCN/3332(CA)