Abdulazeez Idris King & Anor. V. Suleiman Abdul Kokori & Ors. (2008)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

RABIU DANLAMI MUHAMMAD, J.C.A.

On 21st April, 2007, elections were held throughout the country into the National Assembly. The 1st appellant Abdulazeez Idris King contested under the platform of the 2nd appellant, peoples Democratic Party (PDP) for the Okene/Ogori Magongo Federal Constituency of Kogi State. The result of the said election was declared on the 22nd day of April, 2007. The 1st respondent herein, Suleiman Abdul Kokori, who was sponsored by the Action Congress (AC), was declared the winner by the 2nd 3rd and 4th respondents. The appellants were not satisfied with this declaration. They therefore, filed a petition before the Election Petition Tribunal sitting at Lokoja, Kogi State challenging the declaration of the 1st respondent as the winner of the election.

After full trial, the tribunal in its judgment dismissed the petition. The tribunal stated:-

“from the chart herein attached to this judgment, the candidate of Peoples Democratic Party scored total votes of 26,585 while the Action Congress candidate scored 31,527 votes.

In the light of the foregoing it is our view and we so hold that the Petitioners have failed to prove the grounds upon which the petition was presented and the petition falls for lack of merit and is accordingly dismissed. ”

The petitioners were aggrieved by this decision. They appealed to this court. The Notice and Grounds of Appeal contains eleven grounds of appeal. In accordance with the Rules of this Court, briefs of argument were filed and exchanged. The appellants in their brief of argument formulated eight issues for the determination of the appeal. The 1st respondent also identified eight issues for the determination of this appeal. The issues formulated by the appellants are:

”1. Whether the trial Tribunal was in error, when it struck out ground B of the Appellants’ Petition on the ground that the said ground is unknown to the law (Arising from ground One).

2. Whether after nullifying the result from 4 wards namely: Abuga Ozuja, Okene Eba/Agassa, Orietesu and Otutu, the trial Tribunal was right in accepting and computing votes from some polling units of the same ward in favour of the 1st Respondent (Arising from ground Two).
3. Whether the trial Tribunal was right in crediting the 1st Respondent with 10,859 votes from Idoji Ward in Exhibit C2.

And if correct, whether it was right to at the same time credit him with 6,053 votes from some of the polling units from the same

Idoji Ward (Arising from ground Three and Four).

4. Whether the trial Tribunal was right in crediting 1,785 votes from Upogoro/Odenku Ward arising from Exhibit C6 in favour

of pt Respondent. And at the same time crediting him with 1,160 votes from Exhibit H, H1 and H3 which are results from polling units from the same ward from which 1,785 votes had been credited to 1st Respondent. (Arising from ground Five).

5. Whether the trial Tribunal was right in validating votes from Exhibit G4 -G13 which had no INEC stamp after invalidating

Exhibit H4, F, F1, F5, K, J, J1-J5 and J7-J18 for absence of INEC stamp in line with section 64(2) of the Electoral Act.

(Arising from ground Six).

6. Whether the finding of the trial Tribunal was not perverse when it held that the evidence of PW1 and PW3 was vague having regard to the standard of proof required of the Appellant, when the Respondents had no defence to deny the claim of the Appellants. (Arising from ground Seven and Eight).
7. Whether the trial Tribunal was right in admitting and acting on Forms EC8A (ii) from various polling units of Idojl and Otutu Ward. (Arising from ground Nine).
8. Whether the trial Tribunal was right in its calculation and computation of valid votes earned by the contending parties. (Arising from ground Ten).

The issues formulated by the 1st respondent are:-

1. Whether the decision of the trial Tribunal which dismissed ground 8 of the petition as not being in compliance with the Electoral Act was proper and right. (Ground 1 of the Notice of Appeal).
2. Whether from the judgment of the Tribunal it nullified the results in all the polling units in four wards, Abuga Ozuja, Okene-Eba/AgassQ, Orietesu and Otutu ward, which prevents the Tribunal from computing some polling units results in the wards. (Ground 2 of the Notice of Appeal).
3. Whether the analysis and computation of the votes and results are calculated by the trial Tribunal in its chart with respect to Abuga, Ozuja, Okene-Eba, Orietesu and Otutu wards were flawed and palpably wrong as to vitiate the judgment of the Tribunal. (Ground 3, 4, and 5 of Notice of Appeal)
4. Whether the non-stamping of some polling units results forms’ have been shown to be in substantial non-compliance as to invalidate the elections conducted ;n the polling units. (Ground 6).
5. Whether the evidence of PW1 and PW3 were challenged under cross-examination as to render their evidence unreasonable and lacking in substance in relation to the proof of the allegations of crime contained in the petition (Ground 7 and 8).
6. Whether the trial Tribunal was right in admitting and relying on various Forms ECBA (ii) being the polling units results from Otutu and Idoji wards. (Ground 9).
7. Whether the 1st Respondent scored the lawful majority of the lawful votes cast at the election to warrant the reaffirmation of his return by the Tribunal in its judgment. (Ground 10 and 11).
8. Whether the Appellant having failed to formulate any issue or argue ground 11 in the Notice of Appeal has abandoned the ground.

It could be seen the two sets of issues are similar. I will therefore use the issue formulated by the appellants for the resolution of the appeal.

The 1st issue is whether the trial Tribunal was in error when it struck out ground B of the Appellants’ petition on the ground that the said ground is unknown to the law. Ground B of the Appellants’ ground B was produced in the appellants brief, so were S.145 (1) (b) 146 (1) of the Electoral Act, 2006, Electoral Law and Practice 1st Edition by Aderemi Olatubora and the case of Basheer Vs SAME (1992) 4 WLR (236) 491 it was then submitted that the word “or” as used in S.145(1) (b) of the Electoral Act is a disjunctive particle. It was also submitted that the view of the tribunal could not be accommodated within the express words of S.145 (1) (b) and that the tribunal was in error to hold that corrupt practices as a twin component of non-compliance. It was further submitted that the case of Ojong Vs Duke (2004) 14 NW/.R (Pt 841) 581 was wrongly applied because it does not apply to this case. We were urged to resolve the issue in favour of the appellants and hold that ground B is a competent ground to challenge an election under the Electoral Act, 2006.

We were also urged that after allowing this issue to consider ground B since the Tribunal also made certain findings touching on particulars arising from the same ground and resolve on the basis of evidence already evaluated and contained in the chart which is part of the judgment of the tribunal.

In the 1st respondent’s brief the provisions of paragraph 4 (1) and (6) of the Schedule to the Electoral Act, S.145 (B) and ground B of the petition were produced and it was submitted that the wordings of ground B are clearly at variance with the provisions of the Electoral Act. It was also submitted that the tribunal was right when it struck out ground B of the petition. It was also submitted that ground B as couched was an amendment of a statutory provision, which the appellants could not do. It was further submitted that where a statute provides for a way of doing an act, only that way should be followed and that the Electoral Act expressly provided that the twin provisions of S.145(1) (b) of the Electoral Act must coexist as a ground for presentation of a petition and that the case of Buhari Vs Obasanjo (2005) 13 NWLR (pt 941) 1 was cited out of context. The following cases were also relied upon: – Ogboru Vs Ibori (2004) 7 NWLR (pt 871) 192 and FBN Vs ACB LTD (2006) NWLR (pt 962) 438. It was also submitted without conceding that even if the trial tribunal was wrong in its holding that ground B was incompetent, such error had not led to or occasioned any miscarriage of justice. We were urged to strike out ground 8 of the petition in line with the requirements of the provisions as it touches on the competence and jurisdiction to entertain the petition.

S.145(1)(b) of the Electoral Act, 2006 provides:-

”(1) An election may be questioned on any of the following grounds

a) ………………………………………..

b) That the election was invalid by reason of corrupt practices or non-compliance with the provisions of this Act;

c) ………………………………………..

d) ………………………………………..”.

Section 146 (1) of the said Electoral Act also provides:-

”An election shall not be liable to be invalidated by reason of non-compliance with the provisions of this 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. ”

It could be seen that S.145(1)(2) stipulates that an election may be questioned on the ground that the election was invalid by reason of corrupt practices or non-compliance with the provisions of the Act. The Act specifically provides “by reason of corrupt practices or non-compliance”. The word “or” is a disjunctive particle used to express an alternative or to give a choice of one among two or more things. See: Black’s law Dictionary 6th Edition page 1095 S.145 (1) (b) clearly gives a petitioner a choice. He can either challenge the election on the ground that the election was invalid by reason of corrupt practices alone or on non-compliance alone. Nothing in the law compels a petitioner to question an election by reason of corrupt practices and noncompliance with the provisions of the Act. However, where the petitioner intends to rely on both corrupt practices and non-compliance, nothing stops him from challenging the validity of the election on the ground of both corrupt practices and non-compliance.

Ground B of the appellant’s petition challenged the return of the 1st respondent on the ground that:-

“the election was invalid by reason of substantial non-compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act, 2006”.

It could be seen that the appellants were challenging the validity of the election on the ground of non-compliance only. It is my considered opinion that this ground is proper in law. Unless the petitioner is relying on both corrupt practices and non-compliance he is not bound to combine the two. Moreover, there is nowhere in the Act where it is said that S.145 (i) (b) must be quoted verbatim for the ground to be valid.

“One of the reasons for which the tribunal struck out ground B was that the appellants used the ward “substantially”. This is what the tribunal said:-

”In the instant case it is our view that ground complained of as not only be depleted in its content and form but has also been adulterated by the inclusion of the ward ”substantially”.

This is a misconception. Rather than adulterating the ground, the inclusion of the ward “substantially” actually strengthen the ground and more in compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act because an election shall not be invalidated by reason of non-compliance alone. The non-compliance must be substantial and substantially affect the result of the election. See Basheer Vs. SAME (1992) 4 WLR (Pt 236) 491. see also Buhari Vs Obasanjo (supra).

In the circumstance, I hold that ground B is a valid ground of the petition and that the tribunal was in error, when it struck out ground B of the appellant’s petition.

The second issue is that whether after nullifying the result from four wards, the tribunal was right in accepting and computing votes from some polling unit of the same wards in favour of the 1st respondent. After quoting the finding of the tribunal of the said four wards, the appellants agreed with the finding. It was submitted that having nullified the results of the polling units contained in the same wards have also been nullified. It was submitted that having nullified summary of results from the four wards, the results of the polling units therein contained ought to have been equally discarded. It was then submitted that the tribunal was wrong to have proceeded into building up for the 1st respondent another sets of scores from unpleaded document after nullifying the results. We were urged to allow the appeal on this issue and to nullify the votes credited to the 1st respondent from all the polling units of the four wards and to consequently deduct them from the computation done by the tribunal in its chart.

The 1st respondent in his brief submitted that the tribunal never nullified the election in the said wards and that the ground does not flow from the judgment of the tribunal. After quoting parts of the tribunal’s judgment, it was submitted that the tribunal nullified results of some of the units and not all the units in the wards mentioned. It was also submitted that the ground as couched by the appellant is flawed and a misrepresentation of the decision of the tribunal since the Tribunal did not annul the election in the four wards. It was also submitted that the fact that some results were invalidated, it does not preclude the tribunal to review polling units results tendered before It as documentary evidence that election took place in the polling units from where the collation took place. In support the case of Ngige Vs Obi (2006) 14 NWLR (pt 999) 1 was cited. It was also submitted that the tribunal was right to have scrutinized documentary evidence before it. We were referred to the following cases: – Bayo Vs Njidda (2004) 8 NWLR (pt 876) 544 and Ajibola Vs Aladi (2004) 1 NWLR (pt 892) 14. It was finally submitted that the tribunal was right when it relied on polling units results.

The tribunal in its judgment held that:-

“In evaluating, analyzing and scrutinizing the exhibits before us we observed that they were evidence of cancellations, mutilation and falsification on a determined and significant scale of electoral forms in the exhibits. This combination of factors compels a finding that the election in some of the units of ward in the constituency such as Abupa Ozuja, Okene Eba/Agasa, Orietesu and Gtutu words were so tainted with malpractices that the result in those units wards must be discarded for non-compliance with the Electoral Act, 2006, and the election determined on the basis of the remaining votes.”

From the above, it is obvious that because of the evidence of cancellation, mutilation and falsification on a determined and significant scale, the tribunal has found that election in some of the units of ward in the constituency such as Abupa Ozuja, Okene Eba/Agassa, Orietesu and Otutu wards were so tainted with malpractices that the results in those wards were discarded for non-compliance with the Electoral Act.

The above is clear and unambiguous. The election in Abupa/Ozuja, Okene-Eba/AgassaOrietesu and Otutu wards were tainted with malpractices that the results were discarded for non-compliance with the Electoral Act. Simply put, the results in the said wards have been nullified. The tribunal was clearly in error after nullifying the results in the said wards to turn round and consider the unit results within the said wards. Since the results in the ward were discarded, it follows the result of the polling units therein contained must also be discarded. My answer to issue No 2 is in the negative.

Because of their similarity, I will consider issues No 3, 4 and 5 together. They deal with wrongful crediting of votes and validation of votes. It was submitted by the appellant the tribunal was wrong in crediting the 1st respondent with 10,859 votes from Idoji Ward in Exhibit C2 and at the same time crediting him with 6,053 votes from the same Idoji Ward. It was submitted that the endorsement on exhibit C2 the total votes cast are 10,859 which include 580 votes which were rejected and as such the tribunal was wrong to have credited the 1st respondent with the total votes cast which include the rejected 580 votes. It was further submitted that apart from wrongly crediting the 1st respondent with 10,859 votes from Idoji ward, the tribunal again credited the 1st respondent with 6,053 votes.

These votes are from polling units whose results were collated in Exhibit C2. It was submitted this amounts to duplication of votes. It was then submitted that this error committed by the tribunal unduly enriched the 1st respondent and has occasioned a substantial miscarriage of justice.

It is also submitted that the tribunal wrongly credited the 1st respondent with 1,785 votes from Upogoro/Odenku ward arising from Exhibit C and at the same time crediting him with 1,160 votes. It was submitted that the situation here is exactly like the one in Idoji. It was submitted the tribunal in its judgment found that there was no INEC stamp on Exhibit H4 which rendered it invalid. However, despite this finding, the tribunal wrongly awarded to the 1st respondent the entire 1,785 votes representing the total votes from the five polling units. The tribunal also wrongly awarded to the 1st respondent 1,160 votes thus making a double award of votes totaling 2,945 votes in favour of the 1st respondent. It was submitted that the award was not only perverse but unjustified. It is in excess of the total number of registered voters in the said ward and also grossly in excess of the total votes arising from the five polling units. We were urged to allow this appeal on this issue and set aside the double award made by the tribunal.

On whether the tribunal was right in validating votes from exhibits G4-G13 which had no INEC stamp. It was submitted the tribunal set out certain a criteria which it applied to scrutinize and make specific findings on each exhibit. It was then contended that the tribunal deviated from applying the same finding which it used in invalidating the above exhibits but chose to maintain double standard by validating exhibits G4-G13. It was submitted that the tribunal was in error and this court should not allow such error to stand. We are urged to allow the appeal on this issue In the overall interest of justice.

The 1st respondent in his brief submitted that in the chart created by the tribunal there is nowhere a total of 16,912 votes were calculated in favour of the 1st respondent and that the figure entered has not affected the final result of the chart in favour of the 1st respondent and therefore did not cause any miscarriage of justice on the part of the appellant. It was contended that the 1st respondent ought to have been credited with 4,297 votes not recorded for him in the calculation from the chart. We were urged to hold that the tribunal did not increase the votes in the chart attached to the judgment in favour of the 1st respondent. That there is no duplication in the calculation of the votes in Idoji ward and the polling units Exhibits G, G1-G13 as alleged in the ground of appeal. That there is an omission of 4,297 votes in favour of 1st respondent which if added the declared result in the chart created by the tribunal will be 35,824 votes in favour of the 1st respondent. That if the recording in Exhibit H, H1-H8 is total vote of 116 removed from the score of 1st respondent in the chart, the 1st respondent will still win with a total of 34,039 votes.

The 1st respondent also submitted that the tribunal rightly evaluated the results in the forms In its judgment. rt was submitted that the decision of the tribunal as to the fact that the appellant must show the non-stamping affected the result to invalidate it, is supported by S.146 of the Electoral Act and the tribunal found that the exhibits were in substantial compliance which has not affected the results of the election. It was also submitted that since the decision of the tribunal is not challenged, the appellant is precluded from challenging it in his brief. We were referred to the case of Erivo Vs Obi (1993) 9 NWLR (Pt 315) 760. It was submitted that if the results rejected are reversed, the 1st respondent would still win with a wide margin and that the holding of the tribunal has not occasioned any miscarriage of justice. It was also the contention of the 1st respondent even if exhibit G4-G13 are discarded, the entries in C2 is therefore valid, and the 1st respondent should be credited with the entire 10,586 votes. It was finally submitted that the appellant has not shown that the non-stamping or stamping signing or the forms without stamp have in any way affected the result of the election. The case of Kundu Swen Vs Dzungwe EPR 354 was cited in support. We were urged to rely on the entries in the chart, the decision of the tribunal and to dismiss the appeal on this ground and affirm the judgment of the tribunal.

Exhibit C2 is the summary of the results from 27 polling units within Idoji ward of Okene Local Government Area. From the endorsement on exhibit C2, the total votes cast were 10,859 including the 580 votes which were rejected. The tribunal credited the 1st respondents with all the 10,859 votes without deducting the 580 votes which were invalid. This is wrong because only valid votes are to be credited to a candidate. Also the tribunal credited 6,053 to the 1st respondent. Careful scrutiny of Exhibit C2 will show that these votes were from polling unit itemized whose results were collated in exhibit C2. This means that the 1st respondent was credited twice with certain result. This is clearly wrong. My answer to issue No 3 is that the tribunal was wrong in crediting the 1st respondent with 10,859 votes and at the same time crediting him with 6,053 votes from some of the polling units from the same Idoji ward.

The 4th issue is similar to the 3rd issue. It is about crediting 1,785 votes to the 1st respondent; the tribunal has rejected some of the exhibits because no INEC stamp on the exhibits which rendered them invalid and the scores to be deducted from the 1st respondent. However, despite its findings the tribunal credited the 1st respondent with the votes. This is wrong. The tribunal was also wrong when it credited 1,160 votes to the 1st respondent. This amounts to double award. The tribunal is therefore wrong in crediting 1,785 votes from Upogoro/Odenku ward in favour of the 1st respondent and at the same time crediting him with 1,160 votes from polling units from the same ward.

Issue No 5 is whether the tribunal was right in validating votes from exhibits G4-G13 which had no INEC stamp after invalidating other exhibits for absence of INEC stamp. The tribunal has stated at pages 403-404 of the record, the criteria if followed in arriving at a decision on the validity or otherwise of a document-

‘1. Primary evidence in Forms EC8A (ii) the priority of. with other Electoral forms in case of conflict.

2. Validity in compliance with S.64 and S.75 of the Electoral Act, 2006.
3. Invalidity arising from multiple cancellations, mutilations and erasures
4. where no good reason is proffered for a cancellation of a well conducted election revert to status quo. As in exhibit ctO unit 002 of L.afia Obessa ward.
5. Falsification and wrong entries of figures in the Electoral Forms.”

In following the above criteria, the tribunal rejected exhibit H4 because there was no INEC stamp on it. It said on page 399 of the record that:-

“We however observe that (sic) these is no INEC stamp on Exhibit H4, it is hereby rendered invalid and the scores deducted from the AC obtained by the Action Congress candidate 1st respondent.”

Section 64 (2) of the Electoral Act provides:-

“the form shall be signed and stamped by the presiding officer and counter signed by the candidates or their polling agents where available ot the polling station.” (underline mine)

Also S.75 of the Act provides:-

“Every Result form completed at the ward, Local Government, State and National levels in accordance with the provisions of this Act or any Guidelines Issued by the Commission shall be stamped, signed and countersigns by the relevant officers and polling agents at those levels and copies given to the Police Officer and the polling agents, where available.” (Underline mine).

From the above provisions of the Electoral Act, it is the requirement of the law that every result form must be stamped by INEC. The tribunal was in error to in one breath invalidate a result form for lack of INEC stamp and in the other to validate a result form which has not been stamped by INEC. The tribunal was therefore wrong in validating Exhibit G4-G13 which had no INEC stamp.

Issue No 6 is whether the findings of the tribunal was not perverse when it held that the evidence of PW1 and PW3 was vague having regard to the standard of proof required of the appellant when the respondent had no defence to deny the claim of the appellants. The appellants submitted that none of the respondents filed any statement of defence. The petitioners’ claim was therefore not contested as there was no denial, no issues were joined. It is therefore submitted that the standard of proof placed on the appellants was minimal in the circumstance of this case. In support of this submission, we were referred to the following cases:- Alhaji Musa Ya’u Vs Maclean Dikwa (2001) FWLR (pt 62) 1987. Union Bank Vs Ogbo (1995) (Pt 380) 647 and Okobor Vs Police Council (2003) FWLR (Pt 164) 189. It was submitted that the evidence of PW1 and PW3 cannot be said to be vague because they were direct, positive, uncontroverted and the tribunal was duty bound to accept their evidence. We were therefore urged to hold that the tribunal made a perverse finding when it wrongly held that the evidence of PW1 and PW3 were vague. We were also urged to allow this appeal on this issue on the overall interest of justice.

After quoting parts of the judgment of the tribunal, the 1st respondent submitted that the tribunal rightly held that the evidence of PW1 and PW3 was unreliable. We were urged to hold that the tribunal rightly reviewed the evidence of PW1 and PW3. The tribunal watched them at the trial, held that the allegations of imputation of crime contained in the petition had not been proved after proper evaluation of the documents and evidence led at the trial. We were also urged to hold that the evidence of PW1 and PW3 were contradictory; that the evidence was so discredited that they are not evidence of truth. We were then urged to affirm the judgment of the tribunal.

This issue relates to the credibility of the petitioners’ witnesses and the findings of facts made by the tribunal. It is trite law that an Appeal Court will not interfere with a finding of fact of the lower court unless the finding is perverse. It is also trite that an Appeal Court will not tamper with the finding of a lower court as regards to the credibility of witness. This is within the exclusive realm of the trial court. It is the trial court that watched them and observed their demeanor. It has not been established that the findings of the tribunal are perverse. The answer to the sixth issue is that the finding of the tribunal was not perverse.

I now come to issue No 7 which is whether the trial tribunal was right in admitting and acting on Form EC8A(ii) from various polling units of Idoji and Otutu ward. It was submitted by the appellant that the tribunal erred in law when it admitted and acted upon some forms EC8A(ii) when these forms were not pleaded by the appellants. The forms in question were tendered by the 1st respondent through the 1st appellant under cross-examination. It was also submitted that the right of the 1st respondent to tender any form EC8A (ii) through the 1st appellant is limited to the forms EC8A(ii) specifically pleaded by the appellants in their petition. It was submitted that in our present case, the respondents did not join issue with the appellants in respect of these various forms and the appellants did not plead same in their petition as such the tribunal has no legal basis for admitting the said forms.

In the 1st respondent’s brief it was submitted that forms EC8A(ii) are the primary forms showing that elections were held in various polling units and that the law is that evidence shall not be pleaded but facts. It was also submitted that the appellants pleaded the documents in his pleading in relation to election in Idoji and Otutu wards. They are relevant, pleaded and are admissible and the tribunal was right in admitting them. It was further submitted that the forms are relevant and basic in the determination of the structure of any irregularity. The tribunal was right in relying on the forms in just determination of the petition. We were urge to dismiss the issue.

In our instant appeal, the respondents did not file any statement of defence. No issues were joined between the parties. None of the respondents testified before the tribunal. The only thing before the tribunal was the pleadings of the petitioner and the testimonies of PW1 and PW3. The appellants did not plead the form EC8A ((ii) from various polling units of Idoji and Otutu ward not to talk of the respondents who never filed any defence nor give evidence. Since the documents were never pleaded by anybody, the tribunal was wrong in admitting the form EC8A(ii) See: Buhari Vs Obasanjo (Supra).

Having answered six out of the seven issues considered, it is my considered opinion that the appeal has merit and ought to succeed. It is hereby allowed. As could be seen there were a lot of confusion as to crediting parties with votes, double award of votes, wrongful admission or rejection of exhibits. The chart made by the tribunal did not help matters at all. It will be very difficult for an appellate court or even impossible to correctly assign the correct votes scored by each party. With the facts before us, we cannot determine the valid votes or the invalid ones. In fact that is the reason why we do not deem it fit to consider issue No 8 because it deals with calculations which may be based on wrong figures.

In the circumstance, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The judgment of the tribunal is set aside. The justice of the matter demands that the election held on 21st April, 2007 to the Federal House of Representatives for Okene/Ogori-Magongo Federal constituency of Kogi State should be annulled. It is hereby annulled. We hereby order INEC to conduct: fresh election for the Okene/Ogori-Magongo Federal constituency of Kogi State as soon as practicable, The candidates who contested the election held on 21/4/07 are to be the candidates for the fresh election to be held.

The appellants are entitled to cost which we asses at N30,000 against the 1st respondent.

---

Other Citations: (2008)LCN/2750(CA)