Abimbola Daramola V. Wale Aribisala & Anor (2009)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

CHIMA CENTUS NWEZE, J.C.A.

On April 21, 2007, the appellant who was the petitioner at the National Assembly/Governorship and Legislative Houses Election Petition Tribunal sitting at Ado Ekiti contested election for the Ekiti North Federal Constituency. While he was sponsored by the Action Congress, the first respondent was sponsored by the People’s Democratic Party.

Dissatisfied with the outcome of the election in which the first respondent was declared the winner, the appellant [petitioner as he then was] filed a petition at the said National Assembly/Governorship and Legislative Houses Election Petition Tribunal sitting at Ado Ekiti, [subsequently to be referred to as the lower tribunal].

Pleadings were duly settled and exchanged. In the course of the actual hearing of the petition, the first respondent beseeched the lower tribunal with a notice of preliminary objection. In it, he canvassed the question of the competence of the tribunal to entertain the petition which, he alleged, was not filed within thirty days of the declaration of the results as stipulated in section 141 of the Electoral Act, 2006.

Again dissatisfied with the outcome of the ruling which upheld the first respondent’s objection, the petitioner [now the appellant] has appealed to this court entreating it to determine the following questions:

1. Whether the Honourable tribunal was right by His Lordships’ finding that the Interpretation Act was not applicable and/or cannot be applied to interpret section 141 Electoral Act 2006 and thereby include the day of Declaration of Result in the counting of 30days within which to file petition.
2. Whether the Honourable Tribunal was not wrong by not following the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Yusuf v Obasanjo and the Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2000 while interpreting Section 141 of the Electoral Act 2006 when the provision of Electoral Act 2002 interpreted by the Supreme Court is ipsima verba (sic) of the provision of Section 141 Electoral Act 2006.
3. Whether the Honourable Tribunal was not wrong by His Lordships’ finding that the petition was filed one day out of time stipulated by Section 141 Electoral Act 2006 when the last day falls on Sunday.

The first respondent also formulated three issues which were couched thus:

(i) whether the lower tribunal was right when it held that the provision of the Interpretation Act, Laws of Nigeria, was not applicable to the provisions of section 141 of the Electoral Act, 2006, in the computation for the presentation/filing of election petition under the Act.

(ii) whether the tribunal was right by not following the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Yusuf v Obasanjo and the Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2000 in the computation of time for presentation/filing of election of election petition under the Electoral Act, 2006.

(iii) whether the petition of the appellants was properly struck out on the ground of want of jurisdiction by the lower tribunal.

The first two issues which the parties formulated [as shown above] are substantially the same although expressed in different phraseologies. However, I shall take the liberty to hone the issues that call for determination to precision as shown hereunder:

(1) Was the lower tribunal right in holding that the provisions of the Interpretation Act are inapplicable to the provisions of section 141 of the Electoral Act, 2006, in the computation of time for the presentation of an election petition?

(ii ) Was the said tribunal right in not following the authority of Yusuf v Obasanjo and the Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2000 in the computation of time for the presentation of an election of election petition under the Electoral Act, 2006?

(iii) Was the tribunal right in its finding that the petition was filed one day out of time when the last day fell on a Sunday?

We shall attend to them in that order, first Issue One: