Michael Joe Onwudinjo V. Joseph Dimobi & Ors (2005)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

GALADIMA, J.C.A.

At the Anambra State House of Assembly election, held on 3/5/2003, the appellant as petitioner was candidate of All Progressive Grand Alliance (APGA) while 1st respondent was the candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party (hereinafter referred to as PDP) for ANAOCHA II Constituency.

At the close of election, the 1st respondent was declared the winner of the election and returned by the 4th respondent, Constituency Returning Officer. The appellant petitioned against the return of the 1st respondent. The petition had been struck out by the 1st tribunal on the ground that the appellant failed to join necessary parties. This court on 17/2/2004, ordered a retrial by another panel after striking out the offensive paragraphs. A new panel heard the petition and gave judgment on 6/9/2004 dismissing the petition.

Dissatisfied with this decision, the appellant has now appealed to this court filing 12 original grounds of appeal and 2 additional grounds. Also, in the course of the trial, the appellant had filed an interlocutory appeal challenging the ruling of the tribunal rejecting a document (list of distribution of ballot papers), which the appellant had sought to tender in evidence.

The appellant in his brief filed on 10/3/2005, submits the issues which arise for determination in this appeal as follows:

“(i) Whether the tribunal was right in holding that the mandatory requirement of paragraph 15 of the 1st Schedule to the Electoral Act, 2002, is not applicable to this petition, and what is the effect of non-compliance with the said requirement by the respondents?

(ii) Were all the Presiding Officers, who worked at the election necessary parties that ought to be joined as respondents in the petition?

(iii) Whether the tribunal was right in holding that the 2nd set of results tendered by the subpoened witness (5th respondent) was the appellants documents and being so, were at variance with his pleadings in the petition.

(iv) Did the tribunal carry out a proper evaluation of the evidence adduced by the parties at the trial?

(v) Whether the tribunal was right in refusing to admit in evidence the list of distribution of ballot papers used for the election?

(vi) Was the tribunal right in failing to consider, examine and evaluate the result sheets produced and tendered by the subpoened witness, especially Forms EC8A (exhibits U, U1 – U22; BB, BB1- BB14) and do the said results have any probative value?

(vii) Was the tribunal correct in up-holding the exclusion of the result for Neni Ward I in the final result of the election?

(viii) Who scored the majority of the lawful votes cast at the election?”

1st respondent in his brief of argument filed on 15/3/2005, identified the following four issues for determination of this appeal: