HON. SAMUEL ALU V. HON RAYMOND AKOLO & ORS
(2008)LCN/2868(CA)
In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
On Thursday, the 10th day of July, 2008
CA/A/342/2007
JUSTICES
RABIU DANLAMI MUHAMMAD Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
ABUDU ABOKI Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
AYOBODE OLUJIMI LOKULO-SODIPE Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
Between
HON. SAMUEL ALU Appellant(s)
AND
1. HON RAYMOND AKOLO
2. THE RESIDENT INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSIONER, NASARAWA STATE.
3. THE ELECTORAL OFFICER, NASARAWA EGGON LOCAL GOVERNMENT
4. THE WARD COLLATION OFFICER, KAGBU WARD
5. THE WARD COLLATION OFFICER, MADA STATION WARD
6. THE WARD COLLATION OFFICER, IKKA WANGIBI WARD
7. THE WARD COLLATION OFFICER, ALUSHI GINDA WARD
8. THE WARD COLLATION OFFICER, LAMBAGA ARIKPA WARD
9. THE WARD COLLATION OFFICER, L/KEFFI/EZZEN WARD
10. THE WARD COLLATION OFFICER, IGGAH BRUMBRUM
11. THE PRESIDING OFFICER, UNGWAN ABIMIKI ANJUGU POLLING UNIT
12. THE PRESIDING OFFICER SARKI EKPON POLLING UNIT
13. THE PRESIDING OFFICER, EKPON POLLING UNIT
14. THE PRESIDING OFFICER, L.G.E.A. WOLON POLLING UNIT
15. THE PRESIDING OFFICER, WATA POLLING UNIT
16. THE PRESIDING OFFICER, EKPON TUDU VILLAGE POLLING UNIT
17. THE PRESIDING OFFICER, IKKAH DISPENSARY POLLING UNIT
18. THE PRESIDING OFFICER, ANGWAN KIGBU KUJE POLLING UNIT
19. THE PRESIDING OFFICER, AKUN UMBUGUTSO POLLING UNIT
20. THE PRESIDING OFFICER, AWUZA POLLING UNIT
21. THE PRESIDING OFFICER, WULGA POLLING UNIT
22. THE PRESIDING OFFICER, LANGALANGA POLLING UNIT
23. THE PRESIDING OFFICER, LAMBAGA POLLING UNIT
24. THE PRESIDING OFFICER, LAMBAGA TUDU POLLING UNIT
2S. THE PRESIDING OFFICER, ANGWAN ABIMIKU KUDU POLLING UNIT
26. THE PRESIDING OFFICER, ANGWAN SARKI POLLING UNIT
27. THE PRESIDING OFFICER, ESHIAGSI POLLING UNIT
28. THE PRESIDING OFFICER, L/KEFFI TUDU POLLING UNIT
29. THE PRESIDING OFFICER, ASSAN PRIMARY SCHOOL POLLING
30. THE PRESIDING OFFICER, LAMIS EZZEN EHA POLLING UNIT
3.1. THE PRESIDING OFFICER, EZZEN KWARI POLLING UNIT
32. THE PRESIDING OFFICER, EZZEN KWARI POLLING UNIT
33. THE PRESIDING OFFICER, ANGWAN GARDA SULE POLLING UNIT
34. THE PRESIDING OFFICER, ANGWAN MISSION POLLING UNIT
35. THE PRESIDING OFFICER, ANGWAN MISSION POLLING UNIT
36. THE PRESIDING OFFICER, ANGWAN MATU POLLING UNIT
37. THE PRESIDING OFFICER, EKAN CHURCH POLLING UNIT
38. THE PRESIDING OFFICER, EKAN CHURCH ANGBA POLLING UNIT
39. THE PRESIDING OFFICER, IGGAH AKU POLLING UNIT
40. THE PRESIDING OFFICER, LAOI ENDE POLLING UNIT
41. THE PRESIDING OFFICER, L.G.E.A. ARIKPA POLLING UNIT
42. THE PRESIDING OFFICER, RANDA ARIKPA POLLING UNIT
43. THE PRESIDING OFFICER, UNGWAN IBO POLLING UNIT
44. THE PRESIDING OFFICER, UNGWAN RAILWAY POLLING UNIT
4S. THE PRESIDING OFFICER, UNGWAN ENGOM POLLING UNIT
46. THE PRESIDING OFFICER, GBAMZE POLLING UNIT
47. THE PRESIDING OFFICER, UNGWAN ABIMIKU ANJUGU POLLING UNIT
48. THE PRESIDING OFFICER, ONGEZI POLLING UNIT
49. THE PRESIDING OFFICER, ANJIAKOLO POLLING UNIT
50. THE PRESIDING OFFICER, EKAN CHURCH WASHO POLLING UNIT
51. THE PRESIDING OFFICER, EVAH/WANGIBI POLLING UNIT
52. THE PRESIDING OFFICER, SUM ALUSHI POLLING UNIT
53. THE PRESIDING OFFICER, ALUSHI ERRO POLLING UNIT
54. THE PRESIDING OFFICR, SATI GINDA WAJI POLLING UNIT
55. THE PRESIDING OFFICER, GINDA GIDA POLLING UNIT
56. THE PRESIDING OFFICER, ANGBAKU POLLING UNIT Respondent(s)
RATIO
TIMEFRAME FOR FILING AN ELECTION PERIOD
The first issue is whether the petition was filed outside the 30 days stipulated by the Electoral Act, 2006. S. 141 of the said Act provides:-
“141 An election petition under this Act shall be presented within thirty (30) days from the date the result of the election is declared.”
The above provision is clear, plain and unambiguous as such the words must be given their ordinary literal and natural meaning. See: Attorney General of Ondo State V. Attorney General Ekiti state (2001) 17 NWLR (pt. 743) 706. Since the words used in Section 141 of the Electoral Act, 2006 are clear and unambiguous, they must be given their literal and ordinary meaning without recourse to the Interpretation Act.
It was also held in so many cases, by this court that in an election petition time begins to run from the date the result of the elections were declared. See: Ogbebor V. Danjuma (2003) 15 NWLR (pt 843) 403 Emeka V. Emordi (2004) 16 NWLR (pt. 900) 433; Alataha V. Asin (1999) 5 NWLR (pt 601) 1 and the recent case of Hon Barrister Mohammed Umara Kumalia V. Senator Ali Modu 5herrif unreported Appeal No CA/J/EP/GOV/244/2007 delivered on 21st January, 2008. PER MUHAMMED, J.C.A.
RABIU DANLAMI MUHAMMAD, J.C.A (Delivering the Leading Judgment): On the 14th day of April, 2007, elections were held into the Nasarawa Eggon Constituency of the Nasarawa State House of Assembly. The appellant contested under the platform of the Peoples Democratic Party (P.D.P) while the 1st respondent contested under the banner of All Nigeria Peoples Party (ANPP). At the conclusion of the election, INEC declared the 1st respondent as the winner of the election. The appellant felt aggrieved with the declaration and return of the 1st respondent, he therefore filed a petition on 15th May, 2007, at the Nasarawa State National Assembly/Governorship and Legislative Houses Election Tribunal holden at Lafia.
On the following grounds:-
“a. that the election was invalid by reason of corrupt practices and non-compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act 2006
b. that the respondent was not duly elected by the majority of lawful votes cast at the election.”
The 2nd to 56th respondents then filed a Notice of Preliminary Objection that the petition was incompetent having been filed out of the statutory period allowed for the filing of election petitions. The Notice of Preliminary Objection was supported by a ten paragraph affidavit. The petitioner filed a 3 paragraphs counter-affidavit in opposed hearing submission from counsel to the parties, the tribunal in its held:-
“The issues rose in the objection and its accompanying affidavit and the counter-affidavit are serious and conflicting enough that it is our view that these conflicts can only be resolved by oral and or documentary evidence and we accordingly so hold. Other issues of law raised in the course of arguing the preliminary objection shall be considered at the trial after oral evidence has been adduced to resolve the issues rose in the aforementioned conflicting affidavits.”
After holding that the issues raised in the objection and the affidavit in support and the counter-affidavit are serious and could only be resolved by oral and or documentary evidence and that all issues shall be considered after oral evidence has be adduced, the tribunal in a curious u-turn said:-
“The result is that the preliminary objection as it is, lacks merit and same is hereby dismissed.”
The petition then proceeded to full trial. The petitioner testified and called 15 other witnesses. The 1st respondent also testified and called one other witness. The 2nd – 56th did not testify nor called any witness to testify on their behalf. In its judgment, the tribunal extensively and exclusively with the issues raised in the preliminary objection and came to the following conclusion:-
“It is our finding that the result of the election was declared on the 14th of April, 2007. This will mean that this petition was brought outside the 30 days limited by Section 141 of the Electoral Act, 2006 and this Tribunal would lack jurisdiction to hear it in the first place. In other words having decided that this petition is incompetent, it would be an exercise in futility to look into the merits of the case…
Without belabouring this issue, this petition in our view is patently barren and is devoid of merit. It is one that should be dismissed and same is hereby dismissed with the order that patties shall bear their own costs.”
The petitioner was not satisfied with this decision the petitioner appealed to this Court the Notice of Appeal contained two grounds. Without their particulars, the grounds of appeal read:-
“1. The decision of the trial court is against weight of evidence.
2. The trial Electoral Tribunal erred in law when it held that the petition was brought or filed outside the 30 days limited by section 141 of the Electoral Act 2006. ”
In compliance with the Practice of Direction,briefs of argument were filed and exchanged. In the appellant’s brief, two issues were formulated for the determination of the appeal. They are:-
“Whether Petition No EPT/NS/009/07 filed on 15th of May, 2007 was filed outside the statutorily prescribed period of 30 days this rendering incompetent and therefore rendering the tribunal without jurisdiction when the same tribunal had already dismissed the preliminary objection based on said issue as it lacking in merit on the 23rd day of July, 2007
2. Whether by the evidence before the Hon Tribunal the petitioner/appellant was entitled to judgment. ”
The 1st respondent also formulated two issues for the determination of the appeal. The two issues are quite similar to those formulated by the appellant. I will adopt the issues formulated by the appellant to determine the appeal. The 2nd to 56th respondents did not file any brief,
The first issue is whether the petition was filed outside the 30 days stipulated by the Electoral Act, 2006. S. 141 of the said Act provides:-
“141 An election petition under this Act shall be presented within thirty (30) days from the date the result of the election is declared.”
The above provision is clear, plain and unambiguous as such the words must be given their ordinary literal and natural meaning. See: Attorney General of Ondo State V. Attorney General Ekiti state (2001) 17 NWLR (pt. 743) 706. Since the words used in Section 141 of the Electoral Act, 2006 are clear and unambiguous, they must be given their literal and ordinary meaning without recourse to the Interpretation Act.
It was also held in so many cases, by this court that in an election petition time begins to run from the date the result of the elections were declared. See: Ogbebor V. Danjuma (2003) 15 NWLR (pt 843) 403 Emeka V. Emordi (2004) 16 NWLR (pt. 900) 433; Alataha V. Asin (1999) 5 NWLR (pt 601) 1 and the recent case of Hon Barrister Mohammed Umara Kumalia V. Senator Ali Modu 5herrif unreported Appeal No CA/J/EP/GOV/244/2007 delivered on 21st January, 2008.
It is common ground that the election for Nasarawa Eggon West Constituency of the Nasarawa State House of Assembly was conducted on 14th April, 2007. It is also common ground that the petition was filed on the 15th May, 2007. What is in dispute is when the election result was declared. The appellant contends that the result was declared on the 15th of April, 2007 whereas the respondent’s contention is that, it was declared on the 14th day of April, 2007.
In its judgment, the tribunal found and held that the result was declared on 14th April, 2007 and as such the petition was incompetent having been filed outside the 30 days statutory period.
I have earlier stated in this judgment that time begins to run from the date the result is announced. If the result was announced on 14th April, 2007, as held by the tribunal, the 30 days will end on 13th May, 2007. The petition was therefore filed two days after the expiration of 30 days and as such incompetent. It could also be seen that even if the result was declared on 15th April, 2007, the petition would still be incompetent because it was filed a day outside the statutory period of 30 days.
In the circumstance, the appeal is dismissed. I make no order as to costs.
ABDUL ABOKI, J.C.A: I agree
AYOBODE O. LOKULO-SODIPE, J.C.A: I have had the privilege of reading in advance the Judgment of my learned brother R.D. Muhammad, JCA. I am in complete agreement with His Lordship’s reasoning and conclusions. I adopt the said Judgment as mine.
Appearances
M. A. EbuteFor Appellant
AND
John Mathew
Dan UkachukwuFor Respondent
