HON. AMOS GOMBI GOYOL & ANOR v. THE INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION & ORS
(2011)LCN/4953(CA)
In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
On Friday, the 2nd day of December, 2011
CA/J/EPT/SN/197/2011
RATIO
INTERPRETATION OF STATUTE: INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 138(1) OF THE ELECTORAL ACT (AS AMENDED) AS REGARDS QUESTIONING AN ELECTION ON THE BASIS OF CORRUPT PRACTICES OR NON COMPLIANCE WITH THE ELECTORAL ACT
Section 138(1) of the Electoral Act (as amended) specifically stipulates four grounds under which an election may be questioned. In particular Section 138 1(b) of the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended) provides thus: (b) That the election was invalid by reason of corrupt practices or noncompliance with the provisions of this Act. The Appellant sole ground in his petition reads thus: The 1st Petitioner state that the election of the 3rd Respondent was marred by corrupt practices and non compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act 2010, as amended. A literary construction of Section 138(i)(b) reflects that a person can question the election was invalid because of corrupt practices or non compliance with the provision of the Electoral Act. In other words once election is questioned on the basis of invalidity it can be predicated on corrupt practices or non compliance. The use of “or” connotes an alternative or an option. Consequently both corrupt practices and non compliance should not be joined together as one ground. A petitioner can ground a petition on corrupt practices or non compliance with Electoral Act. It is instructive to note that a ground on corrupt practices invariably relates to non compliance to the provisions of Electoral Act as it relates to allegations bordering on criminal allegation. Therefore a petition predicated clearly on non compliance to Electoral Act can be predicated solely on breach of civil obligations in the Electoral Act and irregularities arising from the election which are civil in nature or non compliance to the Electoral Act in relation to criminal allegation. PER REGINA OBIAGELI NWODO, J.C.A.
PARTICULARS OF GROUNDS OF APPEAL: CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH THE PARTICULARS OF A GROUND OF APPEAL SHOULD BE FURNISHED UNDER A SEPARATE HEADING
The position of the law in relation to grounds of appeal is that particulars in certain circumstances may be embedded in ground of appeal but where a ground of appeal alleged error or misdirection the particulars should be furnished under a separate heading. PER REGINA OBIAGELI NWODO, J.C.A.
PARTICULARS OF GROUNDS OF PETITION: DUTY OF THE PETITIONER TO PLEAD PARTICULARS IN SUPPORT OF HIS GROUND OF PETITION
In election petitions, the need to plead particulars is mandatory. The Petitioner must give the adverse party a sufficient outline of the non compliance to the Electoral Act he intends to establish. Just like in civil matters where all facts a party intend to rely upon must be pleaded in numbered paragraphs. The same applies to election petitions where facts and particulars in support of the Ground must be clearly stated: See BUHARI v OBASANJO 2005 13 NWLR (Pt 941) 1 at 200. PER REGINA OBIAGELI NWODO, J.C.A.
PARTICULARS OF GROUNDS OF PETITION: OBJECT OF FURNISHING PARTICULARS IN SUPPORT OF A GROUND OF PETITION
The object of giving particulars in support of a ground of petition is to compel the parties to define precisely the issues upon which the case between them is to be contested to avoid element of surprise by either party and also to ascertain nature of non compliance and the burden of proof on the petitioner. The Appellant did not particularize any non compliance to the Electoral Act other than the particulars on corrupt practices. The Appellants therefore cannot claim based on their petition as presented that it falls under two legs when their petition is predicated solely on particulars of corrupt practices. PER REGINA OBIAGELI NWODO, J.C.A.
PLEADINGS: WHETHER PARTIES CAN MAKE A CASE AT VARIANCE WITH THEIR PLEADINGS
Parties are strictly bound by their pleadings and will not be allowed to make a case at variance with their pleadings. BUHARI v OBASANJO 2005 14 NWLR (Pt 941) 1 SC. PER REGINA OBIAGELI NWODO, J.C.A.
BURDEN OF PROOF/STANDARD OF PROOF: BURDEN OF PROOF AND STANDARD OF PROOF WHERE AN ELECTION PETITION BORDERS ON ALLEGATION WITH CRIMINAL CONNOTATION
All the averments in the particulars from i- vi and paragraph 7 and 9 of the petition border on allegations with criminal connotation and punishable under chapter viii of the Electoral Act. Therefore the burden of proof is on the Appellant and the standard is proof beyond reasonable doubt. PER REGINA OBIAGELI NWODO, J.C.A.
INTERFERENCE WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE ELECTION TRIBUNAL: CIRCUMSTANCE IN WHICH THE APPELLATE COURT WILL NOT INTERFERE WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE ELECTION TRIBUNAL
I have no reason to interfere with the findings. The findings and decision of the Tribunal did not arise from any misconception of the case presented, nor did they take into account irrelevant matters to form their findings nor did they go out of the issues canvassed nor ignored the evidence adduced. Therefore their decision was not perverse. See Udengwu v. Uzeugbo (2003) 13 NWLR (Pt 836) 152. PER REGINA OBIAGELI NWODO, J.C.A.
JUSTICES
CLARA BATA OGUNBIYI Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
MASSOUD ABDULRAHMAN OREDOLA Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
REGINA OBIAGELI NWODO Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
Between
1. HON. AMOS GOMBI GOYOL
2. LABOUR PARTY Appellant(s)
AND
1. THE INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION
2. PEOPLES DEMOCRATIC PARTY (PDP)
3. HON. EMMANUEL L. GOAR Respondent(s)
REGINA OBIAGELI NWODO, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): On the 25 of November, 2011 we heard the instant appeal. Consequent upon which we pronounced our decision dismissing the appeal and reserved the reasons for the decision on a later date to be communicated to the respective parties. The following postulations are the reasons that informed our decision in dismissing the appeal.
The 1st and 2nd Appellants were petitioners before the National and State Houses of Assembly Election Tribunal sitting in Jos. on the 26th of April, 2011, General Election was conducted by the 1st Respondent for the seat of Member Representing Pankshin, Kanke and Kanam Federal Constituency of Plateau State in the House of Representative. The 1st Petitioner contested for the seat on the platform of the 2nd Petitioner (Labour Party). The 3rd Respondent contested for the same seat on the platform of 2nd Respondent (Peoples Democratic Party). On conclusion of the election the 3rd Respondent was declared and returned as the winner of the Election with 114,280 votes as against the 1st Appellants 87,060 votes. The Appellants were dissatisfied with the result of the election. They filed a Petition on 18 May, 2011, seeking 3 reliefs. When issues were joined hearing commenced. The Appellants called 7 witnesses and tendered several exhibits to prove their petition. The 2 and 3 Respondents called 6 witnesses and also tendered some documents: At the close of evidence parties exchanged written addresses. Judgment was delivered on 29th September, 2011, wherein the tribunal dismissed the appellants petition. The petitioners aggrieved by the said decision filed a Notice of Appeal on 18 October 2011, containing 8 grounds of appeal. In line with the Election Practice direction, the parties filed and exchanged briefs of argument with the exception of the 1st Respondent.
At the hearing of the Appeal the Appellants brief of Argument and reply brief filed on 2/11/11 and 14/11/11 respectively were adopted. Both briefs were settled by Solomon E. Umoh (SAN).
The 2 & 3 Respondents brief filed 9 November, 2011 was adopted by Learned Senior Counsel Olorundare.
In the Appellants Brief 6 issues were distilled for determination which read thus:
1. Whether the Trial Tribunal was right when it held that no averment devoid of criminal imputation will remain in the petition if the averments alleging crime are severed having regards to the peculiar facts of this case (distillable from ground 1).
2. Whether the Trial Tribunal was right when it held that the doctrine of severance of pleading is not applicable in the petitioners’ case (distillable from grounds 2)
3. Whether the Trial Tribunal was right when it held that exhibits “A -“A376” were dumped on the Tribunal (distillable from ground 3)
4. Whether the trial Tribunal was right when it rejected the evidence of PW6 who was expert witness, and if the answer is in the negative, can the Court of Appeal substitute its findings for the findings of the Trial tribunal (Distilled from grounds 5 & 6).
5. Whether the trial Tribunal was right when it held that the petitioners did not plead how the non compliance substantially affected the result of the election (distilled from ground 7).
6. Whether the petitioners successfully proved their petition as required by law to be entitled to judgment in their favour having regards to the peculiar facts of the petition (distilled from grounds 4 & 8).
The 2 & 3 Respondent’s Brief also contains six issues similar to the issues distilled in the Appellants Brief. I adopt the 6 issues distilled for determination in the Appellants Brief to determine this appeal. The issues will be considered as argued in the Appellants brief.
Issues 1 & 2
1. Whether the Trial Tribunal was right when it held that no averment devoid of criminal imputation will remain in the petition if the averments alleging crime are severed having regards the peculiar facts of this case (distillable from ground 1).
2. Whether the Trial Tribunal was right when it held that the doctrine of severance of pleading is not applicable in the petitioners’ case (distillable from grounds 2)
Learned Senior Counsel contended that, the petitioners hinged their petition on one ground, which ground stands on two legs namely:
(1) Corrupt practices on the one side and irregularity/non compliance on the other side.
It is his submission that the ground of petition has its particulars embedded therein. He cited INEC v. Oshiomole 2009 4 NWLR (Pt 1132) at 675.
Learned senior counsel argued that non compliance is any form of disobedience to laid down rules and so the particulars of non compliance must be deemed to be embedded in the grounds once a petitioner seeks to rely on the ground of non compliances as the argument in support of his petition. He contended that what is relevant is the quantum of non compliance and that is why the Electoral Act makes reference to the substantiality of the non compliance as per S.139 of the Electoral Act. He submitted that it is not mandatory that a petitioner sets out the particulars of non compliance provided he shows that such non compliance was substantial enough to affect the result of the election.
The Learned Senior counsel for the 2 & 3 Respondent in opposition emphasized the importance of setting out the particulars to avoid springing surprise on the opponents. The Tribunal found at page 784 of the Record that the petitioners hinged their petition mainly on the 1st leg of S. 138 (i) (b) of the Electoral Act 2010 as amended and gave the particulars on facts by which the corrupt practices they alleged were going to be proved. Clearly the Tribunal did not state the particulars of the corrupt practices were not set out.
The Appellants have claimed that their sole ground of the petition falls into two arms, in effect two grounds, one ground of corrupt practices and the other on non compliance to the provisions of the Electoral Act. These Appellants contention that his sole ground falls into two arms is not in consonance with the case presented under the facts and particulars supplied.
Section 138(1) of the Electoral Act (as amended) specifically stipulates four grounds under which an election may be questioned. In particular Section 138 1(b) of the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended) provides thus:
(b) That the election was invalid by reason of corrupt practices or noncompliance with the provisions of this Act
The Appellant sole ground in his petition reads thus:
The 1st Petitioner state that the election of the 3rd Respondent was marred by corrupt practices and non
compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act 2010, as amended.
A literary construction of Section 138(i)(b) reflects that a person can question the election was invalid because of corrupt practices or non compliance with the provision of the Electoral Act. In other words once election is questioned on the basis of invalidity it can be predicated on corrupt practices or non compliance. The use of “or” connotes an alternative or an option. Consequently both corrupt practices and non compliance should not be joined together as one ground. A petitioner can ground a petition on corrupt practices or non compliance with Electoral Act. It is instructive to note that a ground on corrupt practices invariably relates to non compliance to the provisions of Electoral Act as it relates to allegations bordering on criminal allegation. Therefore a petition predicated clearly on non compliance to Electoral Act can be predicated solely on breach of civil obligations in the Electoral Act and irregularities arising from the election which are civil in nature or non compliance to the Electoral Act in relation to criminal allegation.
The Appellants under the sole ground of the petition set out particulars of corrupt practice. Therefore he limited his petition to corrupt practices. This is crystal clear from the five paragraph particulars set out therein. The Tribunal rightly characterized those particulars as Criminal allegation.
The Learned Senior Counsel for the Appellants contention that they do not need to set out particulars of non compliance because it is embedded in the Ground of Petition cannot help the Appellants. The cases he cited AYAU V ACKSU 1992 3 NWLR (Pt 231) Pg 598 and ADEDOYIN V SONUGA (1999) 13 NWLR (Pt 635) pg 355 are not opposite to the present case. The position of the law in relation to grounds of appeal is that particulars in certain circumstances may be embedded in ground of appeal but where a ground of appeal alleged error or misdirection the particulars should be furnished under a separate heading.
In election petitions, the need to plead particulars is mandatory. The Petitioner must give the adverse party a sufficient outline of the non compliance to the Electoral Act he intends to establish. Just like in civil matters where all facts a party intend to rely upon must be pleaded in numbered paragraphs. The same applies to election petitions where facts and particulars in support of the Ground must be clearly stated: See BUHARI v OBASANJO 2005 13 NWLR (Pt 941) 1 at 200.
The object of giving particulars in support of a ground of petition is to compel the parties to define precisely the issues upon which the case between them is to be contested to avoid element of surprise by either party and also to ascertain nature of non compliance and the burden of proof on the petitioner. The Appellant did not particularize any non compliance to the Electoral Act other than the particulars on corrupt practices. The Appellants therefore cannot claim based on their petition as presented that it falls under two legs when their petition is predicated solely on particulars of corrupt practices.
Parties are strictly bound by their pleadings and will not be allowed to make a case at variance with their pleadings. BUHARI v OBASANJO 2005 14 NWLR (Pt 941) 1 SC.
The petitioners were bound by their sole ground and the particulars of corrupt practices in their petition and cannot lead evidence at variance with the particulars. Learned Senior Counsel for the Appellants referred to, section 139 of the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended). This provision relates to invalidation of election by reasons of non compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act, if it appears to the Tribunal that election was conducted substantially in accordance with the principles of the Act and the non-compliance did not affect substantially the result of the election.
This section 139(1) of the Electoral Act does not support the contention that a petitioner must not set out particulars.
Learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the Doctrine Severance is applicable but the
Tribunal held that no averment devoid of criminal imputation would remain in the petition if the averments alleging crime are severed. He contended that the mere fact that they pleaded non compliance the Tribunal was under an obligation to receive every evidence that tend to disclose non compliance and proceed to evaluate same. The Tribunal rightly found that from the particulars in support of the petition the Appellants case was predicated on criminal allegation. I have gone through only the particulars set out in the petition. The five paragraphs of particulars raised allegation of massive multiple thumb-printing and ballot box snatching. These allegations are criminal in nature. It is indisputable from the petition filed by the Appellants that their case can only be classified as founded on criminal allegation. This view is solidified when one looks at Relief 1 on the petition which reads thus:
“(a) It be determined that the result of the polling units listed by the Petitioners as constituting areas of multiple thumb-printing be cancelled”
The aforesaid relief wants the polling units cancelled only because of multiple thumb-printing. It is when this relief is granted that Relief two will be considered. I agree with the Tribunal that the Doctrine of Severance will not apply in this case. All the averments in the particulars from i- vi and paragraph 7 and 9 of the petition border on allegations with criminal connotation and punishable under chapter viii of the Electoral Act. Therefore the burden of proof is on the Appellant and the standard is proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Appellants did not set out facts or particulars on the allegation of non compliance to the Electoral Act other than on corrupt practices. When criminal allegations are removed there is nothing left on which the Tribunal could have considered the evidence in support of the petition on balance of probabilities.
When particulars in a petition disclose facts on allegation of irregularities in an election which does not disclose criminal attributes, the burden of proof is on the petitioner and the Standard of Proof is generally on balance of probabilities.
In furtherance where an allegation made against a respondent is one of committing an electoral offence contrary to the Electoral Act 2010 as amended.
The Standard of proof is raised to proof beyond reasonable doubt.
The Appellants cannot rely on the doctrine of severance when the grounds and particulars of their petition limited the petition to corrupt practices which are criminal in nature. I resolve Issues 1 & 2 against the Appellant.
Issue 3 & 4 raised the questions whether the trial Tribunal was right when it held that Exhibits A- A376 were dumped on the tribunal and whether the trial tribunal was right when it rejected the evidence of PW6 who was the expert witness and if this court answers in the negative whether the court can substitute its findings.
Learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the findings of the Tribunal with respect to the evidence of PW6 by ignoring some evidence of PW6 was manifestly perverse. It is his contention that exhibits A – A376 tendered from the bar were identified by PW6 who stated they were the documents he analysed in producing the report admitted as exhibit B. He submitted that documents speak for themselves and no litigant is at liberty to give oral evidence of the contents of documents as that would amount to benefitting from both documentary evidence and oral evidence.
He referred to B. Manfah (Nig) Ltd. v. M/S O. I. Ltd. (2007) 14 NWLR (Pt 1053) pg 109 at 137.
Learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent submitted that the Documents Exhibit A-A376 do not have any bearing with the appellants pleading at the Tribunal. It is his contention that no witness was called to link any of the Exhibits A-A376 to the respective pooling units except PW6 whose evidence is doubtful.
He submitted that Exhibits A – A376 cannot speak for themselves because they were not tied to any specific polling unit complained of by the appellants.
It is his further contention that the deposition of the Pw6 did not support the appellants case, and that the maker of Exhibit B, that is PW6 did not disclose his qualification to make exhibit B, whether as an expert or interested individual. He cited Buhari v. Obasanjo 2005 13 NWLR (Pt 941) 1 at 2000. HASHIDU v. GOJE 2003 15 NWLR (Pt 843) 352 at 379-381.SUMMIT FIN CO. LTD. v. IRON BABA & SONS LTD. 2003 17 NWLR (Pt 848) 89.
The Tribunal after a proper evaluation of the evidence of PW6 held “(Upon a careful analysis of the evidence of PW6, one will not hesitate to conclude that the evidence falls short of proving the allegation the petitioners averred to in the petition beyond reasonable doubt. We say this because the witness by himself admitted that they inspected only 20 polling units ballot papers out of 113 polling units.”
The tribunal found the evidence of PW6 unreliable. PW6 is the same person that prepared the report tendered as Exhibit B. This Report Exhibit B was prepared from Exhibit A-A376. The question therefore is whether Exhibit B exfacia and evidence of PW6 is sufficient for the Tribunal to have held that the Appellants proved the allegations of corrupt practices? My answer is in the negative.
The Learned Senior Counsel for the appellants rightly submitted that Documents when tendered and admitted speak for themselves. However Documents tendered and admitted in evidence would not be of assistance to the court in the absence of admissible oral evidence by persons who can explain their purpose.
See Alao V Akano 2005 II NWLR (Pt 935) 160SC.
It is the Documentary evidence that shall be used to evaluate the oral testimony. The Appellants tendered Exhibits A to A.376 to establish his case. The exhibits must be linked to the areas of pleadings or particulars it is meant to establish.
This is because they are documentary evidence and there must be a connection between the exhibits and the facts in support of the petition. The duty of the Tribunal is not to examine the exhibits and connect them to the facts. The obligation on the Tribunal is to consider whether the documentary evidence tendered in support of a specific fact deposed to by a witness supports same or is at variance. Therefore the tribunal rightly found that the petitioners did not link any of the documents to specific areas of their pleadings. Parties must confine their evidence to issues raised in their petition.
Exhibit B and Exhibit A-A376 are not sufficient as mere documents to establish the allegations beyond reasonable doubt.
I agree with the submission of Learned Senior counsel for the 2 & 3 Respondent’s that Exhibit B has Credibility problem because the maker and witness did not disclose his area of competence as an expert nor if he is an interested individual.
PW6 did not introduce himself as an expert. In fact under cross examination he stated clearly he is not a forensic expert. When the opinion of a witness is to form part of evidence before the Court he must first of all state his qualification and experience. He must describe himself as specially skilled in that particular field in question. Therefore once the evidence of opinion of an expert is required and relevant and a witness is presented as an expert, the said witness will be cross examined on his opinion to illicit from him the basis of his report as per his qualification or experience and the court will assess and know what weight to attach to such evidence. PW 2 did not present his status as that of an expert. His evidence is that he participated in physical inspection of some electoral materials. His evidence was directly on what he observed but he failed by this mere opinion to prove the petitioners case beyond reasonable doubt. He did not tell the Court his experience or qualification to tender the opinion in the Report. P.W 6 did not witness the allegations. Exhibit B contains merely statements on opinion of PW6 on his observation. It is therefore not sufficient to establish allegations of corrupt practices in the petition. Allegation of multiple thumb printing requires credible evidence. Evidence of those ballot papers alleged were thumb printed, must be before the Tribunal, the quantity and forensic report to support the multiple thumb-printing by same person must be presented before the Tribunal. Likewise there must be evidence of alleged multiple ballot papers and forensic report to support allegation. In addition evidence of a witness at the Polling Unit when the alleged ballot boxes were snatched or evidence of the statutory body that conducted the election on the number of ballot boxes supplied and the number left at the Polling Unit at the end of Election. The Register of voters should equally be tendered before the Tribunal. The burden of leading credible evidence is on the appellants. The 2nd & 3rd Respondents contended the PW6 was paid, this contention is not of relevance to the crucial point of whether Appellants discharged the burden of proof. The fact that PW6 was paid to look at the exhibits and report on same does not label him as an interested party, it will only affect the weight to attach to the report. Exhibit B is a product of the inspection of electoral materials following the order of court allowing inspection. The court granted the appellant leave to inspect, the electoral materials. At that stage parties had already joined issues in their pleadings. It will be most unfair not to consider Exhibit B that arose from the inspection though not pleaded. The appellants in their particulars set out allegations that the election was characterised by electoral malpractices. Exhibit B is only relevant in relation to the allegations in the petition of the appellants and can only be evaluated as such, because to do otherwise will be allowing a party adduce evidence contrary to his petition.
In effect the party would have been indulged by the court to make a different case at trial from what he set out to prove. In other words Exhibit B will be limited to facts the petitioner pleaded when the adverse party was put on notice on nature of the case to meet. This is not to say a party cannot amend his pleadings and bring it in line with his evidence. The appellants did not amend their petition and are bound by the facts in support of the petition which are characterized clearly by criminal allegation. The Tribunal considered and evaluated Exhibit B and PW6’s evidence in accordance with the law. They rightly found that the contents of Exhibit B are on some facts not pleaded and rightly held the criminal allegation in the petition were not established. I have no reason to interfere with the findings. The findings and decision of the Tribunal did not arise from any misconception of the case presented, nor did they take into account irrelevant matters to form their findings nor did they go out of the issues canvassed nor ignored the evidence adduced. Therefore their decision was not perverse. See Udengwu v. Uzeugbo (2003) 13 NWLR (Pt 836) 152.
I resolve Issues 3 & 4 against the Appellants.
Issues Five and Six relates to whether the Tribunal was right when it held that the petitioners did not plead how the non compliance substantially affected the result of the election and whether the petitioners successfully proved their petition.
Learned Senior Counsel submitted that the evidence led by the petitioners preponderates in their favour on a balance of probability. He contends relying on the petition that the appellants raised the allegation of irregularities and non compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended). It is his further submission that the evidence of PW6, exhibit B and Exhibit A – A376 established the irregularities and non compliance set out in paragraph 8.8 of his Brief. In summary these irregularities are over voting with respect to Ballots issued, accredited voters, voters on the queue, registered voters, etc. he contends that the Respondents did not challenge the contents of exhibits A- A376 nor exhibit B. It is his submission that the petitioners established their case on a balance of probabilities by showing that the appellants won the election by a majority of lawful votes cast at the election. The appellants in their petition did not plead facts on over voting. Their allegations in paragraph 7 and particulars in support of the sole ground of their petition was silent on issue of over-voting or non signing and stamping of ballot papers. It is apparent that the appellants having failed to prove the criminal acts alleged turned around to claim irregularities on basis of over voting which was not the basis of their petition. The appellants are constrained to lead evidence in support of the ground of their petition, the particulars and facts in support. Like I earlier stated the particulars in support of the petition and one of the reliefs sought limited appellants case to corrupt practices. The standard of prove on Appellant to discharge is beyond reasonable doubt. There is no ground nor particulars on non compliance because of allegations of over voting and other irregularities.
Therefore the submission of the Appellants counsel resting on proof on a balance of probability cannot arise.
Consequently since the Appellants did not establish the non compliance as regards to corrupt practices beyond reasonable doubt and did not plead non compliance and particulars on how it substantially affected the result of the election the Tribunal was right in its decision.
I resolve issues 5 & 6 against the Appellants.
Having resolved the 6 issues against the Appellants I hold this appeal is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. I affirm the decision of the Tribunal delivered on 29th September, 2011. Each party to bear its own cost.
CLARA BATA OGUNBIYI, J.C.A.: I agree.
MASSOUD ABDULRAHMAN OREDOLA, J.C.A.: I have had the benefit of having read before now, the lead judgment of my learned brother, Regina Obiageli Nwodo, JCA, just delivered. I also agree with his reasoning and conclusion that the appeal lacks any merit and should be dismissed. I accordingly dismiss it. I also make no order with regards to costs.
Appearances
S. E. Umoh (SAN) with A. Joseph, D. N. Gweison, M. W. Haniani, O. O Agu, E. B. Edee, M. P. Mwansat, A. Yusuf and B.D. DazeFor Appellant
AND
Stephen Ibyen for 1st Respondent.
O. I. Olorundare, (SAN) S. T. Ologunrisa, (SAN) S. G. Odoy Daniel Gopep, P. Ninmol, Benjamin Isheku, John Joshua, A .M Umar, A. T. Balogu, P. A. Ubang, D. P. Dusu and M. Ahupa for 2nd and 3rd Respondents.For Respondent
