AZUBUIKE IKENNA ESQ. V. MR. BEN NWANKWO & ORS.
(2011)LCN/4812(CA)
In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
On Wednesday, the 28th day of September, 2011
CA/E/EPT/23/2011
RATIO
INTERPRETATION OF STATUTE: INTERPRETATION OF THE PROVISION OF PARAGRAPH 18(1)(3) AND (4) OF THE 1ST SCHEDULE TO THE ELECTORAL ACT 2010 (AS AMENDED) AS REGARDS WHEN THE PETITIONER SHOULD APPLY FOR THE ISSUANCE OF PRE HEARING NOTICE
Paragraph 18(1)(3) and (4) of the 1st Schedule to the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended) provides thus: “18(1) Within 7 days after the filing and service of the petitioner’s reply on the Respondent or 7 days after the filing and service of the respondent’s reply, whichever is the case, the petitioner shall apply for the issuance of pre hearing notice as in Form TF 007. (3) The respondent may bring the application in accordance with subparagraph (1) where the petitioner fails to do so, or by motion which shall be served on the petitioner and returnable in 3 clear days, apply for an order to dismiss the petition. (4) Where the petitioner and the respondent fail to bring an application under this paragraph, the tribunal or court shall dismiss the petition as abandoned petition and no application for extension of time to take that step shall be filed or entertained.” By the aforementioned provisions, the petitioner is mandatorily expected to apply for pre hearing within seven days on settlement of pleadings. Upon the failure of the petitioner to apply, the respondent may apply for pre hearing or the dismissal of the petition. See paragraph 18(3). The court may also dismiss the petition as an abandoned petition. See paragraph 18(4). The law having placed a mandatory duty on the petitioner to apply for the pre hearing, there is no specific format for making the application. The application can therefore be made in any form be it by letter, motion either ex parte or on notice. See Aliyu Ibrahim Gebi v. Garba Dahiru & Ors CA/J/EP/HR/127/2011 of 22nd August, 2011. The appellant as petitioner argued vigorously disclaiming having filed any application for pre hearing by letter and contending that his time to apply for pre hearing is yet to mature, hence the tribunal was wrong in dismissing his petition on ground of failure to partake in pre hearing session. In order to determine whether the time of the petitioner to apply for pre-hearing is yet to mature, or has matured or expired, reference must be made to the pleadings filed and their dates of service. PER ADAMU JAURO, J.C.A
LIMITATION OF TIME: POSITION OF THE LAW WHERE THE TIME FRAME FOR PERFORMING AN ACT HAS LAPSED WHETHER THAT ACT CAN STILL BE PERFORMED
The position of the law is that once time has been prescribed to perform an act, it is presumed that the period will come to an end when the period prescribed has lapsed. In a way, once the time prescribed for filing a respondent’s reply had lapsed and the Respondent has not filed any reply, the petitioner can file his application. The position of the law has been well stated in Onyedebelu v. Nwaneri (2008) 1 LRECN 207 at 224, where my lord Abdullahi JCA stated thus: “Again, it is a misconception on the part of the Appellant to suggest that the duty imposed on him by the Practice Directions will not be performed by him until the Respondents file their replies even when the law stipulates the period allowed for filing of the petition and reply. It is trite that when the law makes provision for time to perform a certain act it is presumed that the period will come to a close when the time allowed has lapsed.” Commenting further in the same case, my lord Kekere-Ekun JCA had this to say on page 228 of the report: “Once the prescribed period has elapsed and the respondent has failed or neglected to file his reply the duty on the petitioner to file an application for a pre hearing notice will arise. PER ADAMU JAURO, J.C.A
JUSTICES
ABUBAKAR JEGA ABDULKADIR Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
OLUJIMI LOKULO-SODIPE Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
ADAMU JAURO Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
Between
AZUBUIKE IKENNA ESQ. Appellant(s)
AND
1. MR. BEN NWANKWO
2. PEOPLES DEMOCRATIC PARTY
3. THE RETURNING OFFICER ORUMBA NORTH/SOUTH FEDERAL CONSTITUENCY
4. THE ELECTORAL OFFICER ORUMBA NORTH (INEC)
5. THE ELECTORAL OFFICER ORUMBA SOUTH (INEC)
6. THE RESIDENT ELECTORAL COMMISSIONER ANAMBRA STATE
7. INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION (INEC) Respondent(s)
ADAMU JAURO, J.C.A, (Delivering the Leading Judgment): The appeal herein is against the ruling of the National and State Houses of Assembly Election Petition Tribunal Anambra State, holden at Awka, delivered on 8th August 2011 in petition number EPT/AN/NAE/HR/12/2011 wherein the said petition was dismissed.
A synopsis of the facts culminating in this appeal is hereby made as follows: The Appellant and the 1st Respondent are members of the same political party, the Peoples Democratic Party, hereinafter referred to as P. D. P. The elections of the House of Representatives for Orumba North/South Federal Constituency, Anambra State was held on the 9th April, 2011. Upon the conclusion of the election, the 3rd to 7th Respondents declared and returned the 1st Respondent as the winner of the election. Dissatisfied by the declaration and return of the 1st Respondent as the winner of the election, the Appellant as Petitioner challenged same by a petition filed in the tribunal.
The petition of the Appellant was dated 29th April 2011 and filed on the 30th April, 2011. The Appellant in the said petition contended that he was the one that contested and won the election for the Orumba North/South Federal Constituency Anambra State held on 9th April 2011 under the platform of the P.D.P. The Appellant further contended that the 3rd to 7th Respondents instead of declaring him as the winner of the election, wrongfully declared the 1st Respondent. The facts given in support of the petition inter alia included the allegation that the 1st Respondent was not sponsored by the P. D. P. The Appellant sought for the following reliefs in paragraph 9 of the petition namely:-
“1. A declaration of court that the 1st Respondent was not validly or duly returned as a member of the House of Representatives for the Orumba North/South Federal Constituency having not been sponsored by the Peoples Democratic Party in the election nor gone through or participated in all the stages of the said election held on 9/4/2011.
2. A further declaration of court that the votes attributed to the 1st Respondent in the said election i.e. 11,835 votes were improperly or invalidly attributed to him and ought to have been attributed to the petitioner who had been sponsored by the P. D. P in the election, had contested in the same and actually won the election with the aforesaid 11,835 votes
3. A declaration of court that the return made in favour of the 1st Respondent by the constituency returning officer on 10/4/2011 was undue and invalid in that the petitioner and not the said 1st Respondent was the candidate of the P. D. P. who actually contested the election and earned the majority votes of 11,835 votes in the election.
4. A declaration of court that the petitioner was validly elected as the member of the Federal House of Representatives to represent Orumba North/South Federal Constituency in the election to the National Assembly held on 9/4/2011 since the majority of the votes had been cast for him in the said election.
5. An order of injunction that the INEC issues a certificate of return in favour of the petitioner to enable him take this rightful place at the National Assembly to represent the Orumba North/South Federal Constituency, Anambra State, and a further order of injunction restraining the 1st Respondent from parading or putting himself forward as the person returned or elected as the member of the aforesaid Orumba North/South Federal Constituency or from enjoying any rights/perquisites of that office.”
See page 6 of the Record of Appeal.
On the 4th August, 2011 the Appellant’s counsel moved the tribunal to adjourn the petition for pre-trial. On the 8th August 2011 being the next adjourned date, the Appellant’s counsel informed the court that he was not ready for pre-trial and hence applied for a short adjournment. However, upon the application of 3rd to 7th Respondents’ counsel, the tribunal dismissed the petition on grounds of unpreparedness to participate and or take part in pre-trial session, pursuant to paragraph 18(11) (a) of the 1st schedule to the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended). See pages 602 to 603 of the Record of Appeal and pages 14 to 16 of the additional Record of Appeal.
Dissatisfied by the aforementioned decision dismissing his petition, the Appellant filed in this appeal pursuant to a Notice of Appeal dated 24th August 2011 and filed on 25th August, 2011. The Notice of Appeal was anchored on two grounds of appeal and the said grounds stripped of their particulars are hereby reproduced thus:
“GROUNDS OF APPEAL – ERROR IN LAW
The learned trial tribunal erred in law when it had assumed jurisdiction in the matter and in dismissing the petition of the Appellant.
ERROR IN LAW – The learned trial tribunal erred in law by foreclosing the Appellant from filing the petitioner’s Reply to the reply of the 3rd – 7th Respondents even as he was still within time so to do.”
See pages 609 to 610 of the Record of Appeal.
The 1st Respondent on his part, filed a notice of intention to contend that the judgment should be affirmed on grounds other than those relied upon by the court below, pursuant to Order 9 rule 2 of the Rules of Court. The said notice divorce of the grounds in its support is hereby reproduced thus:
“TAKE NOTICE that upon the hearing of the above appeal, the 1st Respondent intends to contend that the decision of the court below dated the 8th day of August 2011 shall be confirmed on grounds other than those relied on by the court below, to wit: THAT THE DISMISSAL OF THE APPELLANTS PETITION BE SUSTAINED ON THAT OTHER GROUND THAT EVEN BEFORE THE 8TH DAY OF AUGUST 2011 (WHEN THE LOWER TRIBUNAL ORDERED THE DISMISSAL OF THE APPELLANT’S PETITION) THE SAID PETITION HAD LONG BEEN ABANDONED WITHIN THE CONTEMPLATION OF PARAGRAPH 18(1) AND (4) OF THE 1ST SCHEDULE TO THE ELECTORAL ACT 2010 (AS AMENDED).”
In compliance with the Rules of Court and Election Tribunal and Court Practice Direction 2011, briefs of argument were filed and exchanged. The Appellant’s Brief of Argument is dated 7th September 2011 and filed on the 8th September 2011. The Appellant also filed a reply brief to 1st Respondent which is dated 16th September 2011 and filed the same day, while the reply to 3rd to 7th Respondents is also dated 16th September 2011 and filed the same date. The 1st Respondent’s brief is dated 9th September 2011 and filed on 12th September 2011. The 2nd Respondent did not file any brief of argument. The 3rd to 7th Respondents’ brief is dated 12th September, 2011 and filed the same date. Chief C. Chuma Oguejiofor leading Mr. I. Aroh and I. E. Onuamah Esq., adopted the Appellant’s Brief of Argument and the two reply briefs in urging the court to allow the appeal and set aside the decision of the tribunal and remit the petition for trial.
Mr. Arthur Obi Okafor SAN leading Mr. C. Enwelonta, Mr. C. I. Okafor and Miss J. O. Nwankiti for the 1st Respondent adopted and relied on the 1st Respondent’s brief. Learned senior counsel stated that they filed a Respondent’s Notice dated 9th September, 2011 and filed on 12th September, 2011. Learned senior counsel stated that the Respondent’s notice had been argued in the 1st Respondent’s brief and therefore urged the court to dismiss the appeal or in the alternative affirm the decision on the grounds stated in the Respondent’s Notice. Mr. Clems Ezika for the 2nd Respondent stated that there is no brief filed on behalf of the 2nd Respondent. Mr. C. E. Ezenduka holding the brief of Mr. O. J. Nnadi SAN for the 3rd to 7th Respondents, adopted the 3rd to 7th Respondents brief in urging the court to dismiss the appeal.
The Appellant distilled two issues for determination on pages 3 and 4 of the Appellant’s brief. The two issues are hereby reproduced thus:
“1. Whether the learned tribunal had acted with the requisite jurisdiction to dismiss the petition of the Petitioner/Appellant on 8/8/2011 even as time for the filing of the Petitioner’s Reply to the Reply of the 3rd – 7th Respondents’ was still running, the time for the Appellant to apply for the issuance of the pre-trial notice also still running and outside the pre-hearing session upon the oral application of counsel for the Respondents” (Ground 1 of the Notice of Appeal).
2. Whether in disallowing the Appellant from filing his Petitioner’s Reply to the 3rd – 7th Respondents’ Reply to the petition while his time to do so was still running the trial tribunal did not infringe on the Appellant’s right to fair hearing as enshrined in section 36 of the 1999 constitution of Nigeria as amended and thereby rendering the entire proceedings a nullity?” (Ground 2 of the Notice of Appeal).”
The 1st Respondent on his part identified a lone and solitary issue for determination, namely:
“Whether the dismissal ordered by the lower tribunal is sustainable”.
The 3rd to 7th Respondents on their part, distilled two issues for determination on pages 6 and 7 of their brief as follows:
“1. We submit that having regard to paragraphs 18(1), (2), (3), (4), (11) (a) of the first Schedule to the Electoral Act 2010, was the dismissing of the petition by the tribunal proper, moreso, when Petitioner did not apply for issuance of pre-hearing Notice as required by paragraph 18(1) of the First Schedule to the Electoral Act nor was prepared for pre-trial on 8/8/2011 occasion a miscarriage of justice to the Appellant.
2. Whether the Petitioner/Appellant who did not take advantage of statutory provisions upon the combined reading of paragraphs 10(2), 1 (1) and 18(1), (2), (3), (4) and 11(a) of the First Schedule to the Electoral Act can complain of breach of right of fair hearing of the Appellant.”
A careful perusal of the Appellant’s two issues for determination will reveal that the first issue is the most important one towards resolving this appeal. This is so because the second issue dovetails into the first issue, thereby boiling down to the issue of dismissal of the petition. Secondly, beside the dismissal of the petition, there was no direct pronouncement or decision made by the tribunal refusing the Appellant opportunity to file the petitioner’s reply to the reply of 3rd to 7th Respondents. To that extent, issue number two appears to be a rehash of issue one, and hence focus will only be made on issue one. The Appellant in his reply brief to 1st Respondent, attacked the certification of the additional record, the non inclusion of the Respondent’s notice in the record and the use of the word ‘confirm’ instead of ‘affirm’ in the Respondent’s notice. I do not find any substance in the aforementioned objections and are thus discountenanced. In the Appellant’s reply to 3rd to 7th Respondents, an attack was launched on issue one of the 1st Respondent that it ought to be accommodated by a Respondent’s notice or cross appeal. The 3rd and 7th Respondents’ issue one, has deviated a bit and ought to have been supported by a Respondent’s notice or cross appeal. Hence the said issue is hereby discountenanced. Issue one of the Appellant and the lone issue of the 1st Respondent will be taken together, hence the appeal will be resolved based on the aforementioned issue and the Respondents Notice.
The Appellant contended that the tribunal was wrong is dismissing the petition on ground on failure to participate actively in pre hearing session under paragraph 18(11) of the 1st Schedule to the Electoral Act 2010, when there was no application to commence pre-hearing. Learned counsel made reference to paragraph 18(1) of the 1st Schedule to the Act, and stated that they were served the 3rd to 7th Respondents reply on 4th August, 2011. Learned counsel submitted that from 4th August 2011 when they were served 3rd to 7th Respondents reply, they had five days to file a petitioner’s reply and thereafter seven days to apply for pre-hearing session. Alternatively, learned counsel argued that if they are not filing a petitioner’s reply, they had seven days from 4th August, 2011 within which to apply for pre hearing session. Learned counsel argued that as of the date the petition was dismissed, time was not yet ripe to make an application under paragraph 18(1) of the 1st Schedule to the Act. Learned counsel submitted that the tribunal acted without jurisdiction in entertaining the application of the Respondent’s counsel in dismissing the petition even before the maturity of the time prescribed by paragraph 18(1) of the 1st Schedule to the Act. In support, reference was made to the following cases: Nwosu v Imo State Environmental Sanitation Authority (1990) 2 NWLR (Pt. 135) 688, Okereke v Yar’adua (2008) 8 MJSC 185. As to the mode of applying for pre hearing session, reference was made to the case of Riruwai v Shekarau (2008) 2 LRECN 28 at 33. In concluding, learned counsel urged the court to allow the appeal as the court acted without jurisdiction.
In response, the 1st Respondent marshaled arguments in respect of the appeal and the Respondent’s notice. By way of background and introduction, the 1st Respondent chronicled the pleadings filed and their dates of service. Learned counsel stated that the Appellant indeed applied for pre hearing vide a letter. Learned counsel stated that on 8th August 2011, the date slated for pre-hearing, Appellant’s counsel stated at page 16 of the additional record that they were not ready. Learned counsel submitted that based on the foregoing, the tribunal was right to have dismissed the petition on ground of unpreparedness to partake in pre trial pursuant to paragraph 18(11) of the 1st Schedule to the Act.
On the Respondent’s notice, learned counsel stated that the contention of the Appellant that they are still within time to apply for pre hearing cannot hold water. Learned counsel posits that the contention of the Appellant was based on the assumption that the 3rd to 7th Respondents’ reply was served on the Appellant on 4th August, 2011. Learned counsel contended that the 3rd to 7th Respondents were served the petition on 3rd May 2011 which they belatedly filed a reply on 9th June, 2011. Learned counsel stated that the said reply was only regularized on 4th August 2011, upon the grant of an application for extension of time.
Learned counsel submitted that once the prescribed period by law for filing a reply by a respondent lapses and the respondent failed to file his reply on the petitioner, the petitioner can apply for pre hearing session. Learned counsel argued that the relevant time in computing when a petitioner will apply for the issuance of pre trial form is the date the Respondents ought to file their replies.
Learned counsel contended that in the instant petition, as between the petitioner and 3rd to 7th Respondents, pleadings closed on the 24th May 2011. Learned counsel further posits that pleadings closed generally on the 16th June 2011, when petitioner’s reply to 1st Respondent’s reply was served on the 3rd to 7th Respondents. Learned counsel argued that the petitioner had 7 days to apply for pre hearing notice commencing from 16th June, 2011 which ended on 23rd June, 2011. In support of the submissions, reference was made to the following cases: Onyedebelu v Nwaneri (2008) 1 LRECN 207 at 224, Ali v Osakwe (2009) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1160) 75 at 132 – 133, Okereke v. Yar’adua (2008) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1100) 96, Riruwai v. Shekarau (2008) 2 LRECN 28, Orusede v. Dombraye (2008) 2 LRECN 83 at 95, Azudibia v. INEC (2008) 4 LRECN 105 at t24, Union Bank of Nigeria v. Ozigi (1994) 3 NWLR (Pt. 333) 385. Learned counsel argued that the petitioner having not applied for pre hearing within seven days from 16th June 2011 when pleadings closed, the petition is deemed abandoned and liable to dismissal. Learned counsel submitted that the present appeal is incompetent, having been filed after the Appellant’s petition had been abandoned in the tribunal. In concluding, learned counsel urged the court to allow the Respondents’ notice and affirm the dismissal of the petition based on the ground that it has been abandoned since 23rd June, 2011.
By way of prologue and preamble, a convenient starting point is from the case of Riruwai v. Shekarau (supra) on the mode of applying for pre hearing session. Paragraph 18(1)(3) and (4) of the 1st Schedule to the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended) provides thus:
“18(1) Within 7 days after the filing and service of the petitioner’s reply on the Respondent or 7 days after the filing and service of the respondent’s reply, whichever is the case, the petitioner shall apply for the issuance of pre hearing notice as in Form TF 007.
(3) The respondent may bring the application in accordance with subparagraph (1) where the petitioner fails to do so, or by motion which shall be served on the petitioner and returnable in 3 clear days, apply for an order to dismiss the petition.
(4) Where the petitioner and the respondent fail to bring an application under this paragraph, the tribunal or court shall dismiss the petition as abandoned petition and no application for extension of time to take that step shall be filed or entertained.”
By the aforementioned provisions, the petitioner is mandatorily expected to apply for pre hearing within seven days on settlement of pleadings. Upon the failure of the petitioner to apply, the respondent may apply for pre hearing or the dismissal of the petition. See paragraph 18(3). The court may also dismiss the petition as an abandoned petition. See paragraph 18(4). The law having placed a mandatory duty on the petitioner to apply for the pre hearing, there is no specific format for making the application. The application can therefore be made in any form be it by letter, motion either ex parte or on notice. See Aliyu Ibrahim Gebi v. Garba Dahiru & Ors CA/J/EP/HR/127/2011 of 22nd August, 2011. The appellant as petitioner argued vigorously disclaiming having filed any application for pre hearing by letter and contending that his time to apply for pre hearing is yet to mature, hence the tribunal was wrong in dismissing his petition on ground of failure to partake in pre hearing session.
In order to determine whether the time of the petitioner to apply for pre-hearing is yet to mature, or has matured or expired, reference must be made to the pleadings filed and their dates of service. From the records, the appellant’s petition dated 29th April 2011, was filed in the registry of the tribunal on 30th April 2011. The service effected of the petition and the responses can be chronicled as follows:
i.The 1st Respondent was segued the petition by substituted means on the 14th day of May, 2011.
ii.The 1st Respondent filed his reply on the 30th day of May, 2011.
iii.The 1st Respondent served his Reply on the Appellant on the 2nd day of June, 2011.
iv.The Appellant filed a Reply to the 1st Respondent’s reply on the 8th of June, 2011 and served same on the 1st Respondent on the 15th day of June, 2011.
The Appellant also served the 3rd – 7th Respondents with the above said reply on the 16th of June, 2011.
v. The petition was served on the 2nd Respondent on the 4th day of May, 2011 with a further service on PDP Headquarters at Abuja on the 7th of May, 2011.
vi. The 2nd Respondent filed its Reply on the 1st of June, 2011 and the Appellant did not file any reply to the 2nd Respondent’s Reply.
vii. The 3rd -7th Respondents were served with the petition on the 3rd of May, 2011 which they belatedly file a reply to on the 9th day of June, 2011.
The contention of the Appellant that his time to apply for pre hearing is yet to mature or yet to expire, is based on the assumption that he was served the 3rd to 7th Respondents reply on 4th August, 2011. The 4th August, 2011 was the very day extension of time was granted to 3rd to 7th Respondents to file their reply out of time.
The position of the law is that once time has been prescribed to perform an act, it is presumed that the period will come to an end when the period prescribed has lapsed. In a way, once the time prescribed for filing a respondent’s reply had lapsed and the Respondent has not filed any reply, the petitioner can file his application. The position of the law has been well stated in Onyedebelu v. Nwaneri (2008) 1 LRECN 207 at 224, where my lord Abdullahi JCA stated thus:
“Again, it is a misconception on the part of the Appellant to suggest that the duty imposed on him by the Practice Directions will not be performed by him until the Respondents file their replies even when the law stipulates the period allowed for filing of the petition and reply. It is trite that when the law makes provision for time to perform a certain act it is presumed that the period will come to a close when the time allowed has lapsed.”
Commenting further in the same case, my lord Kekere-Ekun JCA had this to say on page 228 of the report:
“Once the prescribed period has elapsed and the respondent has failed or neglected to file his reply the duty on the petitioner to file an application for a pre hearing notice will arise.”
In Ali v. Osakwe (2009) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1160) 75 at 132 – 133, my lord Ogunwumiju JCA, restated the position of the law in the following words:
“The 3rd respondent was served the petition on the 28th of May and thereafter filed a memorandum of conditional appearance, preliminary objection and 3rd respondents’ reply on the 19th June 2007, which was served on the petitioners the same day. The time within which the 3rd respondent should have filed a reply expired on the 18th June 2007 by virtue of para 10(2) of the 1st Schedule. Therefore, as between the petitioners and the 3rd respondent pleadings had closed on the 18th June 2007.”
The 3rd to 7th Respondents were served the petition on the 3rd May 2011, therefore as between the petitioner and the 3rd to 7th Respondents, pleadings closed at most on 24th May, 2011. The Appellant ought not to wait for the 3rd to 7th Respondents to file their reply outside the time limited for filing the reply, before carrying out the duty imposed on him by paragraph 18(1) of the 1st Schedule to the Act. Assuming the 3rd to 7th Respondents decide not to file any reply, would the Appellant still not have applied for pre hearing? In the instant petition, pleadings closed generally on 16th June, 2011 when the Petitioners reply to 1st Respondent’s reply was served on the 3rd to 7th Respondents. The Petitioner therefore had 7 days within which to apply for pre hearing from 16th June, 2011 which ended on 23rd June, 2011. The Petitioner having not applied for pre hearing within the aforestated time, in compliance with Paragraph 18(1) of the 1st Schedule, the petition is deemed abandoned and liable to dismissal under Paragraph 18(4) of the 1st Schedule.
In view of the foregoing, the Notice of Intention to Contend that the dismissal of the petition be affirmed on other grounds, dated 9th September, 2011 and filed on 12th September, 2011 by the 1st Respondent succeeds. The petition of the Appellant was dead and abandoned even before the dismissal by the Tribunal on 8th August, 2011. The dismissal of the Appellant’s petition is hereby sustained on the ground that even before the 8th August, 2011 when the Tribunal ordered its dismissal, it has been abandoned within the contemplation of Paragraph 18(1) and 18(4) of the 1st Schedule to the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended). The main appeal is hereby struck out. There will be no order as to costs.
ABUBAKAR JEGA ABDULKADIR, J.C.A: I agree.
AYOBODE O. LOKULO-SODIPE, J.C.A: I agree.
Appearances
Chief C. Chuma Oguejiofor,
I. Aroh Esq. and
I. E. Onuamah Esq.For Appellant
AND
Mr. Arthur Obi Okafor SAN,
C. Enwelunta,
C. I. Okafor Esq,
Miss J. O. Nwankiti,
Mr. Clems Ezika,
Mr. C. E. Ezenduka holding the brief of Mr. O. J. Nnadi SANFor Respondent
