PEOPLES DEMOCRATIC PARTY (PDP) & ANOR. V. INEC & ORS.
(2012)LCN/5205(CA)
In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
On Monday, the 5th day of March, 2012
CA/I/EPT/FH/13/2011
RATIO
THE POSITION OF THE LAW WHEN THERE IS A VIOLATION OF THE RIGHT TO VOTE
In Chime vs. Ezea (2009) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1125) 263 at 357 paras E – F the Court of Appeal held: “Everyone deprived of voting must come and show his voters card, express his constitutional right to pick a candidate of his choice. The comprehensive voters register must be tendered, authentic evidence of what happened at each polling booth must be given and this will not admit of any generalization of evidence for local government or constituency as it will not serve the purpose.” Furthermore, in Audu vs. INEC & Ors. (2009) 13 NWLR (Pt.1212) 456 at 523 Paras C-D it was stated that: “The non-tendering of voter’s cards of the persons alleged to have been disenfranchised, and no evidence to show that the names of those disenfranchised voters were not actually ticked as having voted in the voters’ register is fatal to the case of the appellant.” See also Yaro vs. Wada (2009) All FWLR (Pt. 472) 1084 at 1098 Paras E – F. PER. ADZIRA GANA MSHELIA J.C.A.
LAW OF EVIDENCE: PROVING DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
This argument cannot avail the appellants in view of the numerous decisions of the apex court and this court to the effect that documents must only be tendered but should be related specifically to areas of complaint through witnesses. The apex court clearly stated the position of the law in Jalingo vs Nyame (1992) 3 NWLR (Pt.231) 538 wherein it held that: “A party relying on document in proof of his case must specifically relate each of such documents to the specific area of his case in respect of which the document is being tendered. It is an infraction to fair hearing for the court to do in chambers, what a party has not himself done in advancement of his case in open court.” Furthermore, in INEC vs. Abubakar & Anr (2009) 1 NWLR (Pt. 143) 259 at 294 paras E-F. Belgore JCA in his lead judgment held:
“Documents were simply dumped on the lower Tribunal without a nexus being established between those documents and the petition before it. The Tribunal on its own set about conducting investigation as to the Import of the contents of those documents. That is an inquisition, which has no place in our laws. The lower tribunal has no business to investigate the contents of the document dumped on it by the 1st Respondent who did not explain what he wanted the Tribunal to do with them, it is this vacuum that learned counsel for the 1st Respondent now tries to fill albeit belated. ” See also Alao v Alano (2005) 22 NSCQR (Pt 11) 867 at 884 Para E-F. PER. ADZIRA GANA MSHELIA J.C.A.
Justice
STANLEY SHENKO ALAGOA (OFR) Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
ADZIRA GANA MSHELIA Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
MODUPE FASANMI Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
Between
Justice
PEOPLES DEMOCRATIC PARTY (PDP) & ANORAppellant(s)
AND
INEC & ORS.Respondent(s)
ADZIRA GANA MSHELIA J.C.A., (Delivering the Leading Judgment): This appeal was dismissed on the 6th day of December, 2011 and reasons for the dismissal were reserved. I now give the reasons. The facts leading to this appeal are that on the 9th day of April,2011 the 1st Respondent conducted elections in respect of various senatorial districts and Federal Legislative Houses in Ogun State. The Petitioners/Appellants are respectfully a political party and its candidate that participated in the election for the Ijebu North/Ijebu East/Ogun Waterside Federal Constituency of Ogun State seat in the House of Representatives of the Federal Republic of Nigeria held on the 26th of April, 2011.The 2nd Respondent contested with Appellants’ candidates and other candidates from other political parties in the said election At the end of the election, the 2nd Respondent was declared winner by the 1st Respondent. The 2nd Respondent scored 32,790 votes, while the 2nd Petitioner scored 24,992 votes.
Being dissatisfied with the results of the election as declared by the 1st Respondent, the Appellants as Petitioners before the lower Tribunal filed a joint petition dated 18th May, 2011 challenging the result declared by the 1st Respondent and the return of the 2nd Respondent.
The petition was founded on the following grounds:
1. The 2nd Respondent did not win a majority of the lawful votes cast at the said election and was therefore not duly elected or returned.
2. The 1st Respondent in non-compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act 2010 allowed the participation of the 4th Respondent in the said election.
The reliefs sought are as follows:
1. A declaration that the 2nd Petitioner polled the highest number of lawful votes cast at the said election to the House of Representatives for the Ijebu North/Ijebu East/Ogun Waterside Federal Constituency held on the 26th of April, 2011 and ought to be duly returned as elected.
2. An order directing the 1st Respondent to deliver within 48 hours of the decision of this Tribunal a certificate to the 2nd Petitioner in evidence of his return as the validly elected member representing the Ijebu North/Ijebu East/Ogun Waterside Federal Constituency Ogun State in the House of Representatives of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
IN THE ALTERNATIVE to prayers 1 and 2 above your petitioners pray, in the event that the 2nd ground and/or any other ground invalidating entire election is upheld, for the following reliefs:
3. An order nullifying/invalidating/declaring as invalid, null and void the entire election to the House of Representatives the Ijebu North/Ijebu East/Ogun Waterside Federal Constituency held on the 26th day of April 2011.
4. An order directing the 1st Respondent to conduct, within 21 days of the decision of this Tribunal, a new election to the House of Representatives for the Ijebu North/Ijebu East/Ogun Waterside Federal Constituency held on the 26th day of April 2011.
5. An order barring the 4th and 5th Respondents from participating or fielding candidates at the new election”‘
Parties filed and exchanged pleadings i.e. petition and replies. After the pre-hearing session, the matter proceeded to trial. At the end of the trial written addresses were adopted by parties. In a considered judgment delivered on the 10th day of October 2011, the Tribunal dismissed the petition. See pages 479-514 of the record.
Appellants felt unhappy by the decision of the Tribunal so they filed their Notice of Appeal on 17th October, 2011.
Parties filed and exchanged briefs of argument and same were adopted on the 2nd day of December, 2011.
Appellants distilled five issues from 6 grounds of appeal. The issues are:
1. Whether the allegations of malpractice involving disenfranchisement and non-recording of number of votes on the queue at the commencement of voting have not been established by the Petitioners/Appellants.
2. Whether the allegation of non-recording of number of voters on the queue at the commencement of voting ought to have been pleaded in the petitions.
3. Whether the allegations of malpractice were not proved beyond reasonable doubt.
4. Whether the petitioners have not established that the non-compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act 2011 (as amended) by the 1st Respondent through the unlawful inclusion of Mr. Segun Adekoye in the election after the expiration of the period allowed for substitution of candidates substantially affected the results of the election.
5. Whether the 7a Respondent won a majority of lawful votes cast at the election.
The 1st Respondent aligns itself and adopts the issues as formulated by the 2nd and 3rd Respondents.
The 2nd Respondent adopted the five issues formulated by the Appellants. He however contended that issue 5 formulated from ground H is incompetent.
The 3rd Respondent raised one issue for determination as follows: “Whether the petitioner has proved his case as required by law to sustain the reliefs claimed.”
In determining this appeal I will adopt the issues formulated by the appellant’ Issues 1-3 can conveniently be taken together while issues 4 and 5 can be treated separately.
Issues 1-3
The contention of the Appellants is that in proof of the allegations of malpractice involving disenfranchisement and non-recording of voters on queue when voting commenced, appellants tendered documentary evidence comprising the INEC result sheets for various polling units within the Senatorial District (Forms EC8A).That the forms were tendered to show the malpractice which are evident on the face of the forms. It was submitted that the Tribunal was in error as to the finding that the evidence of PW1 on the issue of disenfranchisement of voters amounted to hearsay.
It was further contended that the forms EC8A’s were tendered to show that there was disenfranchisement as the endorsement on the forms by the electoral officers of the 1st Respondent showed that not all the accredited voters on the queue when voting commenced actually were given ballot papers to vote, that by the very nature of the INEC forms, EC8A being statutory forms contained all the information as to what transpired at each polling unit during election. The information would assist any person who was not present at the polling unit to know at a glance what transpired during the election. Reliance was placed on case of Terab vs. Lawan (1992) 3 NWLR (Pt. 231) 569 at 592 paras D – E. That the set of INEC forms EC8A tendered at the trial certainly proved that some people on the queue did not vote. That the documents tell the story themselves and require no oral evidence to add or subtract from their express purport. That tribunal embarked on speculation which a court of law is not allowed to do. See Orhue vs. NEPA (1998) 7 NWLR (Pt.557) 187 at 200 paras C – D; Fawehinmi v. N.B.A. (No.1) (1989) 2 NWLR (Pt.105) 494 and Ikewuezi vs. Ekeanya (1989) (Pt.96) 1 NWLR 239 at 249.
It was argued that 1st Respondent could have offered explanation about the patent purport of the documents, but failed to lead evidence at all. Appellants submitted that they have discharged the burden through the evidence tendered (Form EC8A).Appellants further submitted that failure of the 1st Respondent to file a reply means it had admitted the allegations of malpractices i.e. disenfranchisement, allowing non-accredited voters to vote and ballot stuffing .It is settled that any fact which is not denied is deemed to have been admitted. See A.G. Anambra State v. A.G. Federation (2005) 9 NWLR (Pt.931) 572 at 611. Appellants urged the court to hold that the alleged malpractices have been established.
As regards the allegation of non-recording of the number of voters on queue at the commencement of voting, Appellants submitted that, the Tribunal was in error to have stated that same was not pleaded. That pleadings contain only facts and not law or arguments or evidence. See Keriwi vs. Abraham (2010) NWLR (Pt 1176) 443 at 460 Para E – F. That the failure of the 1st Respondent to record the number of voters on the queue at the commencement of voting is non-compliance with the Manual for Electoral Officers, 2011 published pursuant to the provisions of section 73 of the Electoral Act has vitiated the results of the election in the affected polling units and those results ought to be nullified.
As to requirement of proof of malpractices, Appellants submitted that the said malpractices have been proved beyond reasonable doubt. That 1st Respondent against whom the allegations of malpractices were made did not deny and led no evidence in rebuttal of the allegations. It was deemed admitted. See N.A.S. Ltd vs. U.B.A. Plc. (2005) 14 NWLR (Pt 945) 421 at 435 Paras A.
In response the 1st Respondent submitted that though it did not file a reply and called witnesses, it effectively cross-examined the witnesses including Appellants witness. Reliance was placed on Oforlefe vs. State (2000) 12 NWLR (Pt.681) 415 at 436 paras C – E, 437 Paras B, Ibrahim vs. Shagari & Anr. (1983) N.S.C.C. 431 at 445 lines 15 – 25.
As to the contention of Appellants that the failure of 1st Respondent to file reply means admission of the allegations of the malpractices, since same requires no further proof, it was submitted that the petition before the Tribunal contain prayers seeking declaratory reliefs which are equitable in nature as such oral evidence must be heard from the appellants in proof of such reliefs. See Ogolo vs. Ogolo (2006) 5 NWLR (Pt.972) 163 at 184 Paras C – E and Martchem Industries (Nig.) Ltd. vs. M.F. Kent W.A. Ltd. (2005) All FWLR (Pt 271) 1/ 1st Respondent also argued that 2nd and 3rd Respondents joined issues with the Appellants as such the allegations cannot be said to have been admitted by all the respondents. It is an established principle of law that for an admission in law to relieve the Appellants of their onus of proof of a fact, it must be shown that the facts so pleaded were admitted by all the Respondents affected by the fact. See Abubakar vs. Yar’adua (2008) 19 NWLR (Pt.1120) 1 at 171 paras F – G; Buhari vs. INEC & Ors. (2008) 19 NWLR (Pt. 1120) 246 – 422 Paras B – C.
The 2nd Respondent contended that Appellants did not raise any issue of over voting and non-recording of the number of voters on the queue. It was submitted that following the decision in the case of Dikko Yussuf & anor. vs. Olusegun Obasanjo & Ors. 18 NWLR (Pt. 956) 96 at 189 – 190 contents of Manual for the Electoral officials is not a law as such it has to be pleaded.
It was submitted that the appellants merely pleaded Forms EC8A but failed to relate each of them to any aspect of the case that the decision of the tribunal that appellants did not plead over-voting and non-recording of voters on queue is unassailable and urged the court to so hold. As regards complaint of disenfranchisement, 2nd Respondent submitted that it is settled law that a party who asserts that voters were not allowed to vote must call that voter as a witness and tender the voters register and voters card. See Audu vs. INEC & Ors. (2011) 13 NWLR (Pt.1212) 456 at 523 paras C – D and Yaro vs. Wada (2009) All FWLR (Pt. 472) 1084 at 1098. It was submitted that appellants did not call the voters who were allegedly disenfranchised to testify in the case and the voters register as well as voters cards were also not tendered in evidence. It was also argued that appellant’s evidence conflicted with the pleading on issue of number of voters disenfranchised. While appellant pleaded in paragraph H1(1) of the petition over 2,000 persons were disenfranchised, the 2nd appellant stated that over 30,000 voters were disenfranchised. It is a material contradiction which should naturally deprive the evidence of the appellants of probative value’ That the allegation of malpractices in an election is criminal in nature are expected to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. See Seriki vs. Are (1999) 3 NWLR (Pt. 595) at 469. That Appellants failed to discharge the burden. He urged the court to resolve the issues 1, 2 and 3 in favour of the respondents.
On the part of the 3rd Respondent it was submitted that from the pleadings before the Tribunal the alleged admission does not exist in law. It was submitted that for admission in law to relieve the appellants of their onus of proof of a fact, it must be shown that the fact so pleaded were admitted by all the respondents affected by the fact. See Abubakar vs. Yarima (supra) and Buhari vs. INEC (supra).
It was submitted further that appellants failed to prove their case as required by law. That appellants did not plead any issue of over-voting and non-recording of number of voters, on queue at commencement of voting, in any paragraph of the petition. That the allegation surfaced in the final written address of Appellants’ counsel which cannot amount to evidence no matter how brilliant and eloquent the same may be. That the results declared by INEC are presumed to be genuine and correct until the contrary is proved by the appellants. See Buhari vs. INEC (supra) at 354 paras B – C.
It was further submitted that the Tribunal rightly concluded that allegation of disenfranchisement was not proved as the oral evidence relied upon in proof of the same was hearsay and documents relied upon did not show the alleged malpractices .That hearsay evidence is inadmissible in law. See Buhari vs. Obasanjo (2005) All FWLR (Pt.273) 1 at 111 – 112 at 164. It was also argued that disenfranchisement is not proved by polling unit result sheets but the voters register and the voters cards of those allegedly disenfranchised, including their oral testimony as to how they were disenfranchised. See Chime vs. Ezea (2009) 2 NWLR (Pt.1125) 263 at 357 paras E – F and Yaro vs. Wada (2009) All FWLR (Pt.472) 1084 at 1098 Paras E – F. As to the polling units result sheet, it was submitted that the documents did not speak of the fact that any voter was denied the right to pick a candidate of his choice. As to the consequence of dumping of documents 2nd respondent referred to the cases of Nwaga vs. Registered Trustees Recreation Club (2004) FWLR (Pt. 190) page 1360 at 1380 – 1381 Paras G – H, Dokploaghe vs. Alamieyesigha (1999) 10 NWLR (Pt.607) 502 at 512 and Jalingo vs. Nyame (1992) 3 NWLR (Pt.231) 538.
The allegation of disenfranchisement was pleaded in paragraphs H(1) (i) – (iv) of the petition .Paragraph H(1) (i) – (iv) read thus:
“(i) Over two thousand persons who had been accredited and were on the queue when voting started at various polling units within the senatorial District were unjustifiably disenfranchised and driven away because they had evinced an intention to vote for the 2nd petitioner.
(ii) Many of the disenfranchised voters reported that at a specified time during the voting process the electoral officers indicated that the time for voting had elapsed and no more voters would be allowed to vote.
(iii) In other instances the voters reported that the reason given for the termination of voting was that the ballot papers were not enough.
(iv) The voters however further reported that, after the announcement of termination of voting was made, some other persons came to announce that those who intended to vote for the ACN candidates may come forward to vote for the ACN candidates may come forward to vote and because they were all decided to vote for the PDP candidates they were not allowed to vote.
In proof of this allegation 2nd Petitioner /Appellant testified and adopted his written statement on Oath as his evidence in chief before the tribunal. In the course of his testimony, originating process, judgment and result sheets of polling units were admitted through him as Exhibits ‘P1 – P6’ respectively. Under cross-examination, he admitted that in his polling unit, voting was peaceful and that he voted and agents signed result sheet. He also said he visited two wards from where he voted. He stated that some of the incidents that occurred were witnessed by him but some were reported to him by his agents. 2nd Respondent called PW1 and 3rd Respondent called RW2, who confirmed that the election was peaceful and fair. Apart from the allegations made in the pleadings, appellants did not call the voters who were said to have been disenfranchised to testify that they were not deprived of their right to vote for the candidate of their choice.
Similarly, voters cards were not tendered before the Tribunal to confirm that those voters did not vote at the election. The appellants did not also tender voters register to enable the Tribunal to ascertain whether those who were disenfranchised voted or not. In Chime vs. Ezea (2009) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1125) 263 at 357 paras E – F the Court of Appeal held:
“Everyone deprived of voting must come and show his voters card, express his constitutional right to pick a candidate of his choice. The comprehensive voters register must be tendered, authentic evidence of what happened at each polling booth must be given and this will not admit of any generalization of evidence for local government or constituency as it will not serve the purpose.”
Furthermore, in Audu vs. INEC & Ors. (2009) 13 NWLR (Pt.1212) 456 at 523 Paras C-D it was stated that:
“The non-tendering of voter’s cards of the persons alleged to have been disenfranchised, and no evidence to show that the names of those disenfranchised voters were not actually ticked as having voted in the voters’ register is fatal to the case of the appellant.”
See also Yaro vs. Wada (2009) All FWLR (Pt. 472) 1084 at 1098 Paras E – F.
Appellants appear to have relied heavily on the form EC8A’s tendered through the 2nd appellant. Appellants Contention is that all the information required are stated in the result forms. This argument cannot avail the appellants in view of the numerous decisions of the apex court and this court to the effect that documents must only be tendered but should be related specifically to areas of complaint through witnesses. The apex court clearly stated the position of the law in Jalingo vs Nyame (1992) 3 NWLR (Pt.231) 538 wherein it held that:
“A party relying on document in proof of his case must specifically relate each of such documents to the specific area of his case in respect of which the document is being tendered. It is an infraction to fair hearing for the court to do in chambers, what a party has not himself done in advancement of his case in open court.”
Furthermore, in INEC vs. Abubakar & Anr (2009) 1 NWLR (Pt. 143) 259 at 294 paras E-F. Belgore JCA in his lead judgment held:
“Documents were simply dumped on the lower Tribunal without a nexus being established between those documents and the petition before it. The Tribunal on its own set about conducting investigation as to the Import of the contents of those documents. That is an inquisition, which has no place in our laws. The lower tribunal has no business to investigate the contents of the document dumped on it by the 1st Respondent who did not explain what he wanted the Tribunal to do with them, it is this vacuum that learned counsel for the 1st Respondent now tries to fill albeit belated. ”
See also Alao v Alano (2005) 22 NSCQR (Pt 11) 867 at 884 Para E-F. The documents tendered are therefore not helpful to the Appellants.
The appellants made heavy weather about the failure of the 1st Respondent to file reply to the petition. The relief sought by the appellants is declaratory in nature as such appellants are required to establish the allegation of disenfranchisement by adducing credible and cogent evidence which they failed to do. Appellants are to rely on the strength of their case and not on the weakness of the respondent’s case. See Agbaje vs. Fashola (2008) 6 NWLR (Pt.1082) 90 at 135 – 139 Para G-H. It is apparent, that appellants have failed to discharge the burden of proof placed on them by law.
I entirely agree with the submission of the Respondents that the evidence of PW1 on the issue of disenfranchisement of voters is hearsay. It is not enough to plead disenfranchisement ,appellants must lead cogent and credible evidence in support of same. This appellants have failed to do.
I have carefully perused the petition. I agree with the lower Tribunal that the issue of non-recording of the number of voters on the queue at the commencement of voting was not pleaded by the appellants. Nowhere in the petition was the issue of non-recording of voters on queue mentioned. What was pleaded was multiple voting but the appellants did not lead cogent and credible evidence to prove the allegation. It is my considered view that the Appellants have failed to prove the allegation of disenfranchisement of voters. In the circumstance, I will resolve issues 1-3 in favour of the respondents.
Appellants issue 4 relates to non-compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended).The complaint of the Appellants is that the unlawful inclusion of Segun Adekoye substantially affected the result of the election because the votes which would have ordinarily been cast for the appellants were split and cast for Segun Adekoye who was a prominent member of PDP. Appellants referred to the definition of vote splitting in Wikipedia free internet encyclopaedia. That the voting pattern of the electorates was affected by the non-compliance.
In response, the 1st respondent submitted that the claim that the participation of the candidate of PPN in election had the effect of splitting the Appellants votes is a mere speculation, and there is no iota of evidence before the Tribunal to arrive at such speculative and fallacious conclusion. The fact that Appellants won the election in certain places within the constituency negates the fallacious conclusion which they wanted tribunal to reach. That there is no actual figure or numbers of votes affected by the said participation to enable Tribunal determine whether or not the alleged non-compliance substantially affected the result of the election. Appellants failed to establish the substantial effect of the alleged non-compliance. That PPN as a registered political party had its own supporters and had a right to be voted. 1st Respondent therefore submitted that what Appellants failed to prove by pleadings and evidence cannot be proved by counsel submissions in its Brief of Argument. That counsel’s address cannot be substitute for pleadings and evidence. See Chime vs. Ezea (supra) at p.380 paras B – C.
The 2nd Respondent contended that whereas petitioner makes non-compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Law as the foundation of his complaint as in the instant case he is fixed with the very heavy burden to prove before the tribunal by cogent and compelling evidence that the non-compliance is of such a nature as to affect the result of the election. See Boni Haruna & Ors. vs. Adamu M. Modibbo & Ors (2004) 16 NWLR (Pt.900) 487 at 553 and 552. Reference was made to S.139(1) of the Electoral Act 2010, (as amended).That 2nd Appellant who testified as PW1 stated in his evidence in chief that the participation of Segun Adekoye placed him in a disadvantageous position. That it was however established at the trial that:
1. 9 candidates contested in the election
2. Segun Adekoye was never a candidate of the PDP
3. The Appellants campaigned at the election
4. The 2nd Appellant won in some polling units despite the participation of PPN in the election.
5. The logo of PDP was distinct and could not be confused with the logo of PPN’
It was submitted that there was no proof by the Appellants that the 2nd Respondent had benefits or advantages over and above the other contestants on the participation of Segun Adekoye. See Buhari vs. INEC (2008) 12 SC (Pt.1) 1 at 12 Paras 30 – 35. It was further argued that those who voted for Segun Adekoye at the election were not called to testify that they would have voted for 2nd Appellant if Segun Adekoye was not a candidate for the election. It is not for the tribunal to speculate on how the voters would have voted. 2nd Respondent urged the tribunal to hold the non-compliance did not substantially affect the result of the election.
As regards the complaint of the appellants that the participation of PPN candidate in the election resulted to vote splitting and that the same has substantially affected the result of the election, it is my considered view that appellants have failed to substantiate same by cogent and credible evidence. No voter came forward to say that the participation of PPN candidate made him to vote for PPN instead of PDP. Appellants did not also state the percentage of votes he could have scored had PPN candidate did not participate in the election. Appellants’ complain is based on speculation which is not acceptable. A court of law cannot conjecture or speculate. See Olufeagba vs. Abdul Raheem (2010) All FWLR (Pt. 12) 1033 at 1074 para C.
By virtue of the S.139(1) of the Electoral Act for a non-compliance to invalidate an election such non-compliance must be proved by cogent and credible evidence that it had substantially affected the result of the election. The findings of the Tribunal on this issue cannot be faulted. Issue 4 is similarly resolved in favour of the Respondents.
Issue 5 is a complaint as to whether the 2nd Respondent won a majority of lawful votes cast at the election,
I have considered the submission of respective counsel as presented in their separate briefs of argument on this issue. I would have found it worthwhile to consider the arguments presented by the appellants but in view of the fact that none of the alleged malpractices and non-compliance complained of have been established by the Appellants by adducing cogent and credible evidence. Then the issue of 2nd Respondent not scoring the majority of lawful votes cast at the election does not arise. The results as declared by INEC have not been successfully impugned by the appellants as such the presumption of regularity enures in favour of the elections. The theories and charts presented by the appellants are in my view not helpful having regard to the circumstances of the case. Accordingly Issue 5 is resolved in favour of the respondents.
On the whole, I hold that the Appeal lacks merit and it is hereby dismissed. I hereby affirm the Judgment of the National and State Houses of Assembly Election Tribunal sitting in Abeokuta, Ogun State delivered on the 10th day of October 2011.
No orders as to cost.
STANLEY SHENKO ALAGOA, J.C.A. OFR: I read in advance the judgment just delivered by my learned brother, Mshelia (J.C.A.). I agree with the reasoning and conclusion reached that the appeal lacks merit and should be dismissed. I dismiss same and abide by all the consequential orders made in the lead judgment including the order on costs.
MODUPE FASANMI, J.C.A.: I had the advantage of reading in advance the lead judgment by my learned brother A. G. MSHELIA J.C.A.
I am in full agreement that the appeal is devoid of merit. I therefore dismiss the appeal and abide by the consequential order made in the lead judgment.
>
Appearances
R.A Oluyede,
T.O Amao Esq.For Appellant
AND
Uche v. Obi,
Joseph Kulugh Esq.
Gabriel Onojason Esq.
Razaq Okesiji,
A.O Kaka
George OyeniyiFor Respondent
