ALL PROGRESSIVES CONGRESS v. HON.(DR)JOSEPH HARUNA KIGBU & ORS (2019)

ALL PROGRESSIVES CONGRESS v. HON.(DR)JOSEPH HARUNA KIGBU & ORS

(2019)LCN/13829(CA)

In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

On Friday, the 1st day of November, 2019

CA/MK/EP/HR/40/2019

RATIO

Whether the Tribunal was right when it admitted voters registers tendered by the 1st and 2nd Respondent (sic) in evidence despite non listing of the said Voters Registers in the Petitioners List of Documents?.

It is noteworthy that in their petition, the 1st and 2nd respondents pleaded in paragraph 84 that they would rely on, inter alia, voters registers. The statement, in paragraph 14 of their list of documents, that they would rely on, Voters registration for all Polling Units in Lafia/Obi Federal Constituency ,leaves no one in doubt that what is intended there is the Register of Voters. Voters registration is a verb, as rightly pointed out by appellant’s senior counsel. A verb, which expresses an action, cannot be listed as a document. It is therefore clear that what is listed is the Register of Voters for all the polling units in Lafia/Obi Federal Constituency. PER JOSEPH EYO EKANEM, J.C.A.

JUSTICES

JUMMAI HANNATU SANKEY Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

ONYEKACHI AJA OTISI Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

JOSEPH EYO EKANEM Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

Between

ALL PROGRESSIVES CONGRESS (APC) Appellant(s)

AND

1.HON. (DR) JOSEPH HARUNA KIGBU
2.PEOPLES DEMOCRATIC PARTY (PDP)
3.INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION (INEC)
4.ABUBAKAR SARKI DAHIRU Respondent(s)

JOSEPH EYO EKANEM, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): This appeal, like the sister appeal Number CA/MK/EP/HR/34/2019, arose from the judgment of the National and State Houses of Assembly Election Tribunal, Lafia, Nasarawa State delivered on 12/9/2019. In the judgment the tribunal allowed the petition of the 1st and 2nd respondents against the declaration and return by the 3rd respondent of the 4th respondent as the winner of the election held on 23/2/2019 for the member representing Lafia/Obi Federal Constituency, Nasarawa State in the House of Representatives.

Aggrieved by the return, the 1st respondent and the 2nd respondent that sponsored him filed a petition at the tribunal questioning the return. They claimed several principal reliefs and alternative reliefs. At the conclusion of the hearing, the tribunal allowed the petition and granted the principal reliefs as well as the alternative reliefs.

Dissatisfied with the decision, the appellant filed a notice of appeal against the decision. Briefs of argument were exchanged as between the parties.

?At the hearing of the appeal on 28/10/2019, Dr Hassan M. Liman (SAN) for

appellant adopted and relied on appellant?s brief of argument filed on 17/10/2019 and the reply brief filed on 27/10/2019 in urging the Court to allow the appeal.

P.A. Akubo (SAN) for the 1st and 2nd respondents adopted and relied on their brief of argument filed on 24/10/2019 in urging the Court to dismiss the appeal. He urged the Court to discountenance 3rd respondent?s brief of argument for the reasons set out by him.

I.M. Dikko (SAN) for the 3rd respondent adopted and relied on his brief of argument in which he concedes all the issues raised and canvassed in appellant?s brief of argument.
Matthew G. Burkaa, Esq. for the 4th respondent informed the Court that the 3rd respondent did not file any brief of argument.

I have already stated that this appeal is a sister appeal to appeal No. CA/MK/EP/HR/34/2019. The issues raised in this appeal, which is between the same parties and against the same judgment are substantially similar to those raised in appeal No. CA/MK/EP/HR/34/2019. Judgment in the said appeal has just been delivered. I do not believe that it would serve any useful purpose to embark on another exercise of

stating my reasoning and conclusion in that appeal in this appeal. I adopt my reasoning in appeal No. CA/MK/EP/HR/34/2019.

It is only issue 1 in this appeal that I think I should look at and set out my reasoning as it was not raised in appeal No. CA/MK/EP/HR/34/2019. The issue as formulated by appellant?s senior counsel is:
?Whether the Tribunal was right when it admitted voters registers tendered by the 1st and 2nd Respondent (sic) in evidence despite non ? listing of the said Voters Registers in the Petitioners? List of Documents?.
It was the argument of appellant?s senior counsel that contrary to Paragraph 4(5) (1)(c) of the 1st Schedule to the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended) the 1st and 2nd respondents did not list Register of Voters in the list of documents; rather they listed ?Voters registration.?
It is noteworthy that in their petition, the 1st and 2nd respondents pleaded in paragraph 84 that they would rely on, inter alia, ?voters registers?. The statement, in paragraph 14 of their list of documents, that they would rely on,
?Voters registration for all Polling

Units in Lafia/Obi Federal Constituency?,
leaves no one in doubt that what is intended there is the Register of Voters. ?Voters registration? is a verb, as rightly pointed out by appellant?s senior counsel. A verb, which expresses an action, cannot be listed as a document. It is therefore clear that what is listed is the Register of Voters for all the polling units in Lafia/Obi Federal Constituency.
With all due respect, I think senior counsel for the appellant is chasing shadows and engaging in semantics and angelic hair ? splitting. I therefore resolve issue 1 against the appellant.

Nevertheless, I adopt my reasoning and conclusion in appeal No. CA/MK/EP/HR/34/2019 in this appeal and accordingly allow the appeal.

The judgment of the tribunal delivered on 12/9/2019 is hereby set aside. The petition of the 1st and 2nd respondents is dismissed and the return of the 4th respondent as duly elected is restored.
The parties shall bear their costs.

JUMMAI HANNATU SANKEY, J.C.A.: I had the opportunity to read in advance a draft copy of the lead Judgment of my learned brother, Ekanem, JCA

allowing the Appeal.

The instant Appeal is a Sister Appeal to Appeal NO. CA/MK/EP/HR/34/2019, which had earlier on been allowed.
I agree with and adopt as mine the comprehensive resolution of the issues raised therein.
I also allow the Appeal. I abide by the orders made in the lead Judgment, including the order as to costs.

ONYEKACHI AJA OTISI, J.C.A.: I had the opportunity to read in advance a copy of the lead judgment just delivered by my learned Brother Joseph E. Ekanem, JCA, allowing this appeal. which is a sister appeal to CA/MK/EP/HR/34/2019 in which judgment has already been delivered.

?I agree with and adopt as mine the reasoning and conclusions. I also allow this appeal and abide by the orders in the lead judgment.

Appearances:

Dr Hassan M. Liman (SAN) with him, Messrs M.E. Osman, A.F. Amanzi, I.I. Aseku and Abdulkadir Musa)For Appellant(s)

P.A. Akubo (SAN) with him, Messrs S.Y. Tsok, Owe John, A.B. Ayiwulu, S.J. Attah and I.0. Haruna) for 1st and 2nd respondents.
I.M. Dikko (SAN) (with him, Messrs D.N. Meshi, A.S. Gayam and E.C. Agoh) for 3rd respondent.
Matthew G. Burkaa Esq. with him, Messrs A. Oguntoye, A. Baga and I.B. Ahmed for 4th respondent.For Respondent(s)

Appearances

Dr Hassan M. Liman (SAN) with him, Messrs M.E. Osman, A.F. Amanzi, I.I. Aseku and Abdulkadir Musa)For Appellant

AND