ELECTION PETITION

CONTENTS
Meaning and general principles of election petition................................ Page 1.
Court/Tribunal with jurisdiction and composition................................... Page 1 – 3.
Contents of a petition.............................................................................. Page 3 – 5.
Grounds for an election petition.............................................................. Page 5 – 7.
Filing of reply........................................................................................... Page 7 – 11.
Ethical issues............................................................................................ Page 11.
Sample drafts........................................................................................... Page 12 – 16.
Facts and principles of Abubakar v. Yar’Adua...................................... Page 16 – 18.

MEANING AND GENERAL PRINCIPLES

Election Petition is a petition complaining of an undue election or undue return of a candidate
at a general election. It is about the process of the election itself. Anything outside that does
not come under election petitions. If it has to do with happenings within a political party, they
are intra party disputes. Section 140(1) of the Electoral Act, 2006; ANPP v. INEC (2004) 7
NWLR (Pt 871) 16.
Government and political offices are filled by means of elections; whilst actions instituted for
challenging the validity of an election or disputing the return of a candidate are commence by
petitions.
Election petition is a special proceeding guided by a particular electoral law under which the
election was held. Thus, it is a proceeding that is sui generis – Yahaya v. Aminu (2004) 7
NWLR (Pt. 871) 159 at 181; Buhari v. Yusuf (2003) 14 NWLR (Pt. 841) 466 at 536.
LAWS REGULATING ELECTION PETITIONS
1. The 1999 Constitution;
2. The Electoral Act 2006; and
3. Federal High Court Rules.
COURT/TRIBUNAL WITH JURISDICTION AND COMPOSITION
The 1999 Constitution makes provision for three categories of court/tribunal with jurisdiction
on election petitions. These are –
1. National Assembly Election Tribunal – section 285(1) of the Constitution; section
140(2)(b) of the Electoral Act, 2006.
2. Governorship and Legislative Houses Election Tribunals – section 285(2) of the
Constitution; section 140(2)(b) of the Electoral Act.
3. Court of Appeal – section 239 of the Constitution; section 140(2)(a) of the
Electoral Act.

© 022, A. D
 NATIONAL ASSEMBLY ELECTION TRIBUNAL
This shall to the exclusion of any other court, have original jurisdiction to hear and determine
petitions as to whether –
1. Any person has been validly elected as a member of the National Assembly;
2. The term of office of any person under this Constitution has ceased;
3. The seat of a member of the Senate or a member of the House of Representatives has
become vacant; and
4. A question or petition brought before the election tribunal has been properly or
improperly brought.
COMPOSITION OF NATIONAL ASSEMBLY ELECTION TRIBUNAL
1. A Chairman who shall be a Judge of the High Court.
2. Four (4) members appointed from the judiciary and not below the rank of Chief
Magistrate.
The Chairman and other members shall be appointed by the President of the Court of Appeal
in consultation with the Chief Judge of the State, the Grand Kadi of the Sharia Court of
Appeal of the State or the President of the Customary Court of Appeal of the State – section
285(3) of the 1999 Constitution.
QUORUM – Chairman and two (2) members.
GOVERNORSHIP AND LEGISLATIVE HOUSES ELECTION TRIBUNALS
This shall to the exclusion of any court or tribunal, have original jurisdiction to hear and
determine petitions as to whether any person has been duly and validly elected to the office of
Governor or Deputy Governor or as a member of the State Houses of Assembly.
It should be noted that unlike the Election Tribunal that states that it has to do with
where there is a vacancy or a cease in the office, this tribunal is silent on it.
COMPOSITION OF GOVERNORSHIP AND LEGISLATIVE HOUSES ELECTION
TRIBUNALS
1. A Chairman who shall be a judge of the High Court.
2. Four (4) members appointed from the judiciary and not below the rank of Chief
Magistrate.
The Chairman and other members shall be appointed by the President of the Court of Appeal
in consultation with the Chief Judge of the State, the Grand Kadi of the Sharia Court of
Appeal of the State or the President of the Customary Court of Appeal of the State – section
285(3) of the 1999 Constitution.
It should be noted that due to the fact that the composition of both the Governorship and
Legislative Houses Election Tribunals, and National Assembly Election Tribunal are the
same, there is nothing that stops one tribunal from performing both function – Ajadi v.
Ajibola (2004) 16 NWLR (Pt. 898) 91. But one that is set up for a State cannot however sit in
another state – Ibori v. Ogboru (2005) 6 NWLR (Pt. 920) 25.
COURT OF APPEAL

© 022, A. D
This shall to the exclusion of any other court, have original jurisdiction to hear and determine
any question as to whether –
1. Any person has been validly elected to the office of the President or Vice President;
2. The term of office of the President or Vice President has ceased;
3. The office of President or Vice President has become vacant.
This is a special original jurisdiction outside its normal appellate jurisdiction.
COMPOSITION OF THE COURT OF APPEAL
1. At least three (3) Justices of the Court of Appeal – section 239(2) of the
Constitution.
It should, however, be noted that while an may lie from the Court of Appeal to the Supreme
Court, in respect of the presidential election, the decision of the Court of Appeal on a matter
that arises on appeal from other election petitions is final – section 246(3) of the
Constitution.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT/AREA COUNCIL ELECTION TRIBUNAL
This is established at various State levels by laws of each State. For the Federal Capital
Territory (FCT), it is established by section 142(1) of the Electoral Act, 2006.
The Federal Capital Territory Area Council Election Tribunal has exclusive original
jurisdiction to hear and determine any question as to whether –
1. Any person has been validly elected to the office of Chairman, Vice Chairman or
Councillor.
2. The term of office of the Chairman, Vice Chairman or Councillor has ceased.
3. The seat of a member of an Area Council has become vacant.
4. A question or petition brought before the Tribunal has been properly or improperly
brought.
COMPOSITION OF AREA COUNCIL ELECTION TRIBUNAL
1. A Chairman who shall be a Chief Magistrate.
2. Four (4) other members appointed from magistracy, and legal practitioners of at least
10 years standing and non legal practitioners of unquestionable integrity – section
142(2) and (3) of the Electoral Act.
CONTENTS OF A PETITION
This is made available in Paragraph 4 of the First Schedule to the Electoral Act.
1. Names of the parties and Tribunal – It shall specify the parties (petitioner and
respondent) interested in the petition and the name of the Court/Tribunal where the
petition is to be filed.
2. The right of the petitioner to bring the petition – This means showing that the
petitioner contested the election and the capacity and platform on which he contested.
3. The holding of the election, the scores of the candidates and the name of the
person returned as the winner of the election – Failure to state this renders the
petition incompetent and liable to be struck out – Effiong v. Ikpeme (1999) 6 NWLR
(Pt. 606) 260. However, the petitioner is not required to state score of political party

© 022, A. D
 who did not field any candidate or votes cast for persons that were not candidates in
the election – Ajudua v. Nwogu (No. 1) (2004) 16 NWLR (Pt. 893) 56.
4. The fact of the petition and the ground on which the petition is based – section
145(1) of the Electoral Act states such grounds which are –
a) That a person whose election is questioned was at the time of the election not
qualified to contest the election;
b) That the election was invalid by reason of corrupt practices or non-compliance
with the provisions of the Electoral Act;
c) That the respondent was not duly elected by majority of lawful votes cast at
the election; or
d) That the petitioner or its candidate was validly nominated but was unlawfully
excluded from the election.
It should be noted that a petition containing grounds not recognized by law is
incompetent – Doukpolagha v. George (1992) 2 NWLR (Pt. 236) 444. Also, failure to
comply with the above content renders the petition invalid and liable to be struck out.
5. Prayer or prayers sought by the petitioner – section 147 of the Act provides for
the orders the Tribunal may make. This is the reliefs sought. Any petition not
accompanied with prayers is incompetent and will be dismissed. Thus, a petitioner
may pray in the alternative that it is either the election be declared null and void or he
be declared winner of the election.
6. The petition must be signed by the petitioner or the solicitor named at the foot of
the petition – An unsigned petition is liable to be struck out – Ibrahim v. Sheriff
(2004) 14 NWLR (Pt. 892) 43. Where, however, an unsigned petition is served on a
respondent, and he, apart from entering appearance, takes steps, the proceedings will
amount to a waiver of his right to complain – Nwankwo v. Dr. Raymond Emerenini
(unreported Imo State Appeal Tribunal ORZ/EP/HO/54/91 decided on 5 th August
1991).
7. It shall contain an address of Petitioner for service – Where the address is not
stated the petition will be deemed not to have been filed unless the Tribunal otherwise
orders. However, where personal service cannot be made, the Tribunal may order
substituted service.
Under Paragraph 4(2) of, a petition is to be divided into paragraphs and numbered
consecutively.
The respondents to such petition shall be the following –
1. The successful candidate at the polls;
2. The Chief Electoral Officer of the Federation where the petition relates to the election
of a President or Vice President.
3. The Chief Electoral Officer of the State where the petition relates to the Governor or
Deputy Governor of a State.
4. The Electoral Officer for a senatorial district, a Federal constituency or State
constituency, where the election relates to that of a Senator, a member of the House of
Representatives or a member of the State Assembly, as the case may be.
Where the petition complains of the conduct of a returning officer, he shall be deemed to be a
respondent for all purposes – Obasanjo v. Yusuf (2004) 9 NWLR (Pt. 877) 144, 185, where
the Supreme Court held that it is not necessary to make unnamed and unidentified law
enforcement officers or political party agents, parties to a petition, whilst accepting that the
Electoral Act requires that if a petition complains of the conduct of an Electoral Officer or

© 022, A. D
any other person who took part in an election, that the person ought to be made a party to an
election petition.
Non-joinder of some parties does not invariably lead to striking out of the entire petition most
especially where there are other grounds of the petition that have nothing to do with the
person not joined. All that needs to be done, is to strike out the offending paragraphs – Kalu
v. Ohuabunwa (2004) 7 NWLR (Pt. 871) 1. An unsuccessful candidate is not a necessary or
statutory party to an election petition – Mogahlu v. Ngige (2005) 4 NWLR (Pt. 914) 1;
Buhari v. Yusuf (2003) 14 NWLR (Pt. 841) 446.
GROUNDS FOR AN ELECTION PETITION
Section 145(1) of the Electoral Act, 2006 provides that an election may be questioned on
any of the following grounds –
1. That a person whose election is questioned was at the time of the election not
qualified to contest the election;
2. That the election was invalid by reason of corrupt practices or non-compliance with
the provisions of the Electoral Act;
3. That the respondent was not duly elected by the majority of lawful votes cast at the
election; or
4. The petitioner or its candidate was validly nominated but unlawfully excluded from
the election.
Under the first ground stated above, a person is not qualified to contest an election if he is
caught within the provisions of the 1999 Constitution (that is, section 137 for Presidential
election; section 182 for Governorship election; section 66 for National Assembly
election; and section 107 for House of Assembly election) that spell out the grounds of
disqualification. See Iniama v. Akpabio (2008) 17 NWLR.
GROUNDS FOR DISQUALIFICATION
Under the various constitutional provisions, a person is unqualified to contest an election if –
1. He is not a Nigerian citizen; because candidates for the Presidential and Governorship
elections must be citizens of Nigeria by birth – sections 131 and 177 of the
Constitution;
2. He has been elected to the office of the President or Governor at any two previous
occasions – section 137(1)(b); and section 182(1)(b) of the 1999 Constitution;
3. He is adjudged a lunatic or a person of unsound mind;
4. He is under a death sentence or a sentence of imprisonment for an offence involving
dishonesty or fraud;
5. He has been convicted and sentenced for an offence involving dishonesty or he has
been found guilty of a contravention of the Code of Conduct within not less than ten
years prior to the election.
6. He is an undischarged bankrupt.
7. He is a staff of the public service of the Federation or of a State and has not resigned,
withdrawn or retired thirty (30) days from such employment before the date of the
election. It should be noted that a leave of absence does not amount to resignation,
withdrawal or retirement – Mbukurta v. Abbo (1998) 6 NWLR (Pt. 595) 425.

© 022, A. D
 8. He is a member of any secret society (cult member); he has been indicted for
embezzlement or fraud by a judicial or administrative panel of inquiry and the report
was accepted by the Government; and
9. He has been presented a forged certificate to the Independent National Electoral
Commission (INEC).
The age qualification for a Presidential candidate is forty (40) years; for a Governorship
candidate, it is thirty-five (35) years; for a Senatorial candidate, it is thirty-five (35) years;
for both House of Representatives and Assembly, it is thirty (30) years. In addition to this, a
person contesting an election must be a member of a political party and sponsored by such
party; and must be educated up to at least school certificate level or its equivalent – sections
66, 106, 131, and 177 of the Constitution.
Where an elected candidate was not qualified to conduct an election and returned, the
petitioner who claims to have polled the next majority votes cannot be declared winner by the
tribunal, unless the facts of disqualification were notorious and within the knowledge of the
electorate. However, if the facts were not notorious, the tribunal must nullify the election and
order a fresh one – Bayo v. Njidda (2004) FWLR (Pt. 192) 19 at 41 and 84.
However, if the ground of the petition is that the respondent did not poll majority of lawful
votes cast at the election, the Tribunal or Court, if so satisfied, shall return the candidate that
polled the majority of lawful votes cast – Ngige v. Obi (2006) 14 NWLR (Pt. 999) 1 at 226-
227, per Omokri JCA.
COMMENCEMENT OF AN ACTION IN ELECTION MATTERS
All actions arising from the conduct of an election are commenced by way of petition –
section 140(1) of the Electoral Act, 2006.
An election petition shall be presented or filed within thirty (30) days of the declaration of the
result of the election – section 141 of the Act. There is no extension of time within which to
file an election petition. Once a petitioner fails to file his petition within the stipulated thirty
(30) days, he loses his right of relief – Kamba v. Bawa (2005) 4 NWLR (Pt. 914) 43;
Moghalu v. Ngige (supra).
The court or tribunal may, however, extend time within which to do any other thing under the
Act except the time within which to file a petition – section 141(1) of the Act.
SERVICE
Notice of the petition as well as all other documents required to be served on the respondent
before his entry of appearance shall be served personally. The fact that the respondent was
not served personally will not vitiate the proceedings – Paragraph 8 of the First Schedule
to the Act.
Where personal service could not be served on the respondent, the Tribunal may on
application of the petitioner order for substituted service in accordance with the provisions of
the Federal High Court Rules – Paragraph 8(2) of the First Schedule to the Act.
A process to be served on a party in an election petition not requiring personal service shall
be duly served by delivering it to the person or by leaving it at his last known place of abode
in the constituency in question or with any resident in the place who appears to be eighteen
(18) years or above – Paragraph 44(1) of the First Schedule to the Act.

© 022, A. D
 APPEARANCE
Respondent is required to enter appearance after being served or within the time specified by
the Secretary enter an appearance by filing a memorandum of appearance (in Form TF. 004)
if he intends to oppose the petition - Paragraph 9(1) of the First Schedule to the Act, and
the respondent is to give the name and address of the solicitor, if any, that is representing
him. Either the respondent or his solicitor shall sign the memorandum of appearance and
shall furnish as many copies according to the parties in the suit and three (3) extra copies to
be left with the Secretary.
Respondent must pay the necessary filing fees and leave enough copies for service failing
which the memorandum of appearance will be deemed not to have been filed – Paragraph
9(4)(b) of the First Schedule to the Act.
He should file conditional appearance where he has a preliminary objection to the petition –
Paragraph 9(5) of the First Schedule to the Act.
EFFECT OF NOT FILING MEMORANDUM OF APPEARANCE
Any document intended for service on respondent may be posted on Tribunal notice board
and shall be sufficient notice to respondent – Paragraph 10(1) of the First Schedule to the
Act.
However, the non-filing of a memorandum of appearance will not bar respondent from
defending the petition provided he files his reply not later than twenty-one (21) days from
receipt of the election petition – Paragraph 10(2) of the First Schedule to the Act.
FILING OF REPLY
In filing of reply, the respondent is given an opportunity to file a reply to the petition.
Under the rules, the respondent shall within fourteen (14) days of entering an appearance file
in the registry his reply stating which of the facts or/and figures alleged in the petition he
admits or the ones he rejects.
The reply is to be filed and the respondent shall furnish as many copies according to the
parties in the suit and ten (10) extra copies to be left with the Secretary – Paragraph 12(4).
The reply must be signed by the respondent or solicitor, if any – Paragraph 2(3).
The reply shall be supported by –
1. copies of documentary evidence;
2. list of witnesses; and
3. the written statement on oath.
The petitioner has five (5) days from receipt of respondent’s reply to file his reply only where
new issues of fact are raised in the respondent’s reply – Paragraph 16(1). This time cannot
be extended – Paragraph 16(2).
EFFECT OF NOT FILING A REPLY
The non-filing of the required copies a reply or does not pay the prescribed fees, the reply
shall be deemed not to have been filed except the court or tribunal requires otherwise –
Paragraph 12 of the First Schedule to the Act.

© 022, A. D
 AMENDMENT OF PETITION
An election petition can only be amended within the time limited for filing it, which is thirty
(30) days from the date of declaration of the result of the election – Ngige v. Obi (supra).
Thereafter, amendment will not be allowed under the following reasons –
1. To introduce any of the contents required in paragraph 4(1) – Opia v. Ibru (1992) 3
NWLR (Pt. 231) 658.
2. To effect substantial alteration of the grounds for or prayer in the petition.
3. To effect substantial alteration of or addition to the statement of fact relied on to
support the ground for or sustain the prayer in the petition except as permitted by the
Electoral Act – Paragraph 14(2); Ngige v. Obi (supra), where it was explicitly held
that no amendment affecting items listed under paragraph 14(2) of the first schedule
to the Electoral Act would be allowed after the expiry of time limited by the Act for
presentation of petitions.
The same rule applies to amendment to reply a petition. Such amendments must be made
within the time limited for filing reply which is fourteen (14) days from the day of
appearance entered by the respondents – Paragraph 14(2)(b)(ii) of the First Schedule of
the Act; PDP v. Haruna (2004) 16 NWLR (Pt. 900) 597.
However, amendment will be allowed to correct a typographical error on the face of the
petition – Chief Bola Ige v. Dr. Omololu Olunloyo (1984)1 SC 258; Aniagala v. Abeh
(1997) 7 NWLR (Pt. 611) 454.
PRE-HEARING SESSION AND SCHEDULING
Within seven (7) days of service of reply on the respondent or the petitioner, whichever is the
case, the petitioner shall apply for issuance of pre-hearing notice. Thereupon, Tribunal/Court
shall issue to parties or their legal practitioners pre-hearing conference notice as in Form TF.
007. The notice is accompanied by pre-hearing information sheet in Form TF. 008 –
Paragraph 3(1) & (2).
Where the Petitioner fails to bring the application for issuance of the pre-hearing notice, the
respondent may do so or apply for an order to dismiss the petition – Paragraph 3(3).
Where both parties fail to bring the application, the Tribunal/Court shall dismiss the petition
as an abandoned petition and shall not entertain any application for extension of time to bring
the application.
The dismissal of the petition for failure to apply for pre-hearing notice is final and renders the
Tribunal/Court functus officio – Paragraph 3(5).
Pre-hearing session shall be completed within thirty (30) days of its commencement –
Paragraph 3(9). The Tribunal/Court shall issue a report at the end of the session to guide
subsequent course of proceedings – Paragraph 3(10). Failure of a party to attend
satisfactorily in the session or obey the scheduling or pre-hearing order, will lead to dismissal
of the petition or entry of judgment as the case may be – Paragraph 3(11).
The judgment may be set aside upon application with undertaking to participate effectively
made within seven (7) days of the judgment with order of cost of not less than N20,000 –
Paragraph 3(12).

© 022, A. D
The following should be noted –
1. All motions shall be taken at pre-hearing sessions except with leave of court.
2. All motions shall be supported by affidavit and written address – Paragraph 6(1), (2)
and (3).
3. Respondents is to file counter affidavit and written address within seven (7) days of
service if he wishes to oppose the motion – Paragraph 6(4)
4. Further reply on point of law to be filed within three (3) days – Paragraph 6(5).
PURPOSE OF THE CONFERENCE
The purposes of the conference are –
1. Disposal of all matters which can be dealt with on interlocutory application.
2. Giving such directions as to the future course of the petition as appear best adapted to
serve its just, expeditious and economical disposal in view of the urgency of election
petition.
3. Giving directions on order of witnesses to be called and such documents to be
tendered by each party to prove their cases.
4. Fixing clear dates for hearing of the petition – Paragraph 3(1) and (2).
ORDERS THE TRIBUNAL MAY MAKE AT CONFERENCE
At the pre- hearing session the Tribunal/Court shall enter a scheduling order for –
1. Joining other parties to the petition.
2. Amending petition or reply or any other process (as allowed by law).
3. Filing and adopting of written addresses on all interlocutory application.
4. Additional pre-hearing sessions.
5. Order of witnesses and tendering of documents.
6. Any other matter that will promote quick disposal of the petition – Paragraph 3(6).
HEARING
Petition shall be heard and determined in open court – Paragraph 18.
The petitioner shall prove his case to the satisfaction of the Tribunal/Court in accordance with
the petitioner’s reply – Kudu v. Aliyu (1992) 3 NWLR (Pt. 231) 615. There must be
allegations of crime to be proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Facts shall be proved by written depositions and oral examination of witnesses in open court
– Paragraph 4(1). No oral examination of a witness during his evidence- in- chief save to
lead him to adopt his written deposition and tender documents mentioned therein –
Paragraph 4(3).
Documents and exhibits admitted by consent of parties at pre-hearing sessions shall be
tendered from the bar or by the party – Paragraph 4(2). Parties are required to file written
address within the stipulated time.
TIME FOR CONCLUDING HEARING
It should be noted that the Act does not stipulate time limit for hearing a petition but it
enjoins the Tribunal/Court to give it accelerated hearing – section 148 of the Electoral Act.

© 022, A. D
 JUDGMENT
After conclusion of evidence and address, Tribunal or Court adjourns to a definite date for
judgment. The Court or Tribunal may allow or dismiss the petition, that is, it may declare the
election void or declare a particular candidate duly elected or retuned; the tribunal may also
award cost.
Where the electoral law prescribes the time limit within which the Court or Tribunal shall
conclude the petition, the tribunal must deliver its judgment within the time stipulated;
otherwise, the judgment shall be a nullity. Immediately the judgment of the tribunal is
delivered, the Judge shall certify it to the Electoral Commission, for their notification.
Where a candidate’s election has been nullified by the trial Election Tribunal, the candidate
retains his seat until the Court of Appeal delivers a final decision. If the Court of Appeal
upholds the nullification of the election by the trial tribunal, the candidate automatically
forfeits his seat until a bye-election is held – section 149(1) of the Electoral Act.
APPEALS
Appeals from Governorship and Legislative Houses Election Tribunal, and National
Assembly Election Tribunal lie to the Court of Appeal – section 246(1)(b) of the
Constitution.
The decision of the Court of Appeal in respect of appeals from election petition is final –
section 246(3) of the Constitution; Awuse v. Odili (2003) 18 NWLR (Pt. 851) 116;
Onaguluchi v. Ndu (2001) 7 NWLR (Pt. 712) 309.
In respect of the Area Council Election Tribunal of FCT, appeals lie to the Area Council
Election Appeal Tribunal and the decision of the Appeal Tribunal is final – section 143(1)
and (2) of the Act. (Equivalent provisions exist in the various state laws with respect to
Local Government Election Tribunals)
In respect of the Presidential or Vice Presidential election, appeal lies from the decision of the
Court of Appeal to the Supreme Court. The decision of the Supreme Court is final – section
235 of the Constitution.
ETHICAL ISSUES
1. Rule 14 of the Rules of Professional Conduct (RPC), 2007 – A lawyer shall
dedicate and devote his attention to the cause of his client.
2. Rule 15 of RPC – A lawyer shall refuse to aid or participate in any conduct which he
believes to be unlawful even though there is some support for an argument that the
conduct is legal.
3. Rule 32(1) of RPC – A lawyer in appearing in his professional capacity before a
Court or Tribunal shall not deal with the Court or Tribunal otherwise than candidly
and fairly.

© 022, A. D
IN THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY ELECTION PETITION TRIBUNAL OF DELTA
STATE OF NIGERIA

HOLDING AT ASABA.
Petition No…………..

BETWEEN

DR. VINCENT BROWN ………………… PETITIONER

AND
CHIEF BEN OKAGBUE
UNITY CONGRESS PARTY
THE RESIDENT ELECTORAL COMMISSIONER RESPONDENTS
THE RETURNING OFFICER FOR THE SENATORIAL ELECTION
INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION

PETITION AGAINST THE SENATORIAL DISTRICT ELECTION OF ASABA

NORTH FEDERAL CONSTITUENCY OF DELTA STATE

Your petitioner, Dr. Vincent Brown was a candidate in the senatorial election of Asaba North
Federal Constituency of Delta State held on 27th of April 2007 having contested the said
election under the platform of National Nigerian Party. The first respondent who contested
the election under the Unity Congress Party was declared by the 3rd, 4th and 5th respondents as
the winner.

RESULT OF THE ELECTION

Candidate No of votes
Dr. Vincent Brown (petitioner) 10,000
Chief Ben Okagbue (1st respondent) 15,000
Invalid votes 500

Total votes cast 25,500

Date of the election: APRIL 27, 2007.
Name of the returning officer: Mr. Omorele Omogbeja

GROUNDS OF THE PETITION

1. The 1st respondent is not qualified to contest the election.
2. That the election was invalid by reason of corrupt practices.

PARTICULARS

1. The 1st respondent made use of thugs, snatched ballot boxes and disrupted election
proceedings on the election day.
2. The 1st respondent was indicted by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission
on 29th of January, 2006.

© 022, A. D
 3. The 1st respondent is an ex-convict having been convicted of recovering stolen
property by the High Court of Delta State, Asaba on 1st March, 2005.
PRAYERS
1. A declaration that the 1st respondent is incompetent to contest the Asaba North
Federal Constituency legislative election of Delta State held on April 27, 2007.
2. A declaration that the return of the 1st respondent as the member of the Senate of
the National Assembly by the 3rd, 4th and 5th respondent in the election held in
April 27, 2007 is null and void.
3. An order for a bye-election.

Dated this 30th day of April, 2007

_________________
Dr. Vincent Brown
Petitioner
Plot 8, Nedu Crescent.
Asaba.

_____________________
Petitioner’s Counsel
Zubaiski Dise
No. 8 Abi Estate
Asaba.

Address for service

1st Respondent’s Address
No. 89, Anie Road.
Asaba.

2nd Respondent’s Address

House 15, Games Estate.
Asaba.

3rd Respondent’s Address

Independent National Electoral Commission
No. 26, Independent Way
Asaba

4th & 5th Respondent’s Address

Independent National Commission
26 Independent Way
Asaba.

© 022, A. D
 IN THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY ELECTION PETITION TRIBUNAL OF DELTA
STATE OF NIGERIA

HOLDING AT ASABA.
Petition No…………..

BETWEEN

DR. VINCENT BROWN ………………… PETITIONER

AND
CHIEF BEN OKAGBUE
UNITY CONGRESS PARTY
THE RESIDENT ELECTORAL COMMISSIONER RESPONDENTS
THE RETURNING OFFICER FOR THE SENATORIAL ELECTION
INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION

AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF PETITION

I, Dr. Vincent Brown, Male, 36, Christian, Nigerian citizen of Plot 8, Nedu Crescent, Asaba,
Delta State do hereby make oath and state as follows:
1. That I am the petitioner in this case.
2. That I am a member and candidate of National Nigeria Party (NNP).
3. That the Respondent is a member and candidate of Unity Congress Party (UCP).
4. That on the 27th of April, 2007, I contested the senatorial election for Asaba North
Federal Constituency of Delta State on the platform of National Nigeria Party.
5. That on the same 27th of April, 2007, the Respondent contested the senatorial election
for Asaba North Federal Constituency of Delta State on the platform of Unity
Congress Party.
6. That the Respondent was wrongly and fraudulently declared the winner. A copy of the
election result is hereby attached and marked “Exhibit A”.
7. That the Respondent’s agent disrupted the election exercise, carted away polling
boxes and brought in fake ballot papers which are hereby attached and marked
“Exhibit B1, B2 and B3”.
8. That the Respondent is not eligible to contest for the election.
9. That the Respondent on the 1st of March, 2005, was convicted of the offence of
receiving stolen property. A certified true copy of the court judgment is hereby
attached and marked “Exhibit G”.
10. That I swear to this affidavit in good faith conscientiously believing same to be true in
accordance with the provisions of the Oaths Act.
____________________
Deponent
Sworn to at the High Court Registry, Asaba.

This 30th Day of April, 2007.

BEFORE ME
_____________________
COMMISSIONER FOR OATHS.

© 022, A. D
 IN THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY ELECTION PETITION TRIBUNAL OF DELTA
STATE OF NIGERIA

HOLDING AT ASABA.
Petition No…………..

BETWEEN

DR. VINCENT BROWN ………………… PETITIONER

AND
CHIEF BEN OKAGBUE
UNITY CONGRESS PARTY
THE RESIDENT ELECTORAL COMMISSIONER RESPONDENTS
THE RETURNING OFFICER FOR THE SENATORIAL ELECTION
INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION

WITNESS STATEMENT ON OATH

I, Dr. Vincent Brown, Male, 36, Christian, Nigerian citizen of Plot 8, Nedu Crescent, Asaba,
Delta State do hereby make oath and state as follows:

1. That I am the senatorial candidate of the National Nigeria Party (NNP) held on April
27, 2007.
2. That I sincerely believe that the process of the election was irregular.
3. That I witness massive rigging and ballot box snatching in my ward which was
carried out by the Unity Congress Party (UCP).
4. That I believe that the election is not free and fair.

That I make this oath believing same to be true and in accordance with the Oath Law of Delta
State.

____________________
Deponent
Sworn to at the High Court Registry, Asaba.

DATED this 30th Day of April, 2007.

BEFORE ME

______________________
COMMISSIONER FOR OATHS.

© 022, A. D
 IN THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY ELECTION PETITION TRIBUNAL OF DELTA
STATE OF NIGERIA

HOLDING AT ASABA.
Petition No…………..

BETWEEN

DR. VINCENT BROWN ………………… PETITIONER

AND
CHIEF BEN OKAGBUE
UNITY CONGRESS PARTY
THE RESIDENT ELECTORAL COMMISSIONER RESPONDENTS
THE RETURNING OFFICER FOR THE SENATORIAL ELECTION
INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION

REPLY TO PETITION

1. The 1st respondent admits the facts contained in the petition only to the extent as it
concerns the fact that he is a member of the Unity Congress Party (UCP), and did
contest the senatorial election under that party.
2. The 1st respondent is vehemently opposed to the fact stated by the petitioner that he
(the 1st respondent) is not qualified to contest the election.
3. The 1st respondent challenges the allegation by the petitioner that he (the 1st
respondent) is an ex-convict.
4. The 1st respondent challenges the allegation that the election was invalid by reason of
corrupt practices.
5. The 1st respondent shall at the hearing of the petition pray the Honourable Court to
dismiss same with punitive costs.

Dated this 5th day of May, 2007

_________________
Chief Ben Okagbue
1st Respondent
No. 89, Anie Road,
Asaba.

_____________________
1st Respondent’s Counsel
Soulbeez Gram
No. 20, Maka Close,
Asaba.

ADDRESS FOR SERVICE:

Petitioner’s Counsel
Zubaiski Dise
No. 8 Abi Estate
Asaba.

© 022, A. D
 ABUBAKAR v. YAR’ADUA (2008) All FWLR (Pt. 404) 1409

1. ALHAJI ATIKU ABUBAKAR (GCON)

2. SENATOR BEN OBI
3. ACTION CONGRESS (AC)

VERSUS

1. ALHAJI UMARU MUSA YAR’ADUA

2. DR. GOODLUCK JONATHAN
3. PEOPLES’ DEMOCRATIC PARTY (PDP)
4. INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION (INEC)
5. PROFESSOR MAURICE MADUAKOLAM IWU (Chairman, INEC)
6. CHIEF ELECTORAL COMMISSIONER and 804 Others.

FACTS OF THE CASE

This has to do with two interlocutory appeals (first appeal relating to the ruling of the Court
of Appeal refusing leave to the petitioners/appellants to file interrogatories against Prof.
Maurice Iwu, the 5th respondent and seek further and better particulars against the 1st and 2nd
respondents respectively; and the second appeal is against the ruling of the Court of Appeal
granting extension of time to the 4 th – 808th respondents to file 213 additional witnesses’
statements on oath) emanating from the Presidential Election conducted on 21 st April, 2007
filed by the appellant from the Court of Appeal; the appeal were consolidated for hearing by
the Election Tribunal (Court of Appeal) but separately considered on merits. The petitioners
Alhaji Atiku Abubakar, Sen. Ben Obi and The Action Congress challenged the election of
Umaru Musa Yar’Adua who contested on the platform of the Peoples’ Democratic People
(PDP), as the winner of the April 2007 Presidential Election.

The respondent, Umaru Musa Yar’Adua was declared the winner by INEC having polled
twenty-four thousand, seven hundred and eighty-nine thousand, two hundred and twenty
seven (24,789,227) votes. Dissatisfied with the result announced by the 5 th respondent (Prof.
Maurice Iwu), the petitioner filed a suit in the Court of Appeal that the election is invalid for
non-compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act, 2006. They also alleged the use of
corrupt practices, and complained that acts and omissions corruptive of the electoral system
and process were committed in the conduct of the election. The Court of Appeal dismissed
the suit.

Dissatisfied with the decision of the Court of Appeal, the appellants/petitioners appealed to
the Supreme Court.

HELD

On the attitude of court to insufficient particulars in pleadings – The Supreme Court

stated that where the particulars given by a party in his pleadings are insufficient under the
rules of court, the court on its own initiative or on the application of any of the parties to the
case, may order particulars of any claim, defence or any matter pleaded to be given, since the
function of particulars is to aid the operation of the basic principle that litigation should be

© 022, A. D
conducted fairly, openly and without surprises as well as to reduce costs. There is nothing to
prevent any of the parties from asking for particulars even after the statement of the defence
has been filed, and where a party omits to set out details, he ought to have given, and his
opponent does not apply for particulars, he is entitled to give evidence at the trial of any fact
which supports the allegations in the pleadings.

On the rationale behind furnishing particulars to a pleading – The Supreme Court stated
that the furnishing of particulars to a pleading is meant to eliminate the element of surprise
being sprung on the opposite party to a case. It also enables the party to adequately prepare
his defence or cross-examination of the witness. Failure by a party to comply with an order to
furnish further particulars to his pleadings will preclude the party so defaulting from leading
evidence on the facts of which further particulars is required.

On when an appeal will lie as of right to the Supreme Court – The Supreme Court stated
that section 233(1) of the 1999 Constitution provides that an appeal from the decision of the
Court of Appeal in any civil or criminal proceedings shall lie as of right to the Supreme
Court... Thus, where the grounds of appeal against the decision, whether final or interlocutory
involves question of law alone and it is filed within the time stipulated by the rules of court,
the appeal is competent. No leave is required in such a case.

On whether every non-compliance with rules of court will vitiate the proceedings of
court – The Supreme Court stated that it is not every non-compliance with the rules of court
that will vitiate the proceedings or do harm to the party in default. As a matter of our
adjectival law, and by the state of the non-compliance rules, the courts will regard certain acts
or conducts of non-compliance as mere irregularity which could be waived in the interest of
justice.

On the nature of election petitions – The Supreme Court stated that election petitions are
sui generis and should be treated in that domain or realm.

On onus on a petitioner who alleges electoral malpractices in an election – The Supreme

Court stated that where a petitioner alleges electoral malpractices as in the instant case, he has
a duty to prove the malpractices alleged and prove that same affected the result of the elction.

On when an appeal can be validly sustained – The Supreme Court stated that an appeal can
be sustained by one valid ground of appeal. In the instant case, where three valid grounds of
appeal were identified, these could sustain the appeal.

On when an appeal is as of right – The Supreme Court stated that appeal on grounds of law
alone is as of right.

The Supreme Court from the above and inter alia dismissed the preliminary objection;
allowed the first appeal in part; and dismissed the second appeal.

© 022, A. D