CaseLaw
Dankwambo V. Abubakar & Ors (2015) CLR 10(a) SC
Judgement delivered on October, 27th 2015
Brief
Facts
The brief facts that gave rise to the appeal are as follows: on 11th April 2015, elections were conducted into the office of Governor of Gombe State by the 4th respondent. The 1st respondent contested the election on the platform of the AFRICAN DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS (ADC), while the appellant and the 2nd respondent contested on the platform of the PEOPLES DEMOCRATIC PARTY (PDP), the 3rd respondent in this appeal. Other political parties also fielded candidates. At the conclusion of the election, the 4th respondent declared the appellant as having won the majority of lawful votes cast at the election and he was duly returned as the elected Governor of Gombe State. The appellant polled 285,369 votes as against 848 votes scored by the 1st respondent.
Dissatisfied with the return of the appellant, the 1st respondent filed a petition before the Governorship Election Tribunal sitting at Gombe challenging the return of the appellant. After the close of pleadings, the 1st respondent applied for the issuance of pre-hearing conference notice pursuant to paragraph 18(1) of the 1st Schedule of the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended). At the conclusion of the pre-hearing session, the trial Tribunal issued a report of the pre-hearing and fixed the petition for hearing.
At the hearing, the appellant herein, as 1st respondent filed an application urging the court to strike out the petition on the ground that the petition was signed by one SAM KARGBO ESQ. whose name is not on the Roll of Legal Practitioners permitted to practice law in Nigeria. The 1st respondent herein in response to the application filed a counter affidavit wherein it was averred, inter alia, that SAM KARGBO is the same person as SAMUEL PETER KARGBO whose name appears on the Roll of Legal Practitioners. Several exhibits were attached to the counter affidavit in support of the averments.
In a ruling delivered on 9th July 2015, the Tribunal agreed that SAM KARGBO is very different from SAMUEL PETER KARGBO and held that the name SAM KARGBO, which is not on the Roll of Legal Practitioners, cannot validly sign the petition. It however held that as the petition was signed by both SAM KARGBO and the petitioner himself, the petition could not be declared incompetent. In other words, it was saved by the signature of the petitioner.
Hearing of the petition was to commence when the 2nd and 3rd respondents herein filed similar applications urging the Tribunal to dismiss the petition on the ground that SAM KARGBO who represented the petitioner at the pre-hearing session is not a name on the Roll of Legal Practitioners and therefore the proceedings at the pre-hearing session ought to be expunged from the record. In a consolidated ruling delivered on 3/8/2015, the Tribunal upheld the submissions of the 2nd and 3rd respondents and dismissed the appeal.
The 1st respondent was dissatisfied with the ruling and filed two notices of appeal at the lower court within time on 3rd August 2015 and 19th August 2015 respectively. The notice of appeal filed on 3rd August 2015 was subsequently struck out. On 9th September 2015 the court below allowed the appeal in part. It set aside the judgment of the trial Tribunal dismissing the 1st respondent's petition and remitted the matter to the Tribunal for hearing.
Dissatisfied with the judgment of the lower court, the appellant filed this appeal before this court on four grounds of appeal. Significantly, the 1st and 2nd respondents also filed appeals against the judgment.
SAMUEL PETER KARGBO and held that the name SAM KARGBO, which is not on the Roll of Legal Practitioners, cannot validly sign the petition. It however held that as the petition was signed by both SAM KARGBO and the petitioner himself, the petition could not be declared incompetent. In other words, it was saved by the signature of the petitioner.