This appeal was argued orally before us on 31/3/99 when judgment was reserved to 6/4/99. On that day I dismissed the appeal as well as the cross-appeal and indicated that I would give my reasons today. Here are my reasons for dismissing both the appeal and the cross-appeal.
Following the Presidential Election held throughout Nigeria on the 27th day of February, 1999, the 1st Respondent General Olusegun Obasanjo who was a candidate at the election was declared duly elected having scored 18,739,154 votes against the votes of 11,110,287 scored by his opponent, Chief Samuel Oluyemi Falae. The Appellant herein on 16/3/99 filed a petition at the Court of Appeal Abuja against the election of the 1st Respondent. The Chief Electoral Officer of the Federation (Hon. Justice Ephriam Omorose Ibukun Akpata (rtd)), the Returning Officer in the Presidential Election and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) were joined as 2nd to 4th Respondents in the petition. Also joined as Respondents were 56 Presiding Officers at various Polling Stations in the country.
For the purpose of this appeal the penultimate paragraphs of the petition are - 1, 2, 21 and 24(a) which read;
-
<-1
"Your petitioner Chief Chuba Egolum is a person who had a right to contest at the above election.
-
2
Your petitioner states that the election was held on the 27th day of February 1999 when Chief Samuel Oluyemi Falae and General Olusegun Obasanjo were candidates, and on the 1st day of March, 1999 the 3rd Respondent declared that Chief Samuel Oluyemi Falae received 11,110,287 votes and that the said General Olusegun Obasanjo received 18,739,154 votes and returned General Olusegun Obasanjo as being duly elected President of Federal Republic of Nigeria.
-
21
The petitioner scored in the said election a total of 11,627,789 lawful votes at the election.
-
24a
The petitioner therefore prays:
On the petition coming before the Court of Appeal for hearing objection was taken by the 1st and 2nd to 4th Respondents respectively to the competence of the petition. The Court of Appeal in its ruling held -
-
(3)
That the petition substantially complied with paragraph 5, of the 4th Schedule to Decree No.6 of 1999 titled" Presidential Election (Basic Constitutional and Transitional Provisions) Decree 1999 (hereinafter is referred to as the Decree) in that the petitioner's address, for service as stated in the petition was sufficient for the purpose of the law.
-
(4)
That the petition substantially complied with paragraph 5, of the 4th Schedule to Decree No.6 of 1999 titled" Presidential Election (Basic Constitutional and Transitional Provisions) Decree 1999 (hereinafter is referred to as the Decree) in that the petitioner's address, for service as stated in the petition was sufficient for the purpose of the law.
-
3
That although the petitioner would appear to have fallen within section 50(1)(a) of the Decree, having failed however, to specify the right he had to present the petition, the petition was incompetent. The Court then struck out the petition.
Both the Petitioner (who is the Appellant before us) and the 1st Respondent appealed against certain aspects of the Court's ruling. The Petitioner contended that the court was wrong in holding that evidence in respect of certain paragraphs of the petition could not be led and secondly that the petition was incompetent. The 1st Respondent cross-appealed against the decision of the Court below that the address given on the petition was sufficient compliance with paragraph 5 of Schedule 4 of the Decree. Both the 1st Respondent and the Petitioner, through their learned leading counsel, filed Briefs of Argument.
