Disable Preloader

CaseLaw

HDP V. INEC & Ors (2009) CLR 3(g) (SC)

Judgement delivered on March 27th 2009

Brief

  • INEC chairman
  • Election petition
  • Cause of action

Facts

This is an appeal against the ruling of the lower Court sitting as the Presidential Election Tribunal, holden at Abuja in Election Petition No. A/A/EP/5/07 delivered on the 20th day of August, 2007 in which the Court struck out the petition of the Appellant for being incompetent.

On the 18th day of May, 2007, the Petitioner/Appellant presented an election petition before the lower Court in which it prayed the Court, in paragraph 23 (a) and (b) as follows:-

  • (a)
    An order of the tribunal, that the election is invalid for reason of non-compliance with substantial sections of the Electoral Act 2006.
  • (b)
    An order of the tribunal that the election is invalid for reasons of corrupts (sic) practices."

It is not disputed that the Appellant is one of the duly registered political parties that took part or participated in the April, 2007 Presidential Election in Nigeria and was dissatisfied with the outcome of the said election hence the petition. The petition is against the following Respondents:

  • 1.
    Independent Electoral Commission (INEC)
  • 2.
    Prof. Maurice Iwu (Chairman INEC)
  • 3.
    Peoples Democratic Party (PDP)
  • 4.
    Alh. Umaru Yar'adua (PDP)
  • 5.
    The Nigerian Police Force

On the 31st day of July, 2007, learned senior Counsel for the 4th Respondent, Chief Wole Olanipekun, SAN, filed a motion in the lower Court praying that the petition be struck out on the following grounds:-

  • "1.
    The 1st, 3rd and 5th Respondents are not juristic persons or persons known to law.
  • 2.
    It does not comply with Section 145(1), paragraph 4(1) of the 1st schedule to the Electoral Act, 2006.
  • 3.
    The petition is not properly constituted as persons or institutions who are proper, necessary or desirable parties and whose presence are required for a just determination of the petition have not been made parties.
  • 4.
    The petition is hypothetical, moot or academic.
  • 5.
    The reliefs being claimed by the petition are at large and same vest no right or benefit in the petitioner."

On the 3rd day of August, 2007 the learned senior Counsel for the 1st and 2nd Respondents, Kanu Agabi Esq, SAN also filed a motion and a preliminary objection praying for the striking out or dismissal of the petition on grounds very similar to those earlier reproduced in this judgment.

The objections/motions were consolidated and heard together and in a reserved ruling delivered on the 20th day of August, 2007 the lower Court, sustained same as a result of which the petition of the Appellant was held to be incompetent and consequently struck out.

Read More