Disable Preloader

CaseLaw

INEC V.Yusuf & Ors (2019) CLR 9(a) (SC)

Judgement delivered on September 27th 2019

Brief

  • Election Petition – Amendment of after frontloading
  • Paragraph 4(5) of the First Schedule to the Electoral Act
  • Section 285(5) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended)
  • Paragraph 14(2) of the First Schedule to the Electoral Act
  • Section 134(1) of the Electoral Act
  • Paragraph 4(1) of the First Schedule to the Electoral Act
  • Paragraph 14(1) of the First Schedule to the Electoral Act
  • Paragraph 4(2) of the First Schedule to the Electoral Act
  • Paragraph 4(5) of the First Schedule to the Electoral Act

Facts

This is an appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal or Court below or Lower Court, Kaduna Division, Coram: Husseni Mukhtar, Obietonbara Daniel-Kalio, Saidu Tanko Hussaini, O. A, Adefope-Okojie and James Gambo Abundaga JJ.C.A. The Court below in its unanimous decision set aside the ruling of the trial Tribunal delivered on the 16th of July 2019. The ruling was in respect of the 1st and 2nd respondents' application filed on the 2nd of July 2019 seeking leave to add to the list of witnesses that accompanied the petition filed on the 11th of April, 2019. The trial tribunal in dismissing the application, held that what the Petitioners are seeking to do in the circumstance is to amend their petition which the trial tribunal lacks the requisite discretion to grant. The Court below in allowing the appeal granted the 1st and 2nd respondents all the reliefs sought as contained on their motion paper.

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE:

The 1st respondent herein was the candidate of the 2nd respondent in the 2019 Governorship Election held in Kano State on the 9th and 23rd of March 2019 respectively.

After the conduct of the election by the appellant, the 3rd respondent was declared the winner of the said election having scored the majority of lawful votes cast at the election. Being dissatisfied with the result of the election, the 1st and 2nd respondents filed a Petition before the trial tribunal on the 11th of April 2019 challenging the outcome of the said election.

After the exchange of pleadings and during the pre-hearing session, the 1st and 2nd respondents filed an application seeking the reliefs set hereunder, viz:

  • i.
    An order of the Honourable Tribunal granting leave to the Petitioners/applicants to add to the list of witnesses, that accompanied the petition filed on the 11th day of April 2019, at pages 126 to 140 of Volume 1, the names of 8 (Eight) Persons whose witness depositions were frontloaded at pages 142 to 232 Volume 1 of the already filed Petition.
  • ii.
    An order of this Honourable Tribunal granting leave to the Petitioners/Applicants to rely on the additional list of witnesses of the petitioners/applicants attached to this application which contains the names of 8 (Eight) Persons whose witness depositions have been front loaded and filed on the 11th day of April 2019 along with the original petition at pages 141 to 232 of Volume 1.
  • iii.
    And an order deeming the additional list of petitioners' witnesses separately filed and served as duly filed and served for the purpose of proving the facts in the petition at the hearing of the Petition.
  • iv.
    And such order or further orders as the Tribunal may deem fit in the interest of justice.

The 1st and 2nd respondents by the said application were seeking to amend the list of witnesses filed along with the petition on the 11th of April 2019. Obviously being in flagrant violation of the provisions of Paragraphs 4 (5) (i) and 14 of the First Schedule to the Electoral Act , the Appellant challenged the competence of the application as being grossly incompetent and ungrantable by the trial Tribunal. The trial tribunal adjourned for ruling before the commencement of trial. In a well-considered ruling delivered by the trial tribunal on the 16th of July 2019, the 1st and 2nd respondents' application was refused in its entirety. Being dissatisfied with the trial tribunals Ruling, the 1st and 2nd respondents appealed against the said Ruling to the Court of Appeal Kaduna Judicial Division.

The Court below allowed the appeal and set aside the decision of the Trial Tribunal hence, the recourse by the appellant to the Apex Court.

Issues

  • Having regard to the provisions of Section 285(5) of the 1999 Constitution...
    Read More