Disable Preloader

CaseLaw

Maitsidau Vs. Chidari (2008) CLR 5(m) (CA)

Judgement delivered on May 19th 2008

Brief

  • Appellate court; interference with exercise of discretion by election tribunal
  • Records of proceedings
  • Are Sui Generis
  • Filing out of time
  • S.258 1999 Constitution
  • Electoral act

Facts

This is an appeal against the Ruling of the Kano State Governorship and Legislative Houses Tribunal delivered on the 7th day of August 2007, contained at pages 160-163 of the record of proceedings.

  • a.
    An order of the Court to declare that the house with Certificate of Occupancy No. NE/1647 situate at G.R.A. Gombe that the Plaintiff is the bonafide owner or has title over the said house.
  • b.
    An order of the Court ejecting all the Defendants from the said house.
  • c.
    Payment of the cost of this action dated this 3rd day of February 1992.

This is an appeal against the Ruling of the Kano State Governorship and Legislative Houses Tribunal delivered on the 7th day of August 2007, contained at pages 160-163 of the record of proceedings.

The 2nd appellant sponsored the 1st appellant to contest election into the Kano State House of Assembly for Makoda Constituency, Kano State while the 1st respondent contested the said election under the platform of the 2nd respondent, the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP).

The election was conducted on the 14th of April, 2007, after which the result was declared by the 3rd respondent, on the 16th day of April, 2007. The 1st respondent was declared the winner of the said election.

Dissatisfied with the declaration and return of the 1st respondent as the winner of the said election, the appellants on the 12th of May, 2007 filed an election petition at the Tribunal challenging the declaration and return of the 1st respondent as the winner of the said election on the ground that the election is invalid by reason of corrupt practices and non-compliance with the Electoral Act because of the burning down of the 6th Respondent's office in Koguna, Makoda Local Government where voting materials for polling units in Durma Ward was kept, thereby causing a serious breach of the peace warranting the cancellation and postponement of the election of the said ward.

That 6th respondent' staff were also unable to conduct election in Maitsidau ward because of violence. The petition was served on respondents and the 1st respondent filed a reply dated and filed on 6/7/07'. The petitioners/appellants filed a Petitioners reply to the 1st respondent's reply dated 10/7/07 on 11/7/07 contained at pages 91-98 of the record of proceedings. The 3rd – 23rd respondents filed a motion for extension of time to file a reply to the petition dated 18/7/07. The 1st respondent filed a motion dated and filed on 18/7/07, praying for the following orders:

  • "1.
    An order dismissing the Election Petition for want of jurisdiction by the Hon. Tribunal.
  • 2.
    For such further order(s) as the Hon. Tribunal may deem fit to make in the circumstances."

While the motions filed by the 3rd – 23rd respondents and the 1st respondent respectively were pending, the petitioner/appellant filed an application for the issuance of a pre-hearing notice. A motion dated 26/7/07 was filed in respect of the pre-hearing notice and the motion came up on 7/8/07 for hearing and the Tribunal suo motu raised the issue that the application was filed out of time consequently the Tribunal dismissed the petition in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 3(4) of the Election Tribunal and Court Practice Directions as an abandoned petition.

Dissatisfied with the Ruling of the Tribunal dated the 7lnday of August, 2007 contained at pages 160 -163 of the record of proceedings, the appellants by their notice of appeal dated and filed on the 21/8/2007 containing three grounds of appeal, at pages 164 - 167 of the record of proceedings, appealed against the Ruling to this Court.

Issues

  • Whether having struck out the motion for the issuance of re-hearing notice...
Read More