n Compulaw - 1st Indigenous Digital Law Library
Disable Preloader

CaseLaw

Ogboru & Anor Vs. Uduaghan (2012) CLR 3(o) (SC)

Judgement delivered on March 2nd 2012

Brief

  • Grounds of appeal
  • Election petition matters
  • Section 285(7) and (8) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended)

Facts

This is an appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal, Benin, court below delivered on 5th January, 2012, wherein the court below dismissed the appeal of the Appellants. The reason for the judgment of the court below is in the supplementary record before this court.

The Appellants filed two Notices of Appeals, one dated 6th of January, 2012 and the other one dated 18th January, 2012. Both Notices of Appeals were argued by the Appellants in their briefs of argument.

The appellants' main reason for the appeal was because the court below delivered its judgment on 5th January, 2012 and reserved its reason to a later date, which was subsequently delivered on the 27th day of January, 2012.

The background facts of the appeal as contained in the printed record of appeal are that the 1st appellant was the candidate of the 2nd appellant in the 26th April, 2011 Gubernatorial Election in Delta State. He lost the election in which the 1st respondent, who contested the same election into the same office under the 2nd respondent, was declared by the 3rd respondent as the person who scored the majority of lawful votes, declared as validly elected and returned as Governor of Delta State.

The Appellants were dissatisfied with the decision especially the return of the 1st respondent as Governor. On 18th May, 2011, they filed a petition in the Registry of the Governorship Election Tribunal, holden at Asaba, Delta State [the tribunal] in which they prayed that the 1st respondent allegedly having not scored the majority of lawful votes in the Governorship Election of 26th April, 2011, in Delta State, was not validly elected and ought not to have been declared and returned as Governor.

The Appellants pleaded only a ground of the petition, which is section 138(1)(c) that is "that the Respondent was not duly elected by majority of lawful votes cast at the election". However, in the pleading, the Appellants pleaded series of criminal allegations and a few paragraphs on alleged non-compliance with the provision of the Electoral Act and the manual of the election.

Read More