CaseLaw
Ojo V. Esohe (1999) CLR 5(L) (CA)
Judgement delivered on September 29th 1988
Brief
Facts
In the election into the Edo State House of Assembly, held on the 9th of January 1999, both the petitioner/appellant, Mr. Osazee Ojo, and the 1st respondent, Mrs. Esohe Jacob contested for the seat in the Egor Local Government Constituency. At the close of the election the result announced by the 2nd and the 3rd respondents was that while the appellant of the All Peoples Party (APP) scored 10,694 votes, the 1st respondent of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) scored 10,709 votes. The 1st respondent was therefore declared and returned as the duly elected representative for the Egor Local Government Constituency of Edo State having secured a majority of lawful votes. Exhibit "A" dated the same 9th January, 1999 was the evidence of such election and return.
On the 22nd January 1999, the petitioner/appellant presented an 8-paragraph petition to the Governorship Legislature Houses Elections Tribunal. In paragraphs 6 and 7 thereof the appellant asserted that the 1st respondent's declaration and return was wrong and that the result declared contained arithmetic or mathematical errors. In paragraph 7 in particular, he gave a table containing the scores of each candidate in each of the ten wards that make up the constituency and asserted in conclusion, that he scored 10,668 votes as against the 1st respondent's score of 10,688 votes and prayed, therefore, that he be declared and returned as duly elected having won majority of lawful votes. With reference to the scores in ward 09 it was his assertion that while he scored 1,281 votes the 1st respondent scored 1,521 votes.
In her reply of 8 paragraphs, the 1st respondent denied any arithmetic or mathematical errors in the results as in Exhibit "A" which she asserted, therefore contained the valid and lawful votes of 10,709 for her and 10,694 for the appellant. With respect to Ward 09 she asserted that she scored 1,562 votes and not 1,521 alleged in paragraph 7 of the petition. The 2nd and 3rd respondents also filed a five-paragraph reply in which they denied the allegations contained in the paragraph 6, 7 and 8 of the petition.
At the trial the petition/appellant and one other witness testified in support of the petition. In the course of the proceedings the petitioner sought to tender, through P.W.1, 18 units the results of Ward 09 but the tribunal sustained the 1st respondent's objection to their admissibility on the ground that they were not pleaded. At the end of the trial, the tribunal dismissed the petition.
Dissatisfied, the appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal.