Governorship election was held in Ondo State on the 20th of October, 2012. Dr. Rahman Olusegun Mimiko, 1st respondent herein, was the candidate presented for the election by the Labour Party (2nd respondent). He was winner of the said election having scored the majority of votes cast and having satisfied the requirement of the Constitution as to geographical spread of the votes. In a petition No. EPT/ON/GOV/04/2012 filed by Chief Olusola Oke and another before the Governorship Election Tribunal, holden at Akure (the tribunal for short), the petitioners who are the appellants herein sought for the following reliefs:-
-
1
"That it may be determined and thus determined that the 1st respondent, Dr. Rahman Olusegun Mimiko sponsored at the election by the 2nd respondent was not duly elected or returned by the majority of lawful votes cast at the governorship election held in Ondo State on Saturday, 20th October, 2012.
-
2
That it may be determined and thus determined that the election and return of Dr. Rahman Olusegun Mimiko as candidate of the 2nd respondent at the governorship election held on Saturday 20th of October, 2012 are vitiated/voided by corrupt practices widespread acts of substantial non-compliance and massive rigging.
-
3
AN ORDER setting aside as null and void the purported election and return of the 1st respondent, Dr. Rahman Olusegun Mimiko the 2nd respondent's candidate as governor of Ondo State based on the election conducted by the 3rd - 5th respondents on 20th October, 2012.
-
4
A DECLARATION that having regard to the lawful votes cast at the said election, it was the 1st petitioner and not the 1st respondent that scored the majority of lawful votes cast at the election and also secured at least 25% in more than 2/3 of the 18 Local Governments in Ondo State and ought to have been declared and returned as the winner of the election.
-
5
AN ORDER declaring the 1st petitioner elected and returned as governor of Ondo State having polled majority of the lawful votes cast at the said election and also scoring at least 25% in at least 2/3 of the local governments in Ondo State.
-
6
That it may be determined and thus determined that having secured majority of the lawful votes cast at the election of 20th October, 2012, and having satisfied all other constitutional requirements in that regard, your 1st petitioner ought to have been declared elected and returned as the governor of Ondo State.
ALTERNATIVELY
-
7
A DECLARATION that the Ondo State Governorship election held on 20th October, 2012 by the 3rd - 5th respondents in which the 1st respondent and petitioner are respectively candidates is null and void having been marred and vitiated by massive rigging, widespread substantial non-compliance and corrupt practices.
-
8
AN ORDER nullifying the said governorship election and directing the 3rd Respondent to conduct a fresh governorship election in Ondo State within a period determined and directed by this Honourable Tribunal.
-
9
Any other orders."
The respondents, each filed his/its respective reply to the petition. The petitioners filed replies where necessary.
After the close of pleadings, the appellants filed in the Tribunal a motion dated the 16th day of January, 2013. The reliefs sought in that motion read as follows:-
-
1
"AN ORDER of this Honourable Tribunal extending the time within which the petitioners may file and make use of additional or further witness depositions accompanying this application for a just and fair determination of the Petition.
-
2
AN ORDER of this Honourable Tribunal granting leave to the Petitioners/ Applicants to call an additional witness, to wit: "A. E. O." whose statement/deposition on oath accompanies this motion.
-
3
AN ORDER of this Honourable Tribunal granting leave/allowing the petitioners/applicants to file, serve and rely on further and additional witness Statement on oath in support of this petition which said additional statement accompanies this motion.
-
4
AN ORDER of this Honourable Tribunal deeming as properly filed and served the further and additional witness statement on oath accompanying this motion.AND FOR SUCH further or other orders the Honourable Tribunal may deem fit to make in the circumstance.
In response thereof, the respondents filed all necessary processes in opposition to the appellants' motion. The tribunal heard the motion, and some other motions during the pre-hearing session. In its ruling delivered on the 4th of February, 2013, the tribunal refused the application. Dissatisfied with the said ruling, the appellants appealed to the Court of Appeal, Akure Judicial Division (the lower court). In its decision of 28th March, 2013, the lower court affirmed the Ruling of the tribunal.
Dissatisfied further, the appellants filed their appeal to this court
