Disable Preloader

CaseLaw

Yusuf V. Obasanjo (2003) CLR 10(a) (SC)

Judgement delivered on Oxtober 9th 2003

Brief

  • Precedence of Unongo v Aku
  • S.22 Supreme Court Act
  • Electoral act 2002
  • Election petition
  • Amendment of pleadings

Facts

The 1st Appellant contested the 2003 presidential election on the platform of the Movement for Democracy and Justice (MDJ). He lost the election to the 1st Respondent, Chief Olusegun ObaS.A.N.jo, who contested the election on the platform of the People’s Democratic Party (PDP). The Appellant did not like the election result. He contested the result by filing an election petition against the 1st Respondent and other Respondents. He challenged the conduct, result and return of the 1st Respondent as the winner of the election.

On 21st May, 2003, the Appellants filed a motion before the Presidential Election Tribunal which is for all intents and purposes the Court of Appeal. He sought for the following prayers:

  • 1
    Leave to join CORPORATE NIGERIA (LIMITED BY GUARANTEE) as 57th Respondent in the petition.
  • 2
    Leave to amend the petition to reflect the joinder, and to amend some paragraphs of the petition, etc.
  • 3
    An order deeming as properly filed a separately filed Amended petition in terms of proposed amended petition, the necessary filing fees having paid on therefore on the same 21st may, 2003.
  • 4
    Perpetual injunction restraining the defendant, his agent or servants and privies from repeating or continuing the acts of trespass to the said piece or parcel of land.An order permitting to be sub-joined to the petition a schedule of list of documents intended to be relied upon at the hearing of the petition........ (The exact wordings of the prayers in the motion are to be found at pages 2-4 of the records):"

For reasons which are not obvious from the Record, the Presidential Election Petition Tribunal could not take the motion earlier than 28th May, 2003. After hearing arguments from counsel, the Tribunal granted some of the reliefs and refused others. Delivering the Ruling of the Tribunal as a Court of Appeal on 5th June, 2003, the learned President of the Court of Appeal, Abdullahi, PCA said at pages 74 and 75 of the Record:

  • "At this stage, no application for amendment which is capable of giving life to otherwise anemic petition can be entertained..... It follows that outside this period life could not be breathe into otherwise anemic petition. The Court will in the circumstances be guided by this principle in its consideration of the reliefs sought."

In his concurring Ruling, Oguntade, J.C.A., said at page 81 of the Record:

  • "Some of the amendments now proposed by the Petitioners/Applicants are those that ought to have been sought for within 30 days after the results of the election were announced. The Applicants filed the application on 21/5/03 which was before the time limited for the purpose. But for supreme reasons we were not placed to consider the application until 2/6/03 which was after the time limited for the purpose had expired."

    • Nsofor, J.C.A., in his concurring Ruling, said at page 84 of the Record:

    • "Most certainly to grant the amendments sought, the election petition as amended would have been filed outside or, in defiance of Section 132 of the Act. Would this Court competently allow this. I would, respectfully, think not. Why? Only because and because only our duty, as expressed in Latin is...."

And finally, Tabai, J.C.A., in his concurring Ruling at page 88 of the Record, said:

  • "The combined effect of Section 132 and paragraph 14(2) of the Schedule of the Act is that a substantial amendment of an election petition cannot be made after 30 days of the declaration of the result. All such amendments in this application which are substantial in nature cannot therefore be granted."

And so, in a unanimous Ruling, the Presidential Election Tribunal, otherwise known as the Court of Appeal, refused to grant what is referred to as "material and substantial amendments" but granted what the learned President of the Court of Appeal called "innocuous" amendments.

Dissatisfied with the ruling the Appellants appealed to the Supreme Court.

Issues

Whether the Court of Appeal misdirected itself on the applicable law and...

Read More