Section 133

On who can present a petition?
Only persons that participated in an election can file an election petition.

AKPAN JEREMIAH UDOH & 1 OR. V. INEC & 2 ORS. (CA/C/EP/GOV/AKW/25/2023) (Unreported) @ Pg. 29
In this case the Court of Appeal in stating who is eligible to present an election petition held per Obande Festus Ogbuinya, JCA, as follows:
“... the first appellant was a stranger in the election, as a candidate, and de jure, he did not fall within the constricted sphere of the persons statutorily qualified to present an election petition. In effect the First Appellant falls squarely outside the slim statutory class of petitioners as ordained by the obligatory provision of Section 133 (1) of the Electoral Act, 2022. I am, therefore, not armed in law to crown the first appellant with the undeserved toga of statutory petitioner clothed with the locus standi with the concomitant right to beseech the trial tribunal to ventilate his perceived grievance by dint of a petition.”

Read ARARAUME V. OKEWULONU & ORS (2021) LPELR-55395(CA).

Read OKEWULOWU & ANOR V. APC & ORS (2021) LPELR-55395(CA).

By this section, the Lawmakers deliberately inserted the principle of locus standi to protect the Tribunal or Court from being used as a playground by professional litigants or meddlesome interlopers who have no stake in an election. Read CIROMA V. MUHAMMAD (2019) LPELR-49371(CA)

INEC is not only a necessary party but a statutory Respondent and must be joined as a Respondent in an election petition. See ADC V. BELLO (2017) 1 NWLR (Pt.1545) 112 at 131-132 paras H-H (SC)

HON. ADAMU BABA MUSTAPHA, PDP V. INEC, HON. KABIRU MIJINYAWA, APC & ABDULHAMID TUKUR (CA/YL/EP/AD/SHA/12/2023) (Unreported) Per Tobi, JCA @ Pg. 17
The Court of Appeal held that the 1st Appellant was not qualified to present the petition before the Tribunal having not participated in the election. Consequently, the Tribunal lacked Jurisdiction to entertain the petition. In its words as per Tobi JCA @ page 17, the Court held thus:
“From the pleadings and the evidence of the 1st Appellant, he did not participate in the election as no score was recorded for him. Indeed, the 2nd Appellant candidate for the election was 4th Respondent who scored 24,613 votes. To this extent, the 1st Appellant was not a candidate in the election. The implication of that is that he was not qualified to present the petition before the Tribunal having not participated in the election”

ONYEABOR NGWU & LP V. INEC, EZEANI & PDP (CA/E/EP/SHA/EN/30/2023) (Unreported)
The Court of Appeal held that the Petitioner/Appellant lacked the locus standi to institute the petition having not participated in all stages of the election.

On competence of a Cross-Petition filed by the winner of an election who is a respondent in an election petition:

GWACHAM MAUREEN CHINWE V. OKAFOR & UCHENNA CHARLES & 3 ORS. (CA/AW/EP/HR/AN/17/2023)
The Tribunal and Court of Appeal held that there is no provision in the Electoral Act that allows for a cross-petition. The Act does not provide for a ground enabling the winner of an election to still challenge the conducted election merely because the winner feels he is entitled to more votes than the ones relied on in declaring him the winner. As a matter of fact, it is very strange and unimaginable that a winner would still turn back to challenge his election.

Who can be a respondent in an election petition?

A petitioner cannot join respondents who were not returned or elected in the election being questioned.

PELA KAWAHARIEBIE KENNEDY & LP v. INEC & Ors (Unreported) SC/CV/1204/2023
The Apex Court (per Hon. Justice U. М. Abba Aji @ page 24) citing APC V. PDP & ORS (2015) LPELR-24587(SC) AT P.94 held that whosoever is contemplated to be a Respondent to defend an election petition must fall into any of the two categories named in section 133(1)(2)(3) of the Electoral Act, 2022. The Court also held that section 133 forbids and prevents the “lumping and protuberance of names of parties in an election petition that was common in the past.

NWANKWO V. YAR'ADUA (2010) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1209) 518 at 583
It is necessary to join in a petition, a person whose conduct in the election is in question in order to afford such a party a fair hearing.

BUHARI & ANOR. V. YUSUF (2003) 14 NWLR (Pt. 841) 446 @ 520; OHERE SADIKU ABUBAKAR & ANOR V. AKPOTI-UDUAGHAN & 2 ORS. (Unreported) Appeal No. CA/ABJ/EP/SEN/KG/35/2023
An unsuccessful candidate in an election cannot be made a party to an election petition against his will.

DR. AZEEZ OLAJIDE ADENIRAN & 1 OR. V. INEC & 5 ORS. (SC/CV1155/2023) (Unreported) Per Adamu Jauro, JSC @ Pg. 39-40
In this case, the Tribunal and the Court of Appeal declined jurisdiction to admit the 5th Respondent (Gbadebo Rhodes-Vivour) and 6th Respondent (Labour Party) and accordingly struck off their names for not being statutory Respondents in the suit. The Appellant then applied for the Supreme Court to invoke its powers under S. 22 of the Supreme Court Act to inquire into the matter. The Supreme Court while dismissing the Appeal due to want of jurisdiction held thus;
“The loss of jurisdiction of both courts automatically translates to the incapability of this court to step into their shoes pursuant to Section 22 of the Supreme Court Act, since by dint of that provision, this court can only do what the trial or lower court can do, not what they cannot do. Thus, the question of the non-qualification or otherwise of the 5th Respondent cannot be adjudicated upon in this appeal.”