Paragraph 54
Application of rules of courtSubject to the express provisions of this Act, the practice and procedure of the Tribunal or the Court in relation to an election petition shall be as nearly as possible, similar to the practice and procedure of the Federal High Court in the exercise of its civil jurisdiction, and the Civil Procedure Rules shall apply with such modifications as may be necessary to render them applicable having regard to the provisions of this Act, as if the petitioner and the respondent were respectively the plaintiff and the defendant in an ordinary civil action.
Whether Order 3, Rule 2 and 3 of the Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2019 is applicable in election matters.
OBI & ANOR. V. INEC & 3 ORS (CA/PEPC/)5/2023);
See also:ATIKU ABUBAKAR & ANOR. V. INEC & 2 ORS. (CA/PEPC/05/2023);
ATIKU ABUBAKAR & ANOR V. INEC (APPEAL NO. SC/CV/935/23)
Though the proviso to Order 3 Rule 3(1) of the Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2009 made applicable to an election petition by Paragraph 54 of the First Schedule to the Electoral Act provides that the statements on oath of witnesses requiring subpoena from the Court need not be filed at the commencement of the suit, the application of that rule is with regard to and/or subject to the provisions of the Electoral Act not independent of the Act. The provisions of the Electoral Act being a substantive law shall override any rule of Court which is contrary to its provision.
ADEBUTU & ANOR V. INEC & 2 ORS. (APPEAL NO. CA/IB/EP/GOV/OG/22/2023) Unreported)
The Appellant argued that the Federal High Court Rules are applicable by virtue of paragraph 54 of the 1st Schedule
to the Electoral Act. They argued that by virtue of paragraph 54 of the First Schedule to the Electoral Act, recourse
should be properly made to Order 3 Rules (2) and (3) of the Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2019 to exempt
the written statement on oath of a subpoenaed witness from being frontloaded. The Court of Appeal said that Atiku V. INEC
(Appeal No. SC/CV/935/2023 delivered on 26.10.2023) is the prevailing legal authority on this issue where it was held that
Paragraph 4 of the First Schedule and Section 285 of the CFRN read together, requires a subpoenaed witness statement to be
front loaded. By implication, this provision is not applicable.
